Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Adam Carr
No edit summary
imported>Richard Jensen
(Wiki is baaad)
Line 23: Line 23:


Yes of course all that's true. But the WP article is still more comprehensive than this one (or it was the last time I looked - it might have been rewritten by Klingons by now). This is the price we pay for the decision ''not'' to make CZ a WP fork, which I agreed with, but to start again from scratch. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 11:29, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Yes of course all that's true. But the WP article is still more comprehensive than this one (or it was the last time I looked - it might have been rewritten by Klingons by now). This is the price we pay for the decision ''not'' to make CZ a WP fork, which I agreed with, but to start again from scratch. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 11:29, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
::well it takes a while to write careful history using the best sources. The WP article seriously distorts the role of Hitler in history and keeps getting worse in that regard. For example, there is far more on his last days in the bunker than there is on his role in starting ww2. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 18:04, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 18:04, 9 June 2007


Article Checklist for "Adolf Hitler/Archive 2"
Workgroup category or categories History Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Hillie Plantinga 13:29, 29 March 2007 (CDT), Yi Zhe Wu 15:21, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





"facilitated the Holocaust"

Richard: good to see you at work on this entry here. The phrase "facilitated the Holocaust", inherited I think from the Wikipedia version, seems egregiously euphemistic, given the known details of Die Endlösung der Judenfrage. I hope we can work here at CZ to come up with a more direct and forceful phraseology! Russell Potter 21:00, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

yes that was a poor phrase and I changed it, and also added detailed sections on his antisemitism at different stages of his career. Richard Jensen 21:25, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Much better. A question: do we want to have a subsection on Mein Kampf, or ought that be a separate main entry, do you think? Russell Potter 17:03, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Mein Kampf will get a line or two here, and deserves its own article. I've got a stack of Hitler biographies and am slowly adding paragraphs to the main article. Richard Jensen 17:20, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

This article is still considerably inferior to the WP one, which I did some work on until I was driven off by cranks. When I get home to my references later in the month I will have a go at improving it. Adam Carr 05:43, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

the Wiki article is highly unbalanced in terms of topics (it's BAD on diplomacy for example and weak on military) and quality (and uses sources 40+ years old like Bullock, Fest, Shirer etc). This article is "in process," but its goal should be to keep users abreast of scholarship in last decade (see Evans comments on growth of scholarship in into to vol 1) Richard Jensen 06:30, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes of course all that's true. But the WP article is still more comprehensive than this one (or it was the last time I looked - it might have been rewritten by Klingons by now). This is the price we pay for the decision not to make CZ a WP fork, which I agreed with, but to start again from scratch. Adam Carr 11:29, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

well it takes a while to write careful history using the best sources. The WP article seriously distorts the role of Hitler in history and keeps getting worse in that regard. For example, there is far more on his last days in the bunker than there is on his role in starting ww2. Richard Jensen 18:04, 9 June 2007 (CDT)