Talk:Reich Labour Service

Cover up and bending of the facts

I have heard that information about the Reichsarbeitsdienst has been manipulated and covered up. That the allies didn't want Hitler's success at reducing unemployment to be publicised. Any ideas that this is true? If so, it should be added to the article. Wythy (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per rough consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Reichsarbeitsdienst → Reich Labour Service – Per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:ENGLISH; quite common for English-language literature to use Reich Labor Service or Reich Labour Service -- no need for the difficult to read and comprehend German-language term K.e.coffman (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 05:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The German name is far more common. We only translate when the English version is established as the common name in English-language sources. That isn't the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose From my searches "Reich Labour Service" does not seem to be the most common name. AusLondonder (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I"ve searched in English-lang books only, and I'm not getting a lot of hits; some are to bibliographies where German language sources are used: link. I content that "Reich Labour Service" is more common in English language sources, and is thus WP:COMMONNAME for the purpose of en.wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Current name is absent from English dictionaries, and is not commonly used or recognized by English speaking people; therefore, it contravenes Wikipedia policy. Carlotm (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not a dictionary. Wikipedia has millions of articles with titles that are not in dictionaries. —  AjaxSmack  00:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Never said it is. I was using dictionaries as an instrument, to check if Reichsarbeitsdienst is in common English usage. It is not. There is a big difference between, let's say, "Gestapo", "kindergarten", "soprano", "café" ... and Reichsarbeitsdienst. Don't you see that? "On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language." There are exceptions on this basic rule; mostly for loanwords and when a possible translation in English may be inaccurate (and a new English word adopting that specific meaning is yet to be born). It is not our case. Here we have the mundane obligation to translate into "Reich Labour Service". Carlotm (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
      • English titles should be those commonly used in English sources. That should be standard and not whether the title appears in a dictionary. At Wikipedia, there are hundreds of related articles at German-language titles (e.g., Reichsnährstand, Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland), as well as scores with English titles (e.g., Reich Main Security Office, Reich Ministry of Transport). Go with what the sources use. —  AjaxSmack  03:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support it is not at all common in English language books--it is very off-putting to our readers who have no idea even how to pronounce it. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support with comments Using the search box takes the reader to the article however one frames it's title. Beyond the purely perfunctory (in this case) support of WP:COMMONNAME in terms of policy, I see no real point in a rename. That being said, a (very) quick googlebook search threw up a lot of responses to "Reich Labour Service. Ian Kershaw favours it as terminology for instance. The article gives a good translation of the German term. Unsure of the point really. Will it improve the article by renaming? I cannot see a net gain for the reader here. Irondome (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the intention is to apply WP:COMMONNAME. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia users may not be sophisticated readers or bookworms. An English title here is paramount, an essential improvement. Carlotm (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have adjusted to support, while keeping the original comments for the record. I appreciate the clarifying statements above. Irondome (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RAD Divisions

There existed three or four divisions in 1945.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mixing or confusing different organizations, especially their purposes.

The "Voluntary Labor Service (FAD)"Freiwilliger Arbeitsdienst (FAD), founded in 1931 by the government of the "Weimar Republic" was a means to reduce unemployment after the "Great Depression" in 1929. Amenzel (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

But the "Reichsarbeitsdienst (RAD)" was established by the National Socialist government under Hitler as a obligatory service, which was neither voluntary nor intended for the unemployed. It was a semi-military organization that first exploited the labor of German young men as forced laborers and later, with the onset of WW2, prepared young men and also women for war service. Those who had received a draft order for the RAD but did not enter service were wanted.

By a law of June 26, 1935, the Reich Labor Service (RAD) was established as a National Socialist organization, even though the name of the former organization was adopted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amenzel (talk • contribs) 10:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Was it paid?

A question unaddressed by this article is whether or not, and how much, participants were paid for performance of this service. It would be useful to compare it with being unemployed and with the pay that would be granted to those in military service.Cloptonson (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbeitsgauführer or Gauarbeitsführer?

The article uses Arbeitsgauführer but I saw a photo captioned Gauarbeitsführer. Wschroedter (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)