Wikipedia

Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 12

< Talk:Nazi Germany
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Adrianolusius in topic Hidden Note on Successor/Predecessor states
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox

Latest comment: 3 years ago103 comments30 people in discussion
The article was changed by myself and user:RandomCanadian (each working alone, and correcting each other's wee mistakes) to what we independently believe to be the consensus result of this discussion. New version shows Weimar Republic and Federal State of Austria as predecessor states, and E. Germany, W. Germany, and Austria as successor states.— Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Poland be listed as a predecessor or successor in the infobox of Nazi Germany? RFC posted 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • Neither (RFC initiator) due to lack of sources using the words "predecessor" or "successor" to describe Poland and Nazi Germany. This RFC has been advertised at WikiProjects MilHist, Politics, Germany, and Poland. Levivich harass/hound 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither. I don't see how a (temporarily!) annexed state can be counted as a predecessor or successor of Nazi Germany - the Polish government in exile continued to exist as well. It would be another thing if the Nazis had managed to annex Poland for any extended period of time, but the thousand year reich didn't last that long in the grand scheme of things.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ermenrich:, please the read above section (in case you did not) of the initial discussion (Predecessors and successors), it has nothing to with legal/recognition etc. issues, just solely territorial coverage, you may as well review my other comments, feel free to debate me :-) (KIENGIR (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC))
  • Both The navigation box correctly indicates that Polish areas were annexed into Nazi Germany, as well as the fate of these areas. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Two questions about that rationale: If both Poland and the Weimar Republic are listed in the infobox as "predecessors", in what way does the infobox tell the reader that one of those was a predecessor state, and the other was an annexed territory? Is there any source that refers to a territory annexed by Nazi Germany as a "predecessor" or "successor" of Nazi Germany, or is calling these annexed states "predecessors" and "successors" an example of original research? Levivich harass/hound 17:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    See my vote below. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, did you understand from the above discussion that by the pred/succ list it is irrelevant the entitity's status, if it was annexed or not or anything, since it's about territorrial predecession and sucession?(KIENGIR (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC))
  • Neither. General Governorate for the Occupied Polish Region (Part of Nazi Germany ) is correctly labelled with predecessor and successor. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither, and trim the others tooSee clarification below. We don't (or shouldn't) have post-WWI France as a successor of the German Empire because of Alsace... Same logic here. Simply because of territorial claims/annexation (which are issues too complex to be convincingly covered in an infobox) doesn't give us free rein to engage in WP:OR about the matter. Were any of these recognised as successor/predecessor states of Nazi Germany on more than just the territorial/annexation level? Don't think so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Per the reliable sources I found, we should remove everything except Germany and Austria for the successors and the predecessors (which particular variant might be ironed out through the regular editing process). Also dubious whether we should include Austria in the predecessors (the Anschluss is also a complex process for which an uncommented line in the infobox might do disservice), but that is also another discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Mind being a wee bit more direct in your viewpoint? While I guess you intend to say what we're all saying, ... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't really say that I've thought all that much about the specific information in the field. All I'm saying is that, in general, information in infoboxes has a tendency to be very OR-ish, whereas it's not actually exempt from the same WP:V requirements as any other information, even if it's seldom explicitly referenced and relies instead on having been referenced in the article (much like the lede). Therefore, when there's a dispute like this, the disputed information should be referenced, and if there's no references in reliable sources, should be deleted - and that goes for all the predecessors/successors.
It seems to me this RfC is putting the cart before the horse, since there's nothing, really, for a consensus to determine, because none of the information is verified or referenced, and we're all sorta relying on our common sense and personal knowledge and PoVs. I'd say, remove all the pre/suc information, add back only that which can be referenced, and if there's a dispute about those references, then have an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
By the way, when I take an article to GA, everything is checked/sourced, including the infobox, so it was pretty correct at that point. Some of the infobox (you likely recall the issue with the map) has been edit-warred in and out several times. I don't always take part in these, so sometimes things stay in that are not actually my preference, or the way it was when it passed GA.— Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Please don't take my comment as a criticism of your stewardship of the article, I was speaking more generally about infoboxes throughout Wikipedia, in which people have a tendency to play a little fast and loose with information because it seems obvious on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Continuation and succession does not differ in this context, the article's scope and timeline determines what will be predecessor or successor (see the equation of the above discussion).(KIENGIR (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC))
  • What Beyond My Ken said. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither for Poland and some other countries listed as well, per User:RandomCanadian.--Darwinek (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both, per common practice for infobox former country which treats preceding/succeeding fields as a purely geographical question. Not sure why Poland is being singled out either, there are plenty of other currently listed polities which were not political successors to Nazi Germany. CMD (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both, and anyone who vote here has to read and understand completely the above discussion (Predecessors and successors) in order to consider their vote having a serious weight, since even this local question and one of it's results could cause serious discrepancies which could have an effect over thousands articles. As outlined, that part of the infobox is for navigational, chaining/linking purposes, having predecessive and successive entities which anytime shared a drop of the actual entity's territory, hence we may follow up the events and fate any of it. This entity had territories from Poland, and Poland had territories as well from this entity, so the actual situation is correct (and I did not enter any recognition/entity status issue, because if we would, it would cause endless debates, since sources will justify even conflicting viewpoints, hence the very easy approach of anytime having territory without taking sides is the most easy and adequate approach, and the most neutral one). I also cannot pretend that the Ottoman Empire did not occupy?/annex?/gather?/by treaty? (irrelevant at this point) or did not have a share of Hungary at the certain point of history, eliminating from the chaining as it was not recognized would be stupid. I feel here the some arguments have a stress pattern that the subject is Nazi Germany, and people approach thus question by emotion, ohh, we cannot even make such look like than any drop of territory this entity had would be by any means correct, since the result may depict supporting such, and we hate Nazis, beat 'em, it just cannot happen, and we behave like an ostrich. Summa summarum, I am not surprised, why this issue did not came up at the Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526) article, e.g. to eliminate Ottoman Empire. Professionality means, we don't judge by emotions or expected trends/ideas to follow, but neutrally, as is, shall we like what happened in history or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC))
  • Neither I prefer to mention legal predecessors and successors, not territorial. Btw: Should "Saar" be mentioned as successor? At least it was kind of independant for 12 years? Nillurcheier (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither, and delete the rest. Concur with Weimar Republic as predecessor and → West and East Germany as successor. This is what is historically recognized as significant in this regard. --Obenritter (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither, and trim the others too As others have said, this seems an odd way of describing conquered nations. But if we have others we should also have Poland. If we keep the others then I would have to yes, as Poland does not deserve special consideration.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither and remove all countries except Austria and Occupied Germany and fragments from both preceded and succeeded lists. All the countries named (even Luxembourg!) retained legal governments in exile, and German occupation was never internationally recognised. By this time successor states had a specific legal meaning which implies a transfer of legal obligations. No legal obligations from the Reich were transferred to the "successor states". Also, no reliable sources, so there is no valid argument whatsoever in terms of WP. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither - An RFC is not a way of getting around WP:V. Do we have sources saying that Poland was either a successor or a predecessor of Nazi Germany? No. End of story because WP:V says anything on Wiki has to be verifiable in reliable sources. The similarity between the arguments made here and the arguments being made in this RFC about whether Poland should be listed as a member of the Axis powers are striking, and it appears to be part of the same phenomenon. FOARP (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Both - Why remove clear info that shows nothing but what countries whos territory was gobbled up (into being a direct part of Germany, not just occupied) and then "de-annexed"? How is this confusing anyone or necessary to remove? I can guarantee this will also only introduced further arguments of removing nuance both here and at other places with stuff like "West/East Germany should be the successor, not (the several year-long period of) occupied Germany!" or "No country claims legal succession of this country, so it shouldnt have any "successors"!" --Havsjö (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, the infobox does not say "these countries territory went on to be part of Nazi Germany/Nazi German territory went on to be part of these countries". It says "predecessors"/"successors", which are terms with fixed and definite meanings quite different to the mere ownership of territory - terms which make this a statement for which there is no evidence. FOARP (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
FOARP, I hope you did not miss infobox parameter naming and appearance are bounded sometypes by the template, riding on words is not useful, if we rename to "predeced by" etc. will solve it for you?. Btw. don't say there is no evidence, and again do not mix legal successors with territorial successors. Easily you can find sources, reflecting facts, e.g. which territory became under other states as well, so this is again still an artificially created problem, becase some e.g do not like territories from Poland or France or anwhere else became part of Germany. We won't have a source that the Ottoman Empire would be successor state (either in legal manner) of the Kingdom of Hungary, but we will that some of her the territory became part of that.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC))
This, just adjust the wording to "preceded by" or whatever if that detail is where the "problem" lies --Havsjö (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It already says "preceded by"/"succeeded by". The problem is no sources use those words to describe Poland (or the other countries) and Nazi Germany (or the words "predecessor"/"successor"); these WP:INFOBOX parameters are being used as a WP:NAVBOX. Levivich harass/hound 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not true that no country claims legal succession of this country: West Germany did. It was the official, legal successor state to Nazi Germany, inheriting its treaty obligations and so forth. This is extremely well documented in reliable sources: unanimously, RSes say West Germany was the legal successor state to Nazi Germany. Further, even though East Germany disclaimed legal succession, reliable sources say East Germany was a successor state anyway. Occupied Germany is not a successor according to reliable sources because occupied Germany was not a state. Some reliable sources also say Austria was a successor state. At bottom: reliable sources explicitly discuss what Nazi Germany was "preceded by" and "succeeded by". We can't just make up new meanings for these words, we have to follow the sources. People can make arguments all they want, but if their arguments aren't based on sources, then those arguments are disruptive. Levivich harass/hound 20:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I meant other cases (where this precident will spread) like Independent State of Croatia, for example. --Havsjö (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Just because we did something in the past is no reason to keep doing it. I had seen those "preceded by" and "succeeded by" flags and not asked whether there was any support for them or whether they were making a statement way too complex to be properly done in an infobox, but now the question has come up it is plain that they are saying something that needs to be properly sourced, and is probably too complex anyway to say in an infobox. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
"This is how it's always been done" - appeal from tradition. And in this case it is, as FOARP points out, rather clear that it might just have been a case of "nobody bothered to complain until now..." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Nothing is solved guys, Levivich we have also many reliable sources that parts of Poland or France became part of Germany (fact), so I have the point with Havsjö, cure the problem where it really is, not to turn upside everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC))
Nobody disputes that parts/whole of Poland or France were annexed during the war; or that parts of Germany went to these countries and others after the war. The dispute is whether that is what should be listed in the infobox; or whether we should trim it, and keep only the most important information, which is the political/legal successors only. We disagree; clearly we're not going to convince each other so better move on to something else. As for you other comment, that this will do "irreparable damage" to chaining between articles, then again that is the purpose of regular wikilinks or navboxes; not infoboxes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither - the term "successor state" has a particular meaning that does not apply here. I'm not sure if "predecessor state" has an established meaning, but it would most likely be interpreted in a similar manner. --Khajidha (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither The other countries that are mentioned should also be removed.Sea Ane (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither per the absence of a sufficient amount of sources that treat Poland in such a manner. The arguments above advocating for consistency's sake are unconvincing. Though consistency at its core is useful on Wikipedia, we're talking about the same site where you can reference an article in a thousand different ways—clearly reliable sources trump consistency. Aza24 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
No, you apparently did not answer to the CMD question, anyway we have myriads of sources of which former territory of Poland went where.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
The "CMD question" was so vaguely worded that no answer I give will satisfy you–I look at your and CMD's !vote above and see no sources presented, despite your "anyway we have myriads of sources of which former territory of Poland went where". Aza24 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I see. Excuse me I did not provide source for SKYBLUE issues. I hope you will be satisfied with the sources presented at this article Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany and won't expect to copy them here.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
OK–I can see this RFC means the world to you. In this case, feel free to show some sources and pages (or better yet, but them in your vote above!!!) that describe Poland as a "successor" and "predecessor", in fact, in doing so you could address at least 3 comments above mine. It is laughable that you think WP:SKYBLUE even remotely applies to a situation where an entire RFC has to be held, especially considering most others disagree with you. But please, continue the meaningless badgering. Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
No, it does not mean the world to me, you asked me a question, I answered, as well other parts you refer about the pred-suc approach elsewhere, which would be useless to repeat again. Excuse me, I don't understand what you wish to say with your last two sentences, since you seemed not to know about the fate of Poland's territories (this is what I was referring, not what you try to assert, which is unrelated to this), which would be necessary to judge the subject as a basic approach. No, I don't continue if you have such a bad faith approach, which I have to refuse.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC))
This all sounds like a fancy way of saying you don't have sufficient reliable sources that call Poland a successor and predecessor—which is the core of my entire point. The end of my comment refers to the irony of calling a situation that is controversial enough to require an RFC, one that is "WP:SKYBLUE". You can call out "bad faith" or pretend like I asked you a question (where did I ask a question, again?) as much as you want, clearly this is a waste of time. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry if you did not interpret appropriately my answer, since your point is just one point, it is not a necessity to provide sources for that (I meant this by "question", but I should have called it better request, sorry), since by the other point the purpose is different, and for that sources were provided. But you know what, just ignore me, better answer to CMD.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC))
  • Neither per FOARP - Idealigic (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Neither but also mildly disagree with Levivich's proposed cut. For those in favor of the current infobox, the successor field should not be used as "some territory claimed by this state became territory of a new state"; it's an English term not a mechanical one. And yes, if there are other infoboxes on other articles that are using a standard of "include any territory controlled at any point in time", they should perhaps be adjusted as well. That said, I think Territory of the Saar Basin is a relevant predecessor state to mention since it ceased to exist and was merged into Nazi Germany, and think the link to Allied-occupied Germany is still relevant (can include East & West Germany if you want too, but should definitely include the link to Allied-occupied when there wasn't really a successor state at all.). SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove everything, except for the Weimar Republic and East/West Germany. Other countries listed in the infobox were not "predecessor" or "successor" states to Nazi Germany; these terms have specific meaning in the international law, which do not apply here, i.e. to occupied territories. --K.e.coffman (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove everything, except for the Weimar Republic and East/West Germany. Occupied countries were victims, they did not form the Nazi appartus.Nyx86 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove everything, except for the Weimar Republic and East/West Germany per K.e.coffman. Although we don't (probably) use the words in that exact meaning here, that use is closely analogous. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems that a consensus may be beginning to emerge to remove everything except the Weimar Republic and East and West Germeny, and I can support that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
listing "East and West Germany" as the successor states, gives the false impression that Nazi Germany was immediately succeeded by East and West Germany which is NOT true. It would be more accurate to write "Succeeded by: None - (occupied Germany)"--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is not at all accurate. The fields are for predecessor and successor states. Occupied Germany (1945-1949) was not a "state" as it was not in any way sovereign or independent, it was an militarily occupied territory divided into 4 parts, each occupied by a different power. The first sovereign successor states to follow Nazi Germany were the Federal Republic of Germany ("West Germany") and the German Democaric Republic ("East Germany"), both created in 1949 out of those occupied territories. So "Occupied Germany" is not appropriate to put in the "Successor" field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm OK with any listing which is sourced. I assume there's sources for W/E Germany, whether there is for e.g., the Saarland protectorate I don't know, same goes for Austria. Same goes for Weimar also - not sure when the Republic actually officially ended. But the key thing is making sure whatever is listed is a WP:V pass - anyone should be able to verify what is written by clicking on the reference link. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The outcome here seems clear and I think this RFC can be ended per WP:RFCEND #2 (no uninvolved closer or closing statement necessary), but as the RFC initiator, I'm not going to end it unilaterally and will leave it to other participants to make the call. Levivich harass/hound 17:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    Given there was some spirited opposition, and given we're probably going to want to implement the conclusions of this RfC elsewhere; it would be best if it was an uninvolved editor, in my opinion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    Was this RfC advertised on WP:CENT? If not, then the results are really only germane to this article. If you want to apply it elsewhere, I think a more generalized RfC, advertised on CENT, would have to be held. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    Policy is still policy, and well there are more than 30 editors who participated, and really having to do repeat RfCs would be pointless: I don't think anybody could seriously oppose themselves to WP:NOR and WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    Well, yes, but given that whatever close is made here will not be overwhelming in whatever direction it is closed in, it's going to be difficult to cite it as anything but a local consensus concerning the specific circumstances of this country, which are -- to say the least -- unusual. If you want a more general consensus, a more general RfC needs to be run, advertised at CENT and elsewhere, so that a broader slice of the community can get involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Beyond My Ken: See also Template:Infobox_former_country/doc#To_which_entries_should_I_link? (temporarily restored for a different discussion); which seems to support what I was telling all along ("list these states only when there are not so many other states to list." - i.e. I don't know what 'so many' would be but here there's 8 so in addition to concerns about WP:V, that is most definitively a problem)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Why are we singling out Poland here? The same arguments for or against Poland equally apply to any of the non-German states that were annexed into Nazi Germany. Nobody refers to Yugoslavia as a predecessor or successor state either. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Then Yugoslavia shouldn't be listed, either. We don't know for certain that the arguments that apply to one entry will apply to all entries, and we have to start somewhere. Poland seems to be the most obvious place to start, although I don't think we should stop there, because I agree there are multiple countries that should be removed or added; see the diff in my comment below. Levivich harass/hound 19:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Surprised there's no complaints about the Baltic States being included among the Soviet Union's successors states. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    They are. DOn't you want to know where the Soviet Union disappear? On the other hand articles Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia do not list predec / succ. They have "INdependence" section instead (first from Russia then from USSSR), which makes sense. You cannot have one fit-for-all straightlined template for all complicated politics. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'm too well aware of the retro history of the Baltics, being pushed on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    Do I see an irony here? This is not a political wrangle, but a work on encyclopedia. Please speak clearly. During 1940s-1990s the Baltic states (and Poland) had split history: de-jure and de-facto. Both were important. Do you agree or not? These complications cannot be possibly expressed in a single linear list. Do you agree or not? Lembit Staan (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we have alternatives? What articles actually proceeded in content...as in what articles follow the timeline?--Moxy-  18:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    I changed the infobox to what I felt matched the article body [1] but it was reverted. Levivich harass/hound 19:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What was missed, Parsecboy, the subject is not about non-German states that were annexed into Nazi Germany, the subject is about entities sharing territory. Consequently, from Yugoslavia a few territories were annexed, as well after taken back, so the actual listing is correct. GoodDay, your example fails, since the Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia or Hungary, Germany or anyland article that reflect the time-invariant present-day entity is never included in the chain listing, it is the ultimate target result (it is another thing, the Baltic states are poorly chained, because they don't have much articles, or so deep long exitence of statehood back in time, etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC))
The infobox says "predecessor" and "successor". These terms when referring to states have clear meanings, of usually political and international relations (treaties, ...) significance. That is what you will find in WP:RS. France was not a "successor state" of Nazi Germany. It was occupied. Poland was not a "successor state" of Nazi Germany: it was occupied, and a good chunk of territory was exchanged, but the historical territorial disputes between these two countries are such a complex matter that resuming it to a flag in an infobox would be misleading. Infoboxes are not exempt from WP:OR. Simply because a few (or a larger number; doesn't really affect the status as successor) square kilometers were exchanged does not make a state a successor of another. These two academic article list, directly or indirectly (the second one is written from modern day perspective, so mentions only an undivided Germany and Austria) only three successor states: West Germany, East Germany, and Austria. Failing another reliable source which says otherwise that is what will be kept. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
None of your quoted phrases are actually quotes from the article. What the infobox says is "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by". This wording is generic, and it is clear from the context of the states included that the infobox is not dealing with the very specific and legal issue question of state succession. The infobox is not trying to convey the specific legal point you seem to want to make with it. Instead it conveys what states/polities preceded the land of the state in question, and what succeeded the state in controlling this land. CMD (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
So is there any source that says Nazi Germany was preceded by or succeeded by Poland? Levivich harass/hound 05:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
"Succeeded by" implies that the entity listed is a "successor". Anyway, that's an irrelevant matter of terminology. Find me a WP:RS which says that Poland (or any of the countries except Austria or [divided] Germany, since I've already found a source for those) was a "successor state" (since that is very clearly what is implied by the infobox, whether intended or not, and it is the most logical use for such a parameter) of Nazi Germany. WP:SYNTH based on territory is not enough. Infoboxes should contain a summary of the information in the article, and preferably remain short. Issues of territorial exchanges such as happened after WWII are too complex to be left as unexplained flags in an infobox (and note that there is no mention of it in the article). And that still doesn't explain the irrelevant predecessors. WP:V and WP:NOR are not negotiable, and frankly I must note that simply because of some territorial matters listing countries as predecessors/successors of each other seems to be completely missing the forest for the trees: the real, relevant encyclopedic information is that which can be found in reliable sources, which generally prefer the definition I give, since that is far more relevant to understanding the situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The specific legal term you quote is not used in the infobox, or anywhere else in the article, and the long-standing practice among former state articles is that this section is not meant to cover the legal topic of state succession. The information of territorial expansion and annexations is included in the article. Territorial matters are quite important, and very relevant encyclopaedic information. I would suggest territorial control matters far more than political/legal continuity in most cases. This book is structured around the various Nazi annexations, for example. If you want to remove flags I would support this. CMD (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that on the page German Empire there is the same issue with successor entities and today somebody added Czechoslovakia as a successor state due to the fact that in the Versailles treaty the Hultschiner Ländchen (a very small county) was taken from Germany and became part of Czechoslavakia. Whatever will be decided here, we should apply same rules for same situations. --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunk, in short: no. Your interpretation relies on WP:OR (especially since you seem to disregard academic sources on the matter) and, as Nillurcheir points out, and as I'll repeat using my own language, it misses the forest for the trees: minor changes are not a piece of crucial information that should be summarised in the infobox. "If you want to remove flags" might have misspoken, my point was not about flags, my point was about how a line in the infobox without further commentary is misleading. "Long standing practice" seems like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and in any case it cannot justify failing something as obvious as WP:V - can you provide sources which say the Poland/whatver was a successor of Nazi Germany in a meaningful way (not via the indirect WP:SYNTH of "Poland gained some of Germany's territory")? An example of how this can be done correctly is Austria-Hungary (not an invitation to revert, please), where the main (i.e. most important and suitable for an infobox) bits are in the infobox, reliably sourced, and there is a whole section, Austria-Hungary#Dissolution, which includes those and the more nitty-gritty details of smaller more minor changes. The bigger problem, as far as this article is concerned, as that including successors in the infobox is also problematic because the infobox needs to summarise content that is in the article; yet there is no such content... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't see where any source has been disregarded by anyone here. That the territories have changed is already sourced, so WP:V is met. It is not OR, or synth, to use different words for something. If you feel the link to the legal idea of a "successor state" is too close you could argue for followed by, conquered by, replaced by, or other wording. As for local consensus, that is what is trying to be achieved here, a change to a single article "at one place and time", against the current practice across Wikipedia in multiple places at multiple times (eg. the reversions here and at German Empire). Regarding lead guidelines, as I noted before, much of the relevant content is already covered in this article. Anything missing could take up a sentence or less. CMD (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
re "Local consensus" please point, then, to a discussion which establishes that the usage of these fields for what are mostly relatively minor territorial changes is acceptable. Otherwise, I fail to see your objections: the RfC is advertised at multiple Wikiprojects, and well it's an RfC which has already attracted quite a few contributors, not a discussion between 2 or 3 editors. Also, even if the supposed consensus does exist and is more than just "nobody bothered to complain until now"; WP:Consensus can change (for example, through an RfC such as this one). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This is again asking me to support something I didn't say. In response to your suggesting I was referring to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I stated the long-standing practice is not something agreed "at one place and time" as worded on the Local consensus subsection, but is in fact quite widespread. I did not say that consensus couldn't change, nor object to the existence or advertisement of this specific RfC. CMD (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Provisional Government of National Unity....Roosevelt and Churchill agreed with Stalin at the Yalta Conference (February 1945) to create a Provisional Polish Government of National Unity. Its core was the Lublin Polish Committee of National Liberation (already recognized by Stalin as the government), to which some politicians from Poland and abroad were added. Britain and the United States recognized that government on July 5, 1945, ....[2].--Moxy-  15:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
On further look, that just seems like a WP:PRIMARY source and I fail to see it's relevance to this article. Maybe in an article about the history of Poland in that particular time period, but again such a document is surely discussed in proper WP:SECONDARY sources. Unless you got the wrong talk page and wanted to post this somewhere else? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
CMD has fully right (preceding by, etc.), and some users are riding on words, despite I already said infobox parameters and their appearance are not necessarily the same, in a way bounded by the template. Just because of this, a consistent chaining and linking system which guide us through the happenings should be damaged and open a can of worms to generate endless debates, I am sorry Levivich opened this. If this view trials, we will have many orphan articles with no chain, no possibility to trace and follow/navigate. And those minor issues, mistakes which Moxy referred may easily be fixed without harming the structure.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC))
It's not generating endless debates. This RFC is the first RFC about this and will hopefully be the only one required. Levivich harass/hound 20:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
If you are using these infobox parameters as navigation links to "chain articles", then that is misuse of said infobox parameters (better if the relevant bits were wikilinked in the relevant sections). If this orphans some articles (unlikely, they probably have links from elsewhere), then that might be a better indication that those articles are about (probably ephemeral) entities which might be better served by being merged to something else. As for your argument that the geographic information is verifiable (despite it likely being WP:SYNTH), then I think I'll need to reiterate that that is irrelevant to my position, which is that such information - especially about the annexed countries or those that got some small amount of territory - is not a "key feature" that goes in an infobox; i.e. per WP:INFOBOX, "An infobox is a panel that summarizes key features of the page's subject." - geographic (unlike political) successors are not such a "key feature". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, they will on legal successors, predecessors at many instances, you just don't know - even without deliberation - how many worms fallen out from the can and how big they will grow in time...this RFC will be binding only here, not elsewhere. RandomCanadian, geography/territorial info is not synth, not by any means, we have as well the sources for that. The chain system will be heavily damaged, and not just touch so-called small amount-negligible entities or annexed countries (this is even terminologically false, since these pred/succ list never included all occupied or administrational territories, but only those that were incorporated into the state proper - and such like a whole country would be entirely annexed is almost non-existent). Disprupting the well navigable chain system goes beyond the key feature you try to stress on.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC))
Disrupting the well navigable chain? I'm pretty sure my intent at this point is to dismantle the WP:SYNTHchain. If the sources say that Nazi Germany occupied Poland, and based on that we say that Nazi Germany was "preceded by" Poland, that's WP:SYNTH. That's drawing a conclusion that no source draws. If the chain is built on SYNTH, it must be fixed. No more discussions about it. The only relevant question is: is it sourced? So far, the answer is "no".
And another thing. That chain, if it says Poland (and the Baltics and other countries) preceded or succeeded (especially succeeded) Nazi Germany, then that chain creates a link of predecession/succession from Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union, which of course would be ahistorical and unsourced SYNTH. I'm still WP:AGFing, but I am going to point out that this is the fourth time in recent months that I see a content dispute about whether fascists and communists are the same thing: whether the Nazis were socialists and Soviets were fascists. Here I see a bunch of Soviet-bloc states listed as predecessor/successor to Nazi Germany. Earlier on this page was the discussion about whether Nazi Germany was fascist. Not long ago was the discussion about whether the Soviet Union should be listed as one of the Axis powers or a "co-belligerent". And earlier this year was the very long discussion about whether Category:Communism is a sub-category of Category:Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism, and whether Communism should also be in those two categories. I'm starting to see a pattern here and I am starting to run out of patience for arguing that history is history and that our basic WP:CCPOLs like V and NOR must be followed. Levivich harass/hound 03:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
No SYNTH here, if the inclusion criteria is set, especially as argued for the current, share of of territory. Poland was not jut occupied by Germany large parts were annexed and intergrated into Germany proper (same goes to the Soviet Union), some territories were not and other entities were created, etc. and yes, it sourced as well. Your another example also fails, since chaining is projected and interpreted on the anytime current aticle's perspective, hence it's scope and timeline (it has been evident that through the chain system you may arrive to any entities per your interest, if there has been a territorial share anytime, it contradicts nothing). The rest you wrote has nothing do with the issue (as well your patience should not be connected to unrelated issues), I never said fascist or communists were the same, neither that Nazis were socialists and Soviets were fascists. The rest three discussion I participated however, many editors there did not follow the policies you cited or were not even accurate, better followed emotions in several cases, so I could argue the same way about patience, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
I never said fascist or communists were the same, neither that Nazis were socialists and Soviets were fascists. The rest three discussion I participated... This is at least the fourth recent unnecessary discussion caused more or less by your article edits. When you reverted me and restored Poland and other countries to the infobox, that's what prompted me to launch this RFC. The three other discussions are:
It's pretty obvious how this RFC will close—just like the others. We really can't keep having RFCs like this. Levivich harass/hound 02:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to remind KIENGIR that after they blockaded the discussion at #Recent edits above on this page, admin Swarm posted on WP:AN that you were on the "absolute border of being indeffed" for your behavior. [31] I came to your defense on that occasion [32], but you really can't keep up this practice of holding up RfCs and other discussions by WP:BLUDGEONing them, claiming other editors don't properly understand the issue (because if they did they would agree with you). You do not seem to understand that Wikipedia operates through WP:CONSENSUS, and an intransigent editor can hold things up simply by continuing to disagree and not taking in what others are saying. It really must stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Levivich,
I see completely unnecesary to deteriorate from the current subject, and these whole sea of blue (I am surprized you have time for this). None of the cases I started to alter or remove anything from the article, just because I contested new problematic edits are a different issue (it was useless to cherrypick temporary edits, all cases should be read all in one, as you did not highlight those who continously harmed our rules - which would be a much broader sea of blue-, I was just contesting those moves fairly at the time). Hence, your summarization fails as I would be an initiator, and all the cases i presented professional arguments (and I was not alone most of them, and we even revealed other problems as a result of the initiative to be fixed, all discussion have been contstructive, the result of the RFC's are another issue, meanwhile other issues has been as well fixed, which would not even emerge without it). If you think the standard procedures of WP are not necessary, and every problematic edit should be left as is, then you don't understand really the purpose of bulding a great and accurate encylopedia. Btw. overall, there are much many more myriads of issues with less importance, unseless longer debates than these, in much more broad and less expertise way (and I am not involved), you just cannot represent these are something relevant. Of course, the issues I care and if there is a problem, it is normal we discuss them, this is not different anywhere else. I suggest you concentrate on content, not possibly misleading representation of the events, targeting on someone, it is not elegant and professional.
Beyond My Ken,
I did not know about Swarm's remark, the problem is the same, he probably did not read the discussion, since the issue was not about that what he is stating, as erroneusly the closer did (his remark reflect this), the catch was that Nazism is the accurate charchterizing/defining first order, since the concept of Fascism is more broad, moreover the semantic issue has been completely ignored that we are talking about a government, not a state, useless to repeat, everything may be read there. Consequently, I did not know that you defended me, thank you, however I still hold you were too harsh and some cases had less good faith towards me, as well on that discussion (at least this you compensated a bit). And please, constructive debate is not BLUDGEONING, telling/proving someone wrong is not just because they don't agree with me (try to come up with such at the Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm or any chess/mathematics article), I perfectly understand the rules of CONSENSUS. I am sorry you with to identify these things still differently, yes I will be "intransigent" regarding isssues I know (I won't come up with degrees or other showcase, irrelevant), or I am expert with and yes, I will defend accuaracy and will be not afraid to argue, if it serves the quality of this encyclopedia, of course, inside the limits of our rules and guidelines. The proper way is not to avoid arguments or kill necessary debates, that does not serve anything good, the result of edits should be concluded by wisdom, not by force or intimidation (majority opinion of editors at a point are not necessarily mean they would be accurate or valid, so the one who debates are stigmatized as a heretic is utterly wrong - btw. you may also change your earlier stance ([33]), like you did now with this exact issue). If I made a mistake, I always acknowledged it and I took anything others said into account, if what they said was valid. Of course everyone has the right to disagree with anything, but we have to differentiate between facts vs. opinions (from the real/engineering area, these issues are quickly indentified, there is no hokus-pokus).(KIENGIR (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
  • KIENGIR, you've been told several times to stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you simply doesn't understand or is mistaken, it's amazingly condescending. Judging by the above discussion on if Nazis are fascist or not, as a reminder competence is required on Wikipedia. You probably shouldn't edit World War II articles or talk pages if you've managed to get yourself into a position that the Nazis aren't really fascist. (This is not an invitation to tell me how I'm mistaken and I just don't understand your subtle point.) SnowFire (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@SnowFire:,
I will try to take what you said on a "cool"/calm way..."I just don't understand your subtle point" -> bingo...what I am amazed, your answer would reflect if you would not read my above lines...frankly, although I would not assume you did not read...maybe I am hard to be understood? (there were such claims sometimes...)...so, I never assumed that "that everyone who disagrees with me simply doesn't understand or is mistaken"....I have judgable arguments, as well others have, the evaluation of these are not assumptions, but better read the last sentence of my earlier answer...on the other issue...detto...the real catch of that discussion was not if they are fascist or not, but the degree of relation and other semantic issues, which were fairly demonstrated (but I just explained above, as well there...)...yes I fully agree, CIR is required, hence I discuss and argue when necessary, and if you may prove me wrong or justify any of my edits as inaccurate in the area, you're welcome (apart from a very little number samples quickly remedied, such could not be concluded overall, however I am famous regarding the opposite, extended to all areas I edit).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC))
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have removed a recent addition

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed a recent addition, and gave details in the edit summary as to why. My thoughts: It's not at all clear which content came from which source. No page numbers are provided for the book sources, which are also missing other critical details such as publisher information. Some content was copied from German resistance to Nazism without any attribution. Quotations need a citation immediately following. The prose is not all of the level we expect in a Good Article. Also, the citations are not formatted to match the style already present in the article. And at 15,674 words, we are already quite a bit over the 10,000-word size recommendation. So I don't recommend trying to clean up the new content to resolve these issues, as most of it is already covered in the sub-article German resistance to Nazism (which is also already too large, being nearly double the recommended size).— Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa on this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Change recording of anthem

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I recommend changing the recording of "Das Lied der Deutschen" to this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9ATj218lWM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal001 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
We can't use that, because the copyright status of the recording is not known. The musicians are not identified, and we don't know when it was created. So we don't know if the licensing information is correct. In fact it likely is not, because the person who uploaded it to YouTube states that they don't own the copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Small error in a German word

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

As I cannot change this by myself, I ask someone else to correct one instance of the wrong ("English") plural form "Reichskommissariats" to "Reichskommissariate" (which is used correctly further down, by the way). Thanks Kuer.gee (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Fornax (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Since non-German speakers will not recognize the plural of this word, I've edited it so that the singular Reichskommissariat suffices. --Obenritter (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think non-German speakers will not understand the singular either 😉--Fornax (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Where's the discussion about collaborators?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm noticing a big fixation on groups—including internal German groups—who have over the years claimed to not have collaborated with the government of Nazi Germany and yet were key collaborators from an early period. After Nazi Germany fell and denazification began, you'd be hard pressed to find any group that claimed to have willingly aided Nazi Germany, as many scholars–including Robert P. Ericksen highlight—and yet collaborate quite willingly and openly millions did, including major church figures across Germany.

S why is there a total absence of discussion here about the tremendous amount of Protestant and Catholic groups collaborating with the Nazi Germany government? There was absolutely no shortage of this happening and Nazi Germany was a thoroughly Protestant and Catholic state.

Here's some material on Ericksen for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on this very topic:

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia also has a much better section than this article:

From the looks of this, this article badly needs to be updated with modern scholarship across the board. I'm seeing bizarre opinion pieces in this article from the 1960s presented as fact and with a topic like this and that's really unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph or two about collaborators might be a good addition. Since you already seem to have started the research on this topic, please feel free to prepare a suggested edit along with supporting citations and post it here on the talk page for discussion if you like.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Acting on a hunch, I discovered that we already have two articles on the topic of the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany: Catholic Church and Nazi Germany during World War II and Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. There's also some information on this topic at Religion in Nazi Germany.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Section about religion titled "suppression of churches"

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So, under this article's "society", you can currently find "education", "role of women in the family", "health", "environment", "resistance to the regime", and, rather than the expected "religion", "suppression of churches". The latter section focuses not only on "suppression" but discusses topics such as the fact that Nazi Germany was an almost entirely Christian state. As I highlight in the section above, this section also needs more discussion about collaboration: Frequently, Churches quite visible and openly collaborated with Nazi Germany and almost every member of the Nazi Party was an avowed Christian of some stripe. This isn't remotely controversial and it would have been impossible for the Nazi regime to come to power without Protestant and Catholic collaboration. Nazi Germany even instited a holiday celebrating Charlemagne. So why then is this not simply called "religion" and discussing these facts? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It should do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
It's quite clear that the only major influences in German society which were not fully "co-ordinated" by the Nazis were the military and the churches, both of which survived with a degree of independence. But just as the military -- for the most part -- collaborated with Hitler, the churches, -- again, for the most part -- held back from criticism of and conflict with the Party.
Once the Catholic Church had their Concordat with Rome, they were careful not to antagonize the Nazis, except in certain circumstances, such as Aktion T4 - but even though the Party did not adhere to its agreement, and continued to suppress aspects of the church's mission, for instance by incorporating Catholic youth groups into the Hitler Youth, the protests from the Church were relatively mild, as they were afraid that Hitler would void the Concordat entirely.
On the Protestant side, once the attempt to co-opt them into a national Nazi-fied conglomerate church failed, the air went out of the effort (primarily because Hitler just wasn't that interested in it) and the Protestant churches were not enormously suppressed. This did not lead to a new era of clerical criticism against the regime, especially since vocal critics were shut down with arrests and confinement in the camps. However, I would characterize the general attitude of the churches to the Nazis not as "collaboration" but more as complacency and an unwillingness to rock the boat.
The point of my summarizing thios -- which I'm sure many of you already knew -- is just to say that the article needs to be carefully balanced. Yes, there was collaboration, but there was also criticism, and even more so, complacency. Give this, the amount of collaboration should not be unduly emphasized, per WP:WEIGHT. One author's (Ericksen) elaboration of the collaborationist aspects of the relationship between the Party and the churches should not be laid on too thickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hidden Note on Successor/Predecessor states

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Earlier, I had made an edit on this page erroneously changing the successor states in the Infobox, unaware that there had very recently been a long discussion and consensus on this exact topic. That was my mistake. After this, User:Beyond My Ken correctly reverted my edit. They also added a Hidden Note to the Infobox, to let future editors know that there had been a consensus. This is a good idea, but the tone of the hidden note did not Assume Good Faith. It was overly hostile and childish, patronizing to me and any editors who might open the Infobox for the same reasons. So, I edited the note. I made it lowercase, and I rephrased it so it was more professional, less of an attack. As it stands, there is another hidden note directly above this note, and it is written far more professionally. I had merely adapted Beyond My Ken's note to be more appropriate. Unfortunately, this user began an edit war on this page, reverting this edit, insisting that this note be in all caps, and implicitly demanding that his rude terms be left on the article. Because of this back-and-forth, he accused me of edit warring, and thusly, I am here, writing a talk page discussion about something as trivial as the case and words contained in a hidden note. RobotGoggles (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I was edit warring and I should have brought this to the talk page as soon as he reverted my edit, but this was so extremely trivial, I was not inclined to bother anyone else about it. But, it's been made my problem, so I'm here to defend my edit, not my actions. The new note is far more professional, and succinct, if this note had been on this article this morning, I'd not have edited anything in the first place. RobotGoggles (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
That you would edit war and start a talk page discussion over such a trivial matter is absolutely absurd. Just leave the freaking comment alone, it's in caps to attract the attention of people so they won't make changes like the ones you made. Go and make some productive edits, Wikipedia is not a debating club. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
And BTW, I'm 68, I've been here more than twice as long as you and have more than 200 times as many edits. I make more edits in a slow month than you have in your entire career. Don't call me "kid" again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me? 😂 Are you serious??? You posted onto my talk page that I needed to make a talk page discussion or else get banned for edit warring 😂 You started the edit war by reverting my edit, you accused me of edit warring, and now you're replying to my talk page discussion to tell me I shouldn't have done either. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Read WP:BRD. You make a Bold edit, I Reverted, then we Discuss on the article talk page. You 'don't revert again, you discuss. Learn the damn rules. You thought I was some newbie editor ("kid") you could bully, but I'm not and I don't take that kind of shit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
You made a bad hidden comment. I fixed it for you, you threw a hissy fit, and continued to revert my edit. But, guess what? Here we are, on the talk page! But instead of arguing for your point, you're... still throwing a hissy fit. I knew you weren't a newbie editor, I could see on your userpage you were an editor for far longer than me. But your 'behavior makes you a child. Not your age, or your experience. You tried to bully me with the words you used in your hidden note. Pretending like I was bullying YOU is laughable. Learn how to be a goddamn human being, understand that ALL CAPS and accusatory language is inappropriate. You're 68. You have no excuse for being so rude. RobotGoggles (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
"NOTE: THE ENTRIES IN THESE FIELDS WERE THE RESULT OF A LONG CONSENSUS DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE, AND SHOULC NOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT A NEW CONSENSUS" This is the text of your original hidden note. You used all caps, you yelled the note. That's what ALL CAPS mean. You also misspelled "should". I copyedited your hidden note, you should have thanked me, but instead, you... said that hidden notes are allowed to have all caps. That's irrelevant. RobotGoggles (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to just list the Weimar Republic as the predecessor and West / East Germany as the successor. Because legally the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany were the same state. Adrianolusius (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We very recently closed a request for comment on this matter. If you believe the content should be changed, please open a new RFC.— Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean a new discussion? Adrianolusius (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

recent addition on post-war events

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed a recent addition on post-war events (Diff of Nazi Germany). It's not suitable for inclusion in its current condition, as there's inadequate sourcing – some portions even appear to be unsourced – and it may contain original research or draw conclusions. A better-sourced paragraph or two on this topic might be a good addition though.— Diannaa (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_Germany/Archive_12&oldid=1044222204"