Talk:Killing baby Hitler

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Adolf Hitler as an infant (c. 1889–1890)

• ... that the ethical dilemma of killing baby Hitler (pictured) has been compared to the trolley problem? Source: Strauss, Matthew (29 October 2015). "A Philosopher Weighs in on Whether or Not You Should Kill Baby Hitler". Inverse. Retrieved 1 April 2024.
  • ALT1: ... that theories of multiple time dimensions have held it to be physically possible to travel back in time and kill baby Hitler (pictured)? Source: Andreoletti, Giacomo; Spolaore, Giuseppe (2021). "The future ain't what it used to be". Synthese. 199: 10569–10585. doi:10.1007/s11229-021-03259-5. ISSN 0039-7857. Retrieved 1 April 2024.
  • ALT2: ... that science fiction stories about killing baby Hitler (pictured) date as far back as World War II? Source: Blevins, Joe (17 October 2016). "How killing baby Hitler became a staple of time-travel stories". The A.V. Club. Retrieved 1 April 2024.
  • ALT3: ... that Florida governor Jeb Bush has publicly expressed support for killing baby Hitler (pictured)? Source: Conroy, Scott; Strauss, Jon (9 November 2015). "Jeb Bush On Whether He'd Kill Baby Hitler: 'Hell Yeah, I Would!'". HuffPost. Retrieved 1 April 2024.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Miyuki Ichijo and Template:Did you know nominations/Teatre Victòria
  • Comment: If anyone has notes about how to improve this article, I'm happy to hear it. If I can reserve a specific date for one of these hooks to be posted, ideally it would be 20 April or 30 April.

Created by Grnrchst (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 33 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Grnrchst (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC).

• Eligible, well-sourced, no copyvio, neutral, QPQs done etc. The sources are all about this topic, which forms a coherent, standalone subject, with no synthesis or original research that I could find. This is one kind of article that makes Wikipedia brilliant, in my opinion: serious commentary on an initially flippant idea.
• "wouldn't" should be "would not" per MOS:CONTRACT – also "isn't", "can't" and so on
• AmbaSSada should be in italics, as a film name

The tiny copyedits above shouldn't hold this up and I wasn't able to find any substantial issues. I've checked all four sources: the only dubious thing is HuffPost as a politics source in ALT3 but other sources in the article verify the same simple statements of fact (Nahin, 2017), so this is good. Personally I'd recommend ALT2 as the most surprising, then ALT1 is also quite weird and hooky, but all hooks are good to go at the discretion of the prepper. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• I edited the article to remove contractions. Also investigating ALT2 I see that, in the story mentioned in the hook, Hitler is eleven, so not a baby Hitler. I will promote ALT0 without the dilemma link. Bruxton (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• ALT0a: ... that the ethical dilemma of killing baby Hitler (pictured) has been compared to the trolley problem? Bruxton (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"Liberal comedian Stephen Colbert"

...liberal comedian Stephen Colbert and conservative pundit Ben Shapiro were counted among the opponents of the policy...In contrast, American comedian Stephen Colbert responded to the question by saying that he would not kill baby Hitler and would instead seek to raise him in a loving home."

This is an odd juxtaposition. We are informed that Colbert's liberalism and Shapiro's conservatism are somehow relevant, but in reality, their respective positions appear informed by religious morality, not political alignment; in the case of Colbert, it's Catholicism, and in regards to Shapiro, it's Judaism. Yet, this isn't mentioned. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that we don't refer to the politics of either Bush or Hanks in the same sentence, I've removed the wording of liberal and conservative. I also notice that the book footnote citation used to support Colbert doesn't mention his politics. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Deontological argument

Surely, there is missing criticism here? For example, the recent conclusions of LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine has brought forward many discussions related to the limits of such deontological arguments. I realize we can only go with the sources here, but it feels like the criticism is being left out here. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Stemwedel

Janet Stemwedel argues that using time travel to change social conditions would be preferable to infanticide, as it would recognise that the responsibility for Hitler's actions lie not just with him, but also in the collective responsibility of those that raised, followed and elected him.

There should really be a counterargument here, as arguing that time travel is preferable to infanticide, even when changes to the timeline could result in other deaths or unintended consequences leading to death, makes no sense at all. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: If you know of any sources that discuss criticism of either the deontological argument against killing baby Hitler, or Stemwedel's argument that changing social conditions would be preferable to killing baby Hitler, then feel free to add in that information. I personally couldn't find any counterarguments to either while researching and writing the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The 80s

The article states recommending that time travelers avoid such an activity and instead visit the 1980s in the theoretical physics section. This proposed alternative is somewhat confusing without further context. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that too! I think it is supposed to be a very inside joke referring to Back to the Future, or maybe the obsession with 1980s culture, fashion, and music with younger generations (for example Stranger Things, etc.). So, yes, I agree, a footnote explaining this is needed. But, I admit, I enjoyed this addition and I hope it isn't removed. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Come And See

There’s a film from Belarus called Come and See that ends with this idea Victor Grigas (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)