Talk:Anton Drexler

Succeeded by: Adolf Hitler as Führer

It says "Succeeded by: Adolf Hitler (as Führer)" but i thought Hutler didn't become Führer till nearly two decades later? That title replaced the presidency of Hindenburg when he died. Irtapil (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler was Fuhrer of the Nazi Party starting in 1921. "Fuhrer" simply means "Leader" or "Guide". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

BMK is correct; he became leader of the Party in 1921. That is what the article is referencing. Kierzek (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kierzek and Beyond My Ken: Possibly needs an explanatory note then, it reads as if it means Fuhrer of the nation, given that's the Fuhrer position Hitler is most well known as. Should the info box maybe have an English version "(as leaser of the Nazi party)", for clarity, and then the German version can go in the text where there's scope to explain the distinction. Irtapil (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

for now it's (as [[Führer|leader]] of the party), change it if you can think of anything clearer. Irtapil (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think adding "of the party" is a good idea, but I have restored "Führer" as I think it's important to indicate that Hitler used this terminology with the Party before he did with the country. Also, I've added "dictatorial" because without it, the inference might be drawn that his position was equivalent to Drexler's chairmanship, just with another name, when, in fact, Hitler demanded and received dictatorial power along with the title as a condition of his returning to the Party after he had quit it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

far-right political agitator

I propose either removing the "far-right" label or finding a contemporary source that supports it. I'm not sure that the founder of the German Worker's Party can be qualified as right-wing in his contemporary political context, much less far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:18C:5081:C4B8:CB68:532E:6FCB (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Any politician that espouses collectivism and government ownership of the means of production - which is the definition of socialism - should not be described as "far-right". Ddperk80 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We describe them as sources describe them, and sources describe him as being far-right. — Czello ^(music) 22:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of primary source

An editor is attempting to quote from Drexler's pamphlet inappropriately to support the inaccurate statement that Drexler was a socialist. This is, of course, related to the idea that the Nazis were socialists because the name of their party was the "National Socialist German Worker's Party". In reality, the Nazis were no more socialist than the various authoritarian communist "Democratic People's Republics" were democratic. The primary source needs secondary sources to provide the necessary context, which the editor has not provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this also an inappropriate use of primary sources? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I'd suggest that all of this editor's contributions need to be scrutinized for policy violations. Generalrelative (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Any context-free quotation from a primary source is inappropriate, when it is being used to mislead readers, as is clearly the case here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Title of pamphlet

The entire and also correct title is "my political awakening: from the journal of a german socialist worker". It's correct to report the entire title to understand that Drexler was a socialist and nationalist. Obviously he was one of the heads behind national socialsm. 95.233.98.34 (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

We have two sources, one cited inline (Kershaw) and one as a general reference (Mitcham), that both give the three-word title. Are there reliable, secondary sources that use the longer version? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Drexler may well have considered himself a socialist. We are under no obligation however to assert that he was, on the basis of a pamphlet title. 'Understanding' involves more than reading the titles of publications. It tends to come from reading whole books. Lots of them. Written by credible academic topic specialists. The specialists we cite when placing Drexler's politics firmly where it is - on the far right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

It's always correct though, report the entire title even if you think he was not a socialist. Obviously national socialism is not easy to understand, but this doesn't mean that he was not a socialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.98.34 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

What I think, or you think, is of no relevance whatsoever. We go by published reliable sources. That is Wikipedia policy. It isn't open to negation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

In any case, if the IP is indeed block evading, which I believe is most likely the case, then I have filed an SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AU79G11. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)