Talk:Presidential cabinets of the Weimar Republic

Did you know nomination

"In the eyes of historian Eberhard Kolb, Hindenburg's decision to govern without the support of the Reichstag constitutes a milestone on Germany's progression from a multi-party democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship under Hitler". My understanding is that most historians of late Weimar and Nazism would agree with him, so this comes off as making it sound unduly disputed. It could probably just be stated in wikivoice. (t · c) buidhe 17:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: You are right, I would describe this as the majority view. I'll change the article to reflect this. The attribution to Kolb was out of caution more than anything else. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

About recent changes

@User:GHStPaulMN thank you for your recent corrections to article. I have reverted your changes because you cited a primary source via Wikisource as evidence. We normally want to provide a secondary source for the claims made in an article. Would it be possible to provide such a source? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Modussiccandi Even though I'm about to make a significant update to the Article 48 page and have been able to supply good sources for just about everything else, I haven't been able to find any mentions of the tie between Articles 48 and 50. It appears simply to be assumed. The text of Article 50 (All orders and decrees of the Reich President, including those relating to the armed forces, must, in order to be valid, be countersigned by the Reich Chancellor or by the appropriate Reich minister) makes it clear that the requirement for a counter-signature would apply to Article 48 decrees (and does not involve the whole cabinet). Would a citation to a non-Wikisource version of the constitution, or the inclusion of the text itself (as above), meet GA standards? Thanks, GHStPaulMN (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Although it would be desirable to have a secondary source, I think it is permissible to use a primary source in this situation per WP:PRIMARY. Concerning the use of Wikisource, I think it's fine as long as you use the template shown at Wikipedia:Wikisource. When you restore your changes, could you make sure to retain consistency between the body and the lead section? For example, try not to mention Article 50 in the lead if it's not mentioned explicitly in the body. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Great. Thanks much. GHStPaulMN (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

The last sentence of the second paragraph is incorrect: "Whenever the government suffered parliamentary defeats, Hindenburg would dissolve the Reichstag and enable Brüning to stay in office." Hindenburg dissolved the Reichstag only once during Brüning's chancellorship (18 July 1930, leading to the 14 Sep 1930 election). This is clear from the Brüning section of the article.

Since this is a GA, I'll leave it to someone else to make the decision on whether to modify the statement or drop it. GHStPaulMN (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@GHStPaulMN: I think it would be best to modify the sentence to better reflect the content of the article. Feel free to do this yourselves; the fact that this is a GA should prevent you from improving it! Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)