Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adolf Hitler/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Adolf Hitler

great man, great articleDavidYork71 05:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC) previous FAC[reply]

Oppose. It's well-written, but really needs citations. I was the one who nominated it for WP:ACID, which you may want to vote for for improvement to featured status. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too much blue and it needs more citations (external ones). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, too much blue is not the reason to oppose, rather the linking of low value common nouns. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Article in need of a summary, ToC should be restructured. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I sincerely hope the nominator meant "influential man, great article," by the way; if he/she was being sarcastic, it would mean he/she was being sarcastic about the article being "great" too. This article is sorely in need of citations. There are plenty of scholarly biographies of Hitler to use, so finding sources for this article should not be difficult. Awadewit 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why in your nomination do you refer to Adolf Hitler as a "great man"?Ahadland 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something to do with reversing the insult of the Versailles Diktat and rescuing a bankrupt nation from humiliation. That sort of thing.DavidYork71 12:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I going crazy here? Must I mention the Holocaust? So, perhaps the Treaty of Versailles was not the most diplomatic move in history (which is, of course, debatable). Initiating a retributive war (after seizing power through a coup) and attempting to murder an entire race (genocide) as well as his political dissidents and other "undesirables" in reaction does not make a Hitler a great man. I would say that it makes him a vengeful, evil, bigotted tyrant. (I can't believe that I am essentially "invoking Hitler" in an argument about Hitler himself. It's so weird.) Awadewit 13:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the comment the benefit of the doubt and just assumed he meant "great" as in "important," which is one of the many definitions of that word. However, the user's comments regarding his good deeds makes me wonder. Not like any of this matters, though, as the user's politics has nothing to do with the status of this article. JHMM13 00:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was a criminal according to international law and even according to German law, but also an influential person. I'm no supporter of his ideas, but arguably you can find similar patterns throughout history, take Julius Caesar for example. Pacifying tribes is an euphemism for nothing else but slave labour and genocide, besides robbing other people to pay the armament debts and buying political support. See, our military history is full of such people you wouldn't possibly invite for dinner. Wandalstouring 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Okay, while the nominator's comments are a little frightening, the main issues are the lack of citations and ength. There are a lot of subpages and the article does deserve some length due to it's importance, but more needs to be transferred to the subpages. An "Early life of Adolph Hitler" subpage could be created to focus on his life up to and including his World War I service. Of course I would accept more length than most editors, so probably the main issue for me is the lack of citations. There are numerous citation needed tags towards the end of the article which are a red flag. There are probably more issues but until those two are addressed I'm not going to search for them at length. Quadzilla99 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't care about the nominator's opinion about the person. He may think whatever he wants. But this is irrelevent to this nomination, which reminds me of a previous Sadam's nomination. One thing is for sure: this article is not ready for FAC (lack of citations, listy sections etc.), and this nomination could be closed per SNOW IMO.--Yannismarou 11:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Try WP:GAC first before attempting this, not even sure it would pass there. Plus, there needs to be well over 100 citations for an article of that length, though at least 30's progress.--Wizardman 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suggest withdrawal, peer review, stuff like that. Also suggest nominator should rethink his sense of humor. Pascal.Tesson 05:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, was delisted as a GA last year; I think that should be priority right now. The page is also a tenth of a megabyte long. Good thing 'great' can also mean notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding. PhoenixTwo 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You should try to make it reach Good Article status first. And add citations. Flubeca 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Politics mean nothing. I don't care if the nominator is a card-carrying Nazi. NPOV is what is important if such was the case, and I don't see anyone making that an issue. The article simply needs more research. There's tons of material to draw from. An article on a person of Hitler's notoriety has no excuse not to be fully cited. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 07:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.