Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Adolf Hitler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAdolf Hitler has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 16, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Ancestry -- reduced edit request --- scholarship by Leonard Sax

[edit]

Please add this paragraph to the end of the Ancestry section --

More recent scholarship by Leonard Sax points out contemporary historians have largely dismissed Hitler's Jewish heritage based on "a single historian, Nikolaus von Preradovich" a Nazi sympathizer, and that "The hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Jewish, as claimed by Hans Frank, may fit the facts better than the alternative hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Johann Georg Hiedler or Johann Nepomuk Hiedler." [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 98.46.117.2 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh really??? 103.190.13.22 (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the DNA study published in the Daily Telegraph in 2010; the study was actually inconclusive. The haplogroup in question is found among some Jewish sects, but is much more common in North African Berber tribes with no trace of Jewish ancestry. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://doi.org/10.1177/0047244119837477
  2. ^ https://www.leonardsax.com/JES_MS.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.leonardsax.com/who-was-hitlers-grandfather-why-should-you-care/
  4. ^ https://www.amazon.com/ANGESICHT-GALGENS-Erkenntnisse-Geschrieben-Justizgef%C3%A4ngnis-ebook/dp/B0797WXN4Z/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
  5. ^ https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Preradovich?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
  6. ^ https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/study-suggests-adolf-hitler-was-a-quarter-jewish-597966
This is covered at Frankenberger thesis. Moxy🍁 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler Ancestry section suggests that Hitler's father Alois was the son of one of the Hiedler brothers, and dismisses the Frankenberger thesis. The last entry in this section should be the latest research by Sax, which was just recently added to the Frankenberger thesis article. Sax shows that Jews were present but not registered in Graz at the time of Alois' conception.
"a claim that came to be known as the Frankenberger thesis. No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence, so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish." 98.46.117.2 (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's now two of us that object to adding this: myself and Moxy. We don't need to expand on the Frankenberger thesis in the Hitler article; we've already said that historians reject the thesis that Hitler was part Jewish; if people want more info on this topic they can go to Frankenberger thesis. — Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then a compromise would be to remove the following text from the Ancestry section ...
"No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence, so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish." 67.173.189.111 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done .... Will require consensus.Moxy🍁 20:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "the" at the front of "historian" or other titles.

[edit]

@Nick-D: @K.e.coffman: @Kierzek: @GeneralizationsAreBad: @EyeTruth: @Beyond My Ken: @Diannaa: @Peacemaker67: @Nillurcheier: -- According to editor Keeper of Albion, eliminating "the" at the front of occupations is what this editor terms a "false title" and this editor further states that "there is an article about this on Wikipedia. It’s journalese and an Americanism." Then this same editor adds in their comment "Why don’t we go through the article and remove every "superfluous" ‘the’, or other words? Why don’t we rewrite the article in broken English to use as few words as possible?" First off, having written as a professional historian (PhD), I've seen many British, Australian, New Zealanders, Canadian, and American authors alike deliberately omit "the" for many, many years now. If this is somehow grammatically incorrect, please reference this to a reputable style manual. If true, this means the vast majority of the people who've been editing this page and scores of others are wrong and this editor, Keeper of Albion, is right.

On another note, this editor's wholly unnecessary and belligerently sardonic remark accompanying their second revert: "Why don’t we rewrite the article in broken English to use as few words as possible?" does not strike me as collaborative, constructive, or productive for that matter. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of some other contributors on this technical writing matter and concerning Keeper of Albion's behavior. Obenritter (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the false title, a grammatical construct whose origin is in American newspapers of the late-19th and 20th centuries. It was first used to conserve space on physical pages. It is an Americanism and it is journalese; it sensationalises text.
"The ancient Roman poet Virgil" and "the British television series House of Cards" are perfectly ordinary English sentences. Why do you suppose that the article ‘the’ ought to be removed from them? For what purpose?
We have no need to conserve space on pages, and the English Wikipedia is not an American news website.
Your complaint of my "behaviour" is not only irrelevant on this page (and should be taken elsewhere if you think it is appropriate), but is undermined by your rather obvious use of an unnecessary false title in your first sentence. There is no need for you to make it clear that I am an editor; it seems quite reasonable that I should conclude that you wrote it out of spite. Keeper of Albion (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the very Wikipage you reference, there is also the following observation: "Some usage writers condemn false titles, and others defend it. Its use was originally American, but it has become widely accepted in some other countries." Evidently, lots of other editors see no issue with it and use this convention all over the place. You simply fall into the category of people who dislike it, whereas I find the inclusion of "the" in such instances an unnecessary and superfluous addition. Contrary to your belief that "We have no need to conserve space on pages", this is not true for large pages like the one we're editing. We do need to write for concision and reduce character count where we can.
I referenced no page. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven That comment referred back to the "false title" page mentioned by Keeper of Albion and was meant for his/her/their consideration. --Obenritter (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven, that's absolutely not correct. WP:ENGVAR is very clear that no national variety of English is to be preferred over any others. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, but there there appears to be no standard English, as this is not an English language topic. Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, this article is written in UK English because of the simple fact that it was initially written in UK English and there is no good reason to change it. Other articles are written in specific varieties of English because of a strong cultural/historic link (eg Pearl Harbor, rather than Harbour, Kennedy Center, not Centre, and Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford but Broadway Theater in NY.
In this instance it's irrelevant though IMO as referring to someone as profession followed by name without 'the' is almost as common in UK as in US in my experience (eg musician Paul McCartney) and both 'burned' and 'burnt' are correct in UK, so we normally use the spelling variant that is more 'universally used', in this case 'burned'. Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keeper of Albion, both burned and burnt are fine in British English while burned is the form in American English so, per MOS:COMMONALITY, "burned" it is. Some of your other changes, like linking Eastern Europe are against MOS:OVERLINK. As for using "the" or not, it reads fine either way but it's been without for a long while so leave it be, it's not worth edit warring over something so trivial. Valenciano (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Must agree with Obenritter and Valenciano as to this matter. Keeper of Albion your edits are unnecessary grammar changes and unneeded verbiage; frankly there is no reason to edit war over something so trivial. Kierzek (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Obenritter, Valenciano and Kierzek that the changes made by Keeper of Albion are unnecessary and do not improve the article. They should be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto everyone else. The 'the' addition seems clunky (I'm a UK English speaker btw). I also endorse comments about overlinking. If had never heard of a 'false title' before yesterday, but "former British prime minister, Gordon Brown", seems perfectly normal UK English to my ears. We all recognise it's a description, not a title even if occupying the place where a title might otherwise be. Pincrete (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

[edit]

I believe that the Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality should be added to this article. I also added it to Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. Rylee Amelia (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The edit request template is not for starting a discussion on whether to add that category; that can must be done without the template. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm suggesting an edit on a protected article. This reply doesn't clarify whether or not the category should be added to this article. Do you believe there is enough historical debate to warrant this inclusion? Rylee Amelia (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the removal of (Category:Artists who died by suicide) and (Category:Austrian male painters), I don’t find a crucial need for (Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality). 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you the one who made the edit request? Generally one would expect you to have sources that substantiate it, instead of expecting others to make your case for you. Remsense ‥ 论 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&oldid=1251907832"