→Still the same stuff: If yu have any content suggestions, please let us know. |
99.24.236.30 (talk) |
||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
:I'm not sure what you're driving at; your remarks are pretty cryptic. If you have any specific improvements you would like to suggest for this article, please go ahead and post them here. Thanks. -- [[User:Diannaa|Dianna]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 19:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
:I'm not sure what you're driving at; your remarks are pretty cryptic. If you have any specific improvements you would like to suggest for this article, please go ahead and post them here. Thanks. -- [[User:Diannaa|Dianna]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 19:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Long ago and far away this article looked like crud. A certain admin may have been inhibiting it. An amateur came by and, in talk only, tried to improve the article, and introduce Kershaw as a source. The admin refused to allow it. Ugly words followed. |
|||
::Now the admin is gone, and the article has improved greatly. But no acceptance of the original editor, most of the debate is gone. |
|||
:P.S. Read fast, this post, and me, are about to disappear again. Thanx. |
Revision as of 20:44, 6 June 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Argentina and Other Theories
I came here after reading this article: http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16090144
I'm not saying this is or is not a credible source on the topic at hand, but I would expect that Wikipedia address these theories. The article starts very matter-of-factly stating how and where hitler died, but as it goes on it get's a bit wobbly about the evidence in areas like this:
- In the years immediately following 1945, it maintained Hitler was not dead but had fled and was being shielded by former western allies.[64] This worked for a time to cause western authorities some doubt. The chief of the U.S. trial counsel at Nuremberg, Thomas J. Dodd, said: "No one can say he is dead." When President Truman asked Joseph Stalin at the Potsdam conference in August 1945 whether or not Hitler was dead, Stalin replied bluntly, 'No'. However, by 11 May 1945, the Soviets had already had Hitler's dentist Hugo Blaschke and his dential technician confirm the dential remains found were Hitler's and Eva Braun's.[65]
In the end it left me confused. Is the evidence any good or not? Is there any real evidence? Was Stalin to be trusted on this matter or not? (The article has it both ways, saying that they used Hitler living status for propaganda, but also that they are the ones who proved his death.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasimodealert (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place to include tabloid rumors and frankly, gossip. A website can be written by anyone and state anything; see: WP:SPS. Per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY it has problems. Different versions of Hitler's fate in the late 1940's were presented by the Soviet Union according to its political desires. At the time of the Potsdam conference in 1945, it was not conclusively known by the western Allies what was the fate of Hitler. The Soviets knew by then, that is the point. That is why Dick White, then head of counter-intelligence in the British sector of Berlin (and later head of MI5 and MI6 in succession) had their agent Hugh Trevor-Roper investigate the matter to counter the Soviet claims. His findings were written in a report and published in book form in 1947. Trevor-Roper does deserve credit for being the first to write a detailed western account of Hitler's last days (which countered the Soviet propaganda at the time). However, the book lacked some information (and insight) of key inner-circle players who were locked up in the east by the Soviets. Men such as Linge, Gunsche and Mohnke. However, it was the first western book to lay to rest the queries about what happened to Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a link to a kooky website. The article is about a book, "Grey Wolf - The Escape of Adolf Hitler" which is has been meticulously researched with tons cites and footnotes. Ultimately it cannot be proved entirely but they make a pretty compelling case and at the very least there ought to be a paragraph saying this theory exists and here are some of the salient points behind it. I'm reading the book right now and I don't know if I believe it or not but as I said, it makes a good case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.3.40 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Have you not seen http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view
The FBI spent time researching this very subject, The evidence for Hitlers suicide is shaky at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.173.140 (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have seen it. What was "shaky" was the information which was coming out of the Soviet Union from the late 1940's. The FBI was investigating the rumors at that time. We now know what happened; since the ex-German POW's were released in the 1950s and since the Soviet archives were opened up from 1995-forward. Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Location of where ashes were scattered
I have removed the section from the lede as to the difference as to where the ashes were scattered because all the main sources agree as to the burial, reburial and how the remains were ground into ashes, except only Beevor differs as to where the ashes were thrown. I believe that Beevor's point of a different location-the "sewer" as opposed to the "river" can be noted in a footnote in the section where it is discussed. This tightens up the article and was done earlier in the article as to when the marriage took place in relation to the dictation of Hitler's the will. Kierzek (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Shirer
The primary reason I changed the citation is because before, it showed "Shirer (2004) Vol 4. p. 216" as the citation, and the book sourced was Shirer, William L. (1983) [1959]. Volume VI. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Folio Society. OCLC 55015150.
They don't match.
The article now shows Shirer 1983, page 1131. I doubt the information is on the same page in the 1983 edition as the 1960 edition. I have a copy of the 1960 edition here, and have verified the information is present on page 1131 of that edition, so I am unclear as to why the other, unverifiable and likely incorrect, citation is preferable. Could you please clear this up for me? I just don't understand the reason for your edit. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have reverted my revert as you say you have the book and have checked it and I have checked the history of the article and the citation is all over the place (first edit of 2010, change on 9 November 2010). -- PBS (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- My copy is in nice condition. Someone donated it to the booksale at the library where I work, and I snapped it up. There's treasure everywhere! Inscription: "To my nice. Cheryl. Onkel Ernie!" Note to Sitush: Make sure you use acid-free tape. The one I use at work is from Germany. --Dianna (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The correction to the Shirer citation was reverted by Nikkimaria with this edit. I thought I had consensus for this change. Perhaps I was mistaken? I would appreciate any further discussion. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Kierzek's is my impression, also. BTW, I've just dug out my signed copy of Hugh Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk. He was teaching me when the Hitler Diaries farrago happened up but, alas, he never gave me a signed copy of those! - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Gallery improvements were reverted
My gallery imporvements were reverted by Nikkimaria with this edit. I will explain to you the rationale for these improvements.
- The centre photo, of the Goebbels family, has a caption that is too long. The caption has a vertical scroll bar on my display, it is so long. I clipped the caption so the scroll bar would not occur. No information was lost, as the material I removed appears in the body of the article.
- Some of the other captions were improved to comply with the Manual of Style. For example, "Heinz Linge: Hitler's valet. One of the first persons into the study after Hitler had committed suicide." became "Heinz Linge, Hitler's valet, was one of the first persons into the study after Hitler had committed suicide." which is a properly punctuated complete sentence.
- Template:Image gallery is deprecated.
I would really like some input here from Nikkimaria as to why these gallery improvements were reverted. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
off topic comment on refactoring
|
---|
Following a request on my talk page I have moved my comment into the section Citation problems. But rather than do it directly I have moved the intervening section (this one) up above "Citation problems" as I think "Citation problems" will dominate the talk for the next day or so. If anyone objects to my refactoring then please revert this edit. -- PBS (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Citation problems
nb, I improved the refs here. Alarbus (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, you changed the citation style, as I noted on your talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sorting anything out until there is some consensus. In fact, I am tempted to revert your edits. As for the comment in your edit summary for the above message, well, if you had followed TPG and not tacked a tangential note on to a preceding thread then I would not have had the need to create a section break. Feel free to change the title of that break. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have reverted per WP:CITEVAR which states "citations within a given article should follow a consistent style ... Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The same guideline notes that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style". If you want to change the style you need to discuss it here. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Consensus rules. Look, I am not advocating any particular citation style, merely trying to save you some work and potential disruption. Nev1 quotes WP:CITEVAR; it is also right at the top of WP:CITE. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer the sfn style of the cites BUT I care more about the content. First, it is very important to this article that the explanatory notes of cited text be retained. A group of us worked very hard in 2010/2011 (see archive) to write a good lede and have detailed cites with references for this article which has been contentious in the past. Second, in this article I believe the film portrayals should be retained (and I DON'T mean Youtube type videos, to be clear). Kierzek (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- See this version. Alarbus (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer the sfn style of the cites BUT I care more about the content. First, it is very important to this article that the explanatory notes of cited text be retained. A group of us worked very hard in 2010/2011 (see archive) to write a good lede and have detailed cites with references for this article which has been contentious in the past. Second, in this article I believe the film portrayals should be retained (and I DON'T mean Youtube type videos, to be clear). Kierzek (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- The same guideline notes that "Wikipedia does not have a single house style". If you want to change the style you need to discuss it here. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Alarbus seems to think my revert was based on some personal dislike of him/her and is upset about having an edit they spent a lot of time undone. Having converted an article's references myself I know it takes a long time, and I often use reference templates on articles I edit, but WP:CITEVAR says there needs to be consensus to change a citation style. Nev1 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Let's discuss getting consensus for the change. I am in favour of the sfn and harv templates, because when used in conjunction with the script available at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, citation errors are easily detectable. The kind of errors that can be spotted include citations that do not point to any of the books in the bibliography, and citations that point to different editions than the one shown in the bibliography. Pagination is often not the same between various editions of a book, so it is important, for verifiability, to know which edition was used. The script also detects books listed in the bibliography that are not actually cited. These can be moved to a "further reading" section. Another good reason to use citation templates is because then the material is viewable by bots. Citations not in templates are invisible to bots. Bots can help us in several ways, including adding missing authors, adding DOIs, and adding PMIDs.
The reason Alarbus has used a mix of {sfn} and {harv} is because a ref tag cannot be nested inside another ref tag. Since the template {efn} calls a ref tag, we cannot use an {sfn} inside it. We can, however, use a {harv}, since that template does not call a ref tag.
A further advantage to sfn templates is that the citations then become clickable links down to the books which are referenced. Some people do not like then for this reason as the citations then become blue instead of black. I am not necessarily a fan of blue, but I think the clickable links are of value to the reader. --Dianna (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should convert the short citations in this article to use {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} templates were appropriate. I do not think we shoudl place general references in the References section onto more than one line. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Moving forward
I have taken the liberty of restoring the last good version, which was Alarbus on the 7th. This takes care of the Shirer thread above and the galley thread above. I have re-added the film depictions as requested by Kierzek, and squished up the refs, as requested by PBS. We now have a new kind of citation problem to deal with: several of the citations do not actually point to any of the books in the bibliography.
- Fest 1974 (cite #11)
- Linge 2009 (cite #42, 47)
- Kershaw 2001(cite #58)
We have other books by these authors, but the material will have to be located with the proper page numbers and editions. I will help with this later. -- Dianna (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed Linge. The Joachim C. Fest book is "Hitler" (1974), Littlehampton Book Services Ltd. 978-0297767558. Kierzek (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fest was added on 9 November 2010 by user:Farawayman. The dates were short cite 1974 and general ref 1983 but the general reference was moved from a commented out copy so it is probably the 1983 that is wrong. I will put a note on Farawayman's talk page.
- Kershaw 2008 was added at the same time as Fest 1974, but there was already a ref for Kershaw 2001. I have not checked exactly when it was added but originally it was a long inline citation and present in this version (20 November 2009) -- the ISBN checks out with the google books entry. So I will fix it.
--PBS (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am currently on a business trip - will add the Fest details when I get back. Problem with Kershaw was that at the time two editors were using two different editions, I now have both of these editions. Give me three days and I will get back with the page references. Farawayman (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Kershaw 2001 (Cite #58 is correct. I updated the correct book [edition] in the references section)
- I have Fest: Inside Hitlers Bunker - The last days of the Third Reich. Cite #11 refers to Fest's "Hitler" which I don't have - was referred to and cited in TalkText by a user called "Wheelman"???? who was subsequently blocked - details are available in archived pages. However, I know this book is on a shelf in a second hand bookshop and will go and buy it in the coming days. Farawayman (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the cite clean up work. BTW-Farawayman, don't buy the book unless you want to keep it. I used to have Fest's book on Hitler and it has been surpassed by Kershaw. An alternative to consider would be to check the volume, however, while in the store. Up to you, Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fest citations and book data fixed. Farawayman (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the cite clean up work. BTW-Farawayman, don't buy the book unless you want to keep it. I used to have Fest's book on Hitler and it has been surpassed by Kershaw. An alternative to consider would be to check the volume, however, while in the store. Up to you, Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am currently on a business trip - will add the Fest details when I get back. Problem with Kershaw was that at the time two editors were using two different editions, I now have both of these editions. Give me three days and I will get back with the page references. Farawayman (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Cyanide face?
- According to Linge, Eva's body had no visible physical wounds, and her face showed how she had died—cyanide poisoning.
Could we include some sort of explanation as to how cyanide poisoning can be diagnosed from someone's face? I have no idea. Marnanel (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Still the same stuff
I noticed that this article now uses Sir Ian Kershaw as a reference. I also noticed that Gwen Gale is no longer involved in this article (or any of Wikipedia since January). What I don't notice is any appreciation of Wm5200, or his role in improving this article. It appears that admin abuse still outranks accuracy. Procedure over accuracy. Good work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.24.236.30 (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're driving at; your remarks are pretty cryptic. If you have any specific improvements you would like to suggest for this article, please go ahead and post them here. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Long ago and far away this article looked like crud. A certain admin may have been inhibiting it. An amateur came by and, in talk only, tried to improve the article, and introduce Kershaw as a source. The admin refused to allow it. Ugly words followed.
- Now the admin is gone, and the article has improved greatly. But no acceptance of the original editor, most of the debate is gone.
- P.S. Read fast, this post, and me, are about to disappear again. Thanx.