Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: I just compared the first paragraph of the new version with the first paragraph of the "old" [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Adolf_Hitler&oldid=100736814 version]. The old version is much better suited as an introduction: It does what an introduction should do -- it summarises the main facts, while the new one compares him with Stalin, a comparison that (at most) makes sense in context much later. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC) | : I just compared the first paragraph of the new version with the first paragraph of the "old" [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Adolf_Hitler&oldid=100736814 version]. The old version is much better suited as an introduction: It does what an introduction should do -- it summarises the main facts, while the new one compares him with Stalin, a comparison that (at most) makes sense in context much later. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
::I disagree. The best Citizendium introductions to complex historical subjects synthesize and contextualize. A major thrust of Hitler scholarship, from about 1970 onward, is more explanation. By that, I don't mean psychohistory, but what the functionalists call how he exercised power. Contrasts with Stalin are quite important in this. The point that there would have been no Naziism without Hitler is critical. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC) | ::I disagree. The best Citizendium introductions to complex historical subjects synthesize and contextualize. A major thrust of Hitler scholarship, from about 1970 onward, is more explanation. By that, I don't mean psychohistory, but what the functionalists call how he exercised power. Contrasts with Stalin are quite important in this. The point that there would have been no Naziism without Hitler is critical. | ||
::Specifically, which crucial facts are missing from the introduction? What do you define as "main facts"? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:09, 19 December 2010
OK, moved in the rewrite and archived earlier talk
Still improving the article and waiting for more reference books to arrive, but I believe it to be a considerable improvement. Both National Socialism and The Holocaust also need work. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I just compared the first paragraph of the new version with the first paragraph of the "old" version. The old version is much better suited as an introduction: It does what an introduction should do -- it summarises the main facts, while the new one compares him with Stalin, a comparison that (at most) makes sense in context much later. --Peter Schmitt 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. The best Citizendium introductions to complex historical subjects synthesize and contextualize. A major thrust of Hitler scholarship, from about 1970 onward, is more explanation. By that, I don't mean psychohistory, but what the functionalists call how he exercised power. Contrasts with Stalin are quite important in this. The point that there would have been no Naziism without Hitler is critical.
- Specifically, which crucial facts are missing from the introduction? What do you define as "main facts"? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)