Talk:Der Stürmer

Photo

As Julius Streicher is mentioned many times in this article, a picture of him would be a welcome addition. (I know there is an article already on him, but if he was the driving force behind Der Stürmer, it seems logical to include an image).

What do other editors think ?

RASAM (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been bold and added a picture of Streicher, as nobody seems to object - it's only taken me nine months, so I didn't beat Paul B!

RASAM (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the photo. Too many photos clutters up an article. Streicher is hard to separate from his newspaper, but there is an article about him and any photo of the man belongs there. Ylee (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to separate Streicher from Der Sturner and vice versa. The paper is a reflection of his views, so if there's one image that should remain in the article, it is that of Streicher. I have restored it, and the other images that were removed (all pertinent), with the exception of the 'Rassenchade" poster, which was not directly related to the newspaper. I have, however, re-arranged them for better visual flow, and less interruption of the text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ylee: I have no objections to the REPCITE part of the edit I reverted, so feel free to restore that. Your text changes, however, I do not agree with. It would be easier to discuss them if you separated them from the REPCITE changes into two different edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:REPCITE

@Beyond My Ken: and I are having a dispute over an edit I made on this article. He undid my edit which was made based on WP:REPCITE; when I pointed out that calling the edit "not improvements" is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, he undid the edit again. Ylee (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You're removing references, and making other changes whihc do not improve the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding the same reference to each successive sentence does seem repcite. Unless there's a better reason than "not improvements". 79.51.60.74 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Check the original edit, other changes were made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, REPCITE says that there's no need to repeat refs when the same information is repeated. It does not say that adding an additional ref for new information is a bad thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll buy it. Multiple instances of the same ref, however, appear to be redundant. Or useless, which seems to be amounting to the same thing in this situation. 79.51.60.74 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Especially if they're spaced by one sentence at a time. 79.51.60.74 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, if you put the ref at the end of the paragraph, it looks like it's sourcing the entire paragraph, and that's not the case here. If you put it after the first sentence only, someone's going to hit the last two sentences with a CN tag. The question of where, exactly, to put a reference is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and should not be the result of mechanical following of editing guidelines. Some thought needs to go into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

And Ylee, we haven't interacted before, so there's no reason you should know this, but my edits are almost never motivated by IDONTLIKEIT. It's almost always THISISNOTANIMPROVEMENT, THISISNOTSOURCED, THISISNOTGOODFORTHEREADER, THISISPOV or THISISJUSTPLAINBAD. I have opinions, I have many opinions, I have many strong opinions, but they don;t form the basis of my editing, only my commentary.Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You earlier misrepresented what REPCITE says. The relevant sentence is "citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill".

A cite at the end of a paragraph is assumed to source the paragraph, working backward, to any other cite in the paragraph. The cite covers the entire paragraph only if there is no other cite occurring before it. Neither of the paragraphs in the edit in question fits this case; in the first, the repeated cite occurs at the start of the paragraph, and in the second, there is a different cite that comes before the repeated one. Nothing "mechanical" (i.e., wrong) about applying REPCITE to a straightforward case for doing so.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a personal attack. It is meant to deal with situations in which an editor refuses to allow an edit that is straightforwardly applying a Wikipedia guideline. Let me repeat: "not improvements" is not a valid reason for rejecting an edit. It is a "reason" that is of a type that is specifically banned by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Attempting to pretend that "not improvements" is something that the MOS allows by calling it THISISNOTANIMPROVEMENT doesn't help. Ylee (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Give it a rest, why don't you? Your changes did not improve the article. Period. Editing guidelines exist to improve articles, they don;t exist to be followed robotically. That's what you're trying to do, Stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

While WP:3O cannot be formally invoked here because more than two editors are involved, I informally request that other editors who see this offer their thoughts before this is taken, if necessary, to WP:DRN. Ylee (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You plan to take this incredibly trivial matter to DRN? Good luck, because I won't participate, and DRN won't accept it if all the participants won't participate -- so, knock yourself out, Ylee, Im not wasting any more time on you or this stupidity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• As I mentioned on User talk:Biografer, I took another look at this material, and I have reversed my opinion: given the way the paragraphs are structured, the additional references are not necessary. I have therefore taken them out, and fixed up the main references a bot. My apologies to all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism

The paper is described as anti-Catholic, but theme is not developed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2019

I've undone a spate of IP edits because Cshnei had pointed out at the Teahouse a disturbing pro-Nazi bent. After an extremely delayed reaction, I decided to see who had added the edits and when. To my surprise, an IP had added it and a bunch of suspect rewording relatively recently (in the beginning of November 2019). I couldn't gauge the accuracy of subsequent content edits, especially since they also cited no sources whatsoever, so I just reverted it all. I have added some infobox edits back in.

I'm noting this for two reasons: a) to give anyone reviewing my reversion more context and b) to start a paper trail in case this becomes a pattern, in which case we have good reason to request WP:SEMI-protection. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC) (fixed a typo 03:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC))