Talk:Adolf Hitler

Why does this article say that the Nazis were right-wing?

Because that is the consensus of reliable sources, in this case historians and political scientists.

But the word "socialist" is right in their name!

Many political entities have names that can be misleading. Consider, for example, the Holy Roman Empire (a confederation of mainly German territories during the Middle Ages and the early modern period) and North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a totalitarian dictatorship). The usage of the word "socialism" by the Nazis is different from the common usage of the term "socialism" to refer to an economic philosophy involving advocacy for social ownership of the means of production. The phrase "national socialist" was a nationalist response to the rise of socialism in Europe by offering a redefinition of "socialism" to refer to the promotion of the interests of the nation, as opposed to ideas of individual self-interest. But there was no policy of social ownership of the means of production. The Nazis did talk about capitalism being bad, but they defined it as a Jewish-originated economic philosophy based on individualism that promoted plutocracy in the interest of the Jews, at the expense of non-Jewish nations and races. This was put in contrast to the Nazis' conception of socialism, which was done in order to win over people attracted to anti-capitalist and socialist ideas to their cause. They rejected ideas of equality and working class solidarity, instead advocating for social hierarchy and national strength. This article sums it up well.

I made an offhand comment about it and somebody just came along and deleted it! What should I do?

Nothing. See this discussion where the community came to a consensus that we have entertained the numerous questions and claims about the Nazis being left-wing enough, and that continued engagement with people pushing this line of reasoning is not helpful to the article.

That doesn't seem very fair. Don't Wikipedia policies require editors to assume good faith? What if somebody posts that position here with a really good argument?

See the following links, all of which are to discussions about this very question over time. If any novel argument is proposed, it has already been made, responded to and failed to convince anyone. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

But what if I find a large number of very reliable sources all claiming that Nazism is left-wing?

Then you will be more than welcome to show them to us, so that we can see that they are very reliable and that they assert that Nazism is a left-wing ideology. If they are, then we will change the article.

About Fascism

Q1: Is Fascism an exclusively right-wing ideology?

A1: Yes. This issue has been extensively discussed on the article talk page, and "yes" is the unequivocal prevailing consensus view, which is supported by the vast majority of historians, political scientists and other scholars. Your individual opinion, if it differs, will have no effect on that standing consensus. In case you have any further objections, take a look at the archives for yourself.

Q2: Does that mean fascism is similar to conservatism?

A2: Not exactly. Saying they both are right-wing does not mean that fascism is merely a more extreme form of conservatism. It also doesn't mean they agree on much besides some rather abstract concepts, such as social order, traditional values, and social stratification.

Q3: Was Joseph Stalin a fascist?

A3: No. While both Stalinism and fascism are widely accepted to be forms of totalitarianism, that's generally accepted to be where their similarities end, as Stalinism and fascism are distinct ideological worldviews.

Q4: I really feel fascism is a left-wing ideology, though!

A4: On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, not individual opinions or original research from editors. If you wish for the article to say that Fascism is left-wing, then you must provide citations from reliable sources to support that view, and those sources must not be fringe ones or promoting a specific point of view.

Origins of Fascism

Q5: Where did fascism start?

A5: Fascism began in Italy in the difficult years between World War I and World War II, and spread throughout Europe in many different national forms – including Nazism. Each country's version of fascism differed in a number of specific ways, but they all had broad similarities.

Q6: Care to be more specific?

A6: Fascism as a historical movement is extremely nuanced and complicated. The details can be had by reading this article, and the articles on Wikipedia about the other versions of fascism. In Italy, fascism reached its peak with Benito Mussolini ruling over Fascist Italy from 1922 to 1943.

Q7: Wasn't Mussolini a communist?

A7: Mussolini was at one time a socialist, which is not the same as being a communist. He was kicked out of the Italian Socialist Party for being too militarist. He denounced them and became an ultranationalist – one of the shared aspects of all fascist groups. He also was a militant atheist until he signed the Lateran Treaty, when he switched most of his previous positions to try to win over Catholic support.

Q8: Doesn't that still make fascism left-wing?

A8: One individual's story doesn't change the fact that reliable sources classify fascism as right-wing. Mussolini's personal history is irrelevant to understanding the broader fascist movement.

Wikipedia's role

Q9: Is Wikipedia trying to censor the truth about fascism?

A9: No. Wikipedia is not censored. We go by whatever reliable sources say, not original research.

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

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." 98.46.117.2 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

oh really??? 103.190.13.22 (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

References

This is covered at Frankenberger thesis. Moxy🍁 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

 Not done .... Will require consensus.Moxy🍁 20:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"Failed Austrian Painter" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Failed Austrian Painter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 11 § Failed Austrian Painter until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

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

@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)

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)

• I hate to tell you this, this is an American site, it defaults to US English. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I hate to tell you this, but this article has a British English tag. Keeper of Albion (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  No it does not. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)