Talk:Joseph Goebbels/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Goebbels's term as Reich Chancellor of Germany

According to Hitler's last will signed on 29 April at 04:00, shouldn't Goebbel's term as Reich Chancellor of Germany begin on April 29th instead of April 30th? Or was Hitler's last will only to be executed upon Hitler's death the next day? Nassov (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The Will went into effect on 30 April upon Hitler's death. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Related: shouldn't his main position in the infobox be 'Minister of Propaganda', and not Chancellor? It seems highly odd to list a role he only filled for one day, when he's much more well-known for the other position; unless there's a style guide requirement to list the highest or most recent rank. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I found nothing in the Manual of Style or the template documentation. It looks like they are in reverse chronological order, by date of appointment. It's probably better to leave it that way rather than making a value judgement as to which he was best known for or which was most important. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, although since he's overwhelming more well-known for the Propaganda role, I wouldn't really call it a value judgement. However, I won't make the change before finding a good example on another article. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I checked Hermann Göring and discovered it to be in chronological order by appointment date. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It should be left as is. Kierzek (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname

Do the Germans really pronounce Goebbels' surname as [ˈɡœbl̩s] instead of [ˈɡœbl̩z]? Khemehekis (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have tested both, with "s" it's better (Greetings from Germany)Qualitätssteigerung (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Header image

Why not use this as the header image, given that it is a much more iconic and recognizable version and shows what he is known for? buidhe 21:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The main image should clearly show the subject (e.g. not wearing a hat or performing some action that needs explaining). The suggested image's current placement is better IMO. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Claims about Wannsee

The article says "The [Wannsee] document made the Nazi policy clear: the Jewish population of Europe was to be sent to extermination camps in occupied areas of Poland and killed". There is then a reference to a book where an author makes that claim, or the person who inserted the crossreference claims the author made that claim. But nothing in the Wannsee document "clearly" expresses any such thing. As Israeli Holocaust historican Yehuda Bauer said "The belief that the conference arrived at any decision to exterminate the Jews is a silly story". I know Wikipedia is a site that anyone can edit - but what about trying to get things right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.8.40 (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

From the Wannsee Conference article: German historian Peter Longerich notes that vague orders couched in terminology that had a specific meaning for members of the regime were common, especially when people were being ordered to carry out criminal activities. Leaders were given briefings about the need to be "severe" and "firm"; all Jews were to be viewed as potential enemies that had to be dealt with ruthlessly.[50] The wording of the Wannsee Protocol—the distributed minutes of the meeting—made it clear to participants that evacuation east was a euphemism for death.[51] — Diannaa (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa, your reply admits that the Wannsee Conference did not make any such thing clear. You say that vague phrases that you think referred to killing were used, but the meaning of your reply is that no clear phrases about killing were in the Conference document at all. It is your assertion and that of Longerich that "evacuation east" meant extermination. However, the history of the Holocaust shows that internees were evacuated east. Those who started in Buchenwald ended up in Auschwitz. For this reason, Israel's leading Holocaust historian has stated that it is a silly myth that the Wannsee Conference included couched language about exterminating the Jews. Note that Bauer is not, of course, a Holocaust denier, but he specifically denies your claims. 81.141.8.40 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

They are not my claims; it's the work of noted German historian Peter Longerich.— Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can write a book. But the reference to a page in his book doesn't quote the page, and I'm not going to buy the book to see if he does say exactly what the Wiki article says he says. I suspect he doesn't say that the Wannsee Protocol "clearly" called for killing - which is what the Wiki article says. He may say that the Protocol used euphemisms that he believes were clearly understood to refer to killing, thus avoiding clear language to refer to killing. This is the opposite to what your article says. 81.141.8.40 (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it to read "indicated indirectly". Thank you for the suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC

Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a video of the Goebbels family corpses

The video shows military officers donning Soviet insignias surveying the corpses of the whole Goebbels family. If you watch the video, you will find that in contrast to Joseph and Magda Goebbels, their children were far more easy to identify.

We can't link to that video, because the person who uploaded it is not the copyright holder of that footage. See WP:ELNEVER. — Diannaa (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed NSDAP

Regarding this edit. The abbreviation NSDAP is not in common use. It's better in my opinion to clearly show that Goebbels was a member of the Nazi Party, so in my opinion piping the wikilink to display "NSDAP" is inappropriate. It masks the fact that he was a member of the Nazi Party, that's the term that's in common use now. Comments welcome— Diannaa (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The most common term in academia is: National Socialist Party, with About 1,620,000 results, while Nazi party gets about About 555,000 results. and NSDAP gets about 84,300 results. Hardyplants (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS can be misleading, and you've used it incorrectly. "Nazi party" gets only 60,600 results.[1] versus 83,000 for "NSDAP".[2] Actually, NSDAP is commonly used by people interested in the subject, not least because of the plethora of Nazi parties around the world. I do understand that mass media, especially outside Europe, are forced to use simplest terms possible ("Nazi party", "Nazi Germany", etc.); here in Europe, people know pretty well what NSDAP, Third Reich, etc., stand for. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that WP:GOOGLEHITS can be misleading BUT google scholar is a different kettle of fish, it indexes academic works, one can do the same search on JSTOR and get same results. Hardyplants (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I should add that they referred to themselves as national socialists and never as Nazi which was a derogatory term, which they deservedly earned with all their vileness.Hardyplants (talk)

Common Name in English should be used, not to mention that we write for the general public; therefore, Nazi Party should be used. Kierzek (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate information

I don’t know how to edit this thing, but I’m pretty sure Anthony Fauci wasn’t involved in the third reich. 2601:190:8201:7960:AD00:8309:48BE:A992 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That piece of vandalism seems to have been undone, thanks. If you're interested in perhaps taking care of stuff like this yourself, I recommend checking out the help pages about Contributing to Wikipedia and Editing, which offer a pretty good starting point for new editors. INDT (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit was undone only 5 minutes after it was made, and almost one hour before the IP posted here. Meters (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Mistresses

The article is currently written in a way that leaves an impression that unlike the pre-1928 period, in the 1930s he didn't have extramarital affairs except for the Lida Baarova. However, in fact he didn't just have quite a few mistresses, but at least one of them was underage, and later even started spying for the Axis in Hawaii along with her whole family. [3] I believe it is notable enough to warrant the inclusion, but colleagues Lectonar and Diannaa revert my edits. Ain92 (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted because of the first source used, as I do not consider daydaynews to be a reliable source, but left it alone after a different and better source had been used. I don't think the affair and subsequent spying are terribly important or relevant, but won't get in a huff over inclusion or non-inclusion. Lectonar (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The point that he had several mistresses would be better covered by finding a source that says that rather than including a single random person. Manvell and Fraenkel mention "occasional affaires with actresses and society women" on pp 167-168 and says on page 169 that Magda asked her to "remain the mistress like the rest of Goebells' women". So I have added a bit to the article. I will have a look at Longerich when I get to work and see if the point is also covered in that book. I am not too keen to use content from Al Cimino's book, he writes sensationalistic stuff with titles like "Nazi Sex Spies" and "Evil Serial Killers". Doesn't look like a high-quality scholarly source to me. — Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)