Wikipedia

Talk:Adolf Hitler

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shanes (talk | contribs) at 00:22, 14 November 2005 (→Potsdam Picture: go ahead and edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Shanes in topic Potsdam Picture
Learn more about this page
WikiProject iconPolitics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)

Archives


"Charismatic leadership" or "Charismatic authority"

Latest comment: 19 years ago26 comments14 people in discussion

User:64.12.116.201 is constantly changing "Under Hitler's leadership..." to "Under Hitler's charismatic leadership..." despite being reverted. This smells slightly of POV, but I also don't think "charismatic leadership" should have its own article. — JIP | Talk 12:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The article does not assert charismatic authority, which has a specialized, socio-political definition. The common dictionary definition holds for use of the term charismatic in the article. Wyss 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I notice that the adjective is wikified as charismatic leadership which redirs to charismatic authority. Re-reading that, I think the latter article may have some wording problems itself.
I'm neutral. AH was charismatic (he swayed the German establishment, then a nation into institutional crime and atrocity of almost perplexing scale, never mind at least two women committed suicide as a result of their relationships with him). I think some readers mistakenly interpret charismatic as a positive attribute or sympathetic commentary. AH as much as anyone suggests that charisma, like so many other human qualities, is in itself but a characteristic... what one does with one's talents is ultimately much more important. Wyss 13:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
After pondering this a bit I think it's helpful, historically supported and instructive to use the term charismatic in the context of that sentence. Wyss 15:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Totally agree. Charismatic seems appropriate here. DJ Clayworth 13:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
STRONG KEEP. I'm not sure why you keep reverting this simple edit -- it is not POV in ANY way, but the plain and glaringly obvious truth. This man used his personal magnetism and charismatic authority to lead a nation (and Europe) to its doom. Other Nazi leaders used propaganda to transform this Austrian racist in to a mythical, godlike figure -- and from personally reading dozens of personal accounts over the years, he really was by all means intensely charismatic, and this was the basis of his authority (hence the reverts to charismatic leadership). Just ask any historian, sociologist, etc. -- WWII Nazis all called Hitler "The Saviour of Germany," like some modern-day Christ figure; or watch Triumph des Willens for yourself and find out; it isn't hard to spot there...everyday people need to be made fully aware that people like this exist and can naturally use their charisma to positively or negatively manipulate and sway the masses of "sheep." And the above User:Wyss is correct; charisma isn't ALWAYS a positive character trait like you seem to think User:JIP...some who have it (Hitler) used it to exploit others, make tons of money, wield negative power, dominate/oppress, etc., while others used it for positive social change and other worthy causes (Gandhi). Go and read the base article on Charisma and then let us know what you think here. --152.163.100.5 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Keep...there's nothing POV about that pithy statement; he was a charismatic maniac! He chose to use a profound gift in a terrible, terrible way...shame on him. Berlin Stark 20:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
According to Alan Bullock in his biography of both Stalin and Hitler, Stalin missed the charisma of Hitler, (page 404 if I remember it well). Andries 21:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Delete...it is true that AH had charisma and his leadership can be described as charismatic, but in the context of this sentence I think it's out of the way and superfluous. We can still include it at another place. Str1977 21:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Put it somewhere else and explain that it is a theory. --Ezeu 23:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Why would it be unsuperfluous somewhere else? Why is it a theory? Wyss 02:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
KEEP. The FACT that Hitler's leadership was very charismatic is VITALLY IMPORTANT to his ability to take over Germany, defy the Versailles Treaty and get away with it, and push anti-Semitism onto a people to such a degree that it is legally enforced, taught in schools, and millions of murders are commited for it. Mein Kampf is horribly written. It is dry, boring, asinine, and unreadable, but it says the SAME THING as his speeches. The difference was his charisma, which doesn't, of course, come out in print. It is in no way synonymous with "he was a good leader" or "what he did was right." If you still have problems with assigning any connotatively positive attitudes with H17LER DA KILL3R OF DA JOOz OMG then watch a video of one of his speeches on the internet. It doesn't matter what he says: the style is grand, he says what the people want to hear, and everyone cheers their head off. Hitler's subjects found him very charismatic. It is a FACT and not in any way anyone's point of view in any manner. 'Charismatic leadership' was the best way of saying it, makes the most sense, and is accurate, factual, and 100% related to Hitler as a dictator and to this article. Definitely keep the charisma in. I can agree that it might not be the best spot for it. But for the love of god the article is like 20 pages. The person who added it was too lazy to read the whole thing and I understand the sentiment. If you don't want the charisma there, read through the article and find a better spot if you want, or close your eyes and pick a place at random if you prefer, but it's definitely necessary somewhere. --68.148.168.84 03:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Referring to his charismatic authority should stay at the beginning of the article because it was so incredibly vital to his leadership and personality; that's where the most important stuff goes. 205.188.116.5 10:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

KEEP: there is film footage of Hitler speaking from a podium at a rally, which shows a crowd of screaming teenage girls bursting through a cordon to acclaim him - it predates the Beatles hype by 25 years. "Charismatic" is a keep, but should go along with "media manipulation" and "grow up!". I am grumpy, but not old.--shtove 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I dunno. The footage is staged but compelling, and Leni (or whoever) gives a masterclass in how to sell a politician to a shrugging electorate. We could all do with much much more of the same, couldn't we? BTW: This article has the longest list of foreign language counterparts that I've seen on W'pedia. Why are we all so interested?--shtove 01:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Why are we all so interested? Because Hitler masterminded and inspired the most destructive war and despicable genocide in the whole of human history, and ALL humans are fascinated (drawn towards yet also repulsed) by the ultra-dark side of humanity; this much is a fact. War (especially on the scale of WWII) is about as dark as you can get. Plus, it was relatively recently that the Holocaust and WWII happened, so the memories are still quite fresh in the wounded collective unconscious of the West, not to mention that many WWII-vets are still alive along with CC-camp survivors, ex-Nazis, etc. I don't care how "cultured" or "refined" you are or claim to be...Hitler's power and darkness will really make you think and his destructive "charisma" still holds sway today around the globe. WWII shaped the modern World as we know it today more than anything else that I can think of. Just imagine the scars that the Germans still hold, the guilt and shame. I’ve always believed that if a person wants to try and understand the 20th Century in the West he/she better try and understand German culture and Germany’s history. Thus, Hitler and his twisted legacy unfortunately lives on and will for a VERY long time to come. --Berlin Stark 07:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have never claimed to be cultured or refined. Why aren't we as interested in Stalin, who (by body count/ideology) was more deadly/influential than Hitler? And I think European inventions of the last 200 years have had more influence on modern life than any war.--shtove 12:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
In the long run Stalin was more deadly than Hitler.... But only in the long run... If you know what was the cost in human lives of the WWII (The Great Patriotic War) for the USSR, what was the destiny of the Slavs in Hitler's mind and how great was their courage during the war. There are some reasons to think that they found Stalin's dictatorship very mild in comparison... More serioulsly "Uncle Adolf" wasn't only the worse criminals of all times... He was was also self-destructive and worse of of all he wished to bring all Germany in his self-destructive project...
You wrote << "If you know what was the cost in human lives of the WWII (The Great Patriotic War) for the USSR,..." >> Oh I know the cost as I have studied Operation Barbarossa with some intensity for quite a while. Estimates range as high as 30 million! That's no joke! But of course the flu-pandemic of 1918-19 killed around 50 million, which is the same amount that was said to die in all of WWII; it's all really hard to follow with all of these "estimates" floating about. 152.15.100.163 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
What else ? It scares me to the bones. Beuark... Ericd 21:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
No doubting the courage of Russian resistance to Barbarossa, but why didn't the same people have the courage to see what Stalin was about? The people of western Ukraine know all about the long run, because at one point a large proportion found themselves dead at Stalin's command. If you say,"comparatively mild" then you must be mad. As for the interest in Hitler, I guess it is partly generated by the soap opera aspects of both his life and the rise of the National Socialist party. Ancient Greek drama and Christianity are far more instructive than history in fathoming human depravity.--shtove 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I may be mad.... Soap opera ? Soap ? Well wash your face and look in the mirror. Experiencing a modern firearm shot is far more instructive than anything else in understanding human nature... Ericd 23:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

It may depend on which end of the gun you're looking at, but gunpowder explodes and that's it - no mystery. Apologies for the "mad" query. The "soap opera" description relates to aspects such as the Geli Raubel relationship, the bad art, vegeterianism, drug taking, the jolly sympathy with children, the fatal attraction over women, the marriage to Eva Braun, etc -the kind that inflame vulgar fantasies. The question stands: why the blanket interest in Hitler, when Stalin merits as much, if not more? Isn't it a pretence to insist that the Hitler obsession has anything to do with moral reflection and lesson-learning?--shtove 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Delete I think there should be part of the article or even a whole section devoted to whether or not Hitler was charismatic, I just don't think it should be added here, it seems inappropriate and although I don't think people here have malicious motives I do think it is possible to be construed as POV. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Delete agree in everything with Moshe. Andries 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Christianity Not Allowed?

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

I posted some things realted to Christianity, and they got deleted. I clearly said that anyone may ignore my posts, and that they were for Christians... am I doing something wrong, or is the author against Christianity? Jake 15:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for wanting to contribute, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to publish your own thoughts and oppinions. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Shanes 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
The authorS are neutral about about Christianity. Well, maybe they're not neutral... IMO most of them are human beings but I know that some of them are computer programs that we call bots. Considering the open nature of Wikipedia, we should not exclude the hypothesis of some extra terrestrial contributions or even some divine contributions to Wikipedia... However Wikipedia is a community that will evaluate the contributions to articles according to some generaly accepted rules... One of this rules is that we should try to reach a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). IMO this is simply out of reach of human beings but this is a path we should try to follow, not an aim we will reach... This doesn't contradict my own understanding of the Bible, but I may be wrong... Ericd 20:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Que pasa? Seems to me that the discussion of religion just has very little place with regard to this article. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I intended this to be a tongue-in-cheek comment.... Ericd 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I see your point now. How should I post my thoughts on what could've made Hitler a better person? Jake 15:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
You cannot post your personal point of view. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), and your own thoughts or opinions are probably not neutral. NPOV is the objective — its probably impossible to fully achieve — but at least try not to be obviously biased. And one way to seem obviously biased is to preach. Read here to find out more.--Ezeu 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Jake, I'm afraid there's nowhere on Wikipedia where you can post your thoughts on what could have made Hitler a better person. To do so in an article would violate the no original research policy, which I recommend that you read. To do so on the talk pages would clog up Wikipedia server space with things that don't belong on it. We're supposed to limit our discussion here to things related to whether or not a particular piece of information – not the personal opinion of one of the editors – is relevant, or whether the wording is appropriate. Editors opinions on whether Hitler was a good man or a bad man, or how he could have been made better don't belong here. You can either get your own website or blog away from Wikipedia (and some of them are free), or find a published author who had ideas on how Hitler could have been made better. (E.g. Professor X. Y., in his article "Hidden Causes: How Hitler's Early Childhood led to World War II", argues that if Hitler's father had . . .) In fact, I recall that Alice Miller, in For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence, did claim that the frequent beatings Hitler received from his father turned him into someone with a need for revenge on the world. So I imagine that's the only way you could have that issue covered, but even in that case, I think you'd have to have consensus from the others – how relevant is it and are there other writers who disagree? Not everything related to Hitler belongs in the article about Hitler. Regards. Ann Heneghan (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
True. You are right. Thanks for helping me in my adventures to learn (which never seems to end). Jake 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
More on this, the article is already too long but a sub-article on AH's childhood with some reliable secondary cites would be helpful, interest in this article is very high. Wyss 11:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Well, I've been reading this book for school. I don't know if I could write some of that stuff in. I know about the copyright stuff, but maybe I could put things in my own words? Jake 16:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Either way you want to add stuff (direct quote or paraphrase) is fine, as long as it's appropriately referenced, just like you'd reference a book in a paper at school.--chris.lawson 17:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism template

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How about we remove it, it's kind of unsightly? Keep the block, though.

Ksenon 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I don't mind it, or think it's unsightly, but that's just my opinion. If you want to do that, there really isn't any harm. Jake 17:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hitler is certainly not a "cult figure"

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The entry "cult figure" in the "categories" section of this Wikipedia article does directly correspondent, in some meaningful respect, to the photograph of Hitler (Do you know who took this picture ? -- Do you know for what purpose it was taken ?) that is currently illustrating the introduction to the "Hitler" article. Both, the entry "cult figure" as well as the photograph (there are other and neutral pictures of Hitler available within the Wiki space), are not appropriate for a serious article in the Wikipedia. Hence, I will delete both of them as soon as the article is editable again. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14112005)

I do not understand your argument. To me, a photograph of Hitler is appropriate on an article about Hitler, just as a photo of a Cheez-It is appropriate on an article about Cheez-Its. Can you perhaps rephrase or explain in more detail why you want to remove the image? For example, why is it relevant who took the photo or why? (Both being things that may be very difficult to find out!) —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, if you wish to track the history of the photograph, this site will be the first step (scroll to the very bottom of the page). I suspect it will be practically impossible to track down the original photographer, and it looks like a simple publicity photo. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Potsdam Picture

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have changed this before, but since it got reverted and the page is protected, I'll explain this here:

There's a picture with the caption "Hindenburg appoints Hitler as Chancellor". This is incorrect. I don't think there are pictures of his appointment. And if there are, it would not be in the open air. This picture is from the Day of Potsdam, the opening ceremony of the 1933 Reichstag. It is the famous handshake between Hindenburg und Hitler, symbolizing the reconciliation between old Prussian values and new Nazi movement.

Oops, I just found out I was mistaken. I corrected this over at 2Hindenburg" and not here. Anyway, it needs to be corrected. Over there the caption now reads: "Hindenburg greats Chancellor Hitler at Reichstag opening ceremony". Str1977 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have unprotected it. Go ahead and edit. Shanes 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&oldid=28250862"