text:
Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 5

Anti-semitism?
I've heard allegations that he was anti-semitic, is this true?

Karl Ossietz?
Has anyone heard of Karl Ossietz? I've recently placed this article up for votes for deletion, because I can't find any good information on him via Internet searches. I'd appreciate any info anyone has to add at Votes for deletion/Karl Ossietz. Thanks. func(talk) 23:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found him mentioned in an Allen Churchill book from 1979 called Eyewitness Adolf Hitler. I believe it was from a letter that this Karl Ossietz was mentioned as Hitler's personal astrologer. Eyewitness

Uniball?
So is that saying about Hitler having only one testicle an urban legend or does it have basis in reality?
 * See Hitler has only got one ball Mintguy (T) 02:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Link to annexion of Austria in header
I linked to the page about the the specific term for the annexion of Austria (Anschluss) in the article header as well. While the "Anschluss" page is not a great article yet, I think the topic is important enough (as one of the main causes of the war) to deserve a link in the header... - Marcika 00:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

npov
''Hitler’s Mein Kampf is not widely available in Germany. His legacy, as interpreted by some historians, has caused him to be one of the most denounced men in history. Other historians, however, point out that Hitler's attempt to improve the economic and political standing and conditions of his people and how he went about it, was, in essence, no different than that of many other leaders in history and thus this denouncement is hypocritical and not completely objective.''

How was Hitler "no different" than leaders like Churchill or FDR? At least they didn't gas people in attempting to improve economic and political standing. Who were the historians who said this denouncement is hypocritical and not not objective? This all sounds very stupid to me and should be edited. Wareware 04:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The paragraph is completely NPOV. The historians you are scoffing at are referred to as "revisionist" generally, and there are lots of them. If you want the article to say "Hitler was a horrible, horrible man, worst guy ever, yadayadayada" your in the wrong place. Please review NPOV. If you have some sources you'd like to cite showing some general sentiment regarding Hitler, feel free. Sam [Spade] 14:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Can you name some of these revisionists? Are they legitimate revisionist historians, or are they merely writers of revisionist history? Jayjg 16:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course I can, David Irving, Ernst Zündel, James Bacque, Ernst Mayo, etc... If thats not a long enough list for you, I'm sure a few dozen more can be come up w if everybody pitches in ;) And of course you don't think their legitamate! Revisionist history is a word for historians people don't like. The point is, not everybody is unanimous is saying Hitler was wicked beyond all measure. Sam [Spade] 22:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, and BTW, my opinion, that the guy was demented from too much methamphetimines, qualudes, and syphillis, and even if he had been mentally with it wouldn't have known much about the micro-management anyhow due to fuhrerprinzp, is a fairly common take also, even amongst "respected" historians (to be frank I don't know if I respect any historians, but thats a story for another day ;) Sam [Spade] 22:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that some of these people are also holocaust denialists. Wareware 22:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Their all holocaust denialists, I went to the holocaust denial page and copied a few names down quick ;) Sam [Spade] 22:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Got it. Editing to reflect. Jayjg 23:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He wife?

Nazi mysticism
For who ever removed this reference, have you read the article, or the refrences for it? I can give you reams of info on the subject. As far as Hitler or Nazism being popular in some parts of the Islamic world... of course I can find some cites, but is it really necessary? Do you actually dispute that? Sam [Spade] 13:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I just saw Andries edit. As far as how many people worship Hitler as a deity, or view him as an Avatar of Vishnu, I am concerned about the possibility of verifying that. I know that the concept has been involved with both Hindu nationalism (a huge movement in India), with South american politics, and of course with Black metal, and neo-nazi Ásatrú scene. Quantifying this seems to me a difficult matter. Sam [Spade] 14:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did read the links. There's not really much there about Hitler being 'worshipped as a deity'. Just a reference to one guy, Devi, viewing him as an Avatar of Vishnu. You also say that you are concerned about the possibility of verifying it. In that case, it shouldn't be said. I also think this whole thing seems unconnected with Hitler, the man. And that's what this article's about. The page Nazi mysticism links into the Nazism page. Those who want to read about it can find it there, where it belongs. Unless you have evidence of Hitler encouraging or supporting attempts to deify him, that comment does not belong here. (Oh, and Hitler didn't reign either, only monarchs (kings, queens, emperors, etc.) reign.) jguk 14:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Savitri Devi isn't a guy, she was a girl, I get the impression you didn't read very thoroughly. For example, see Miguel Serrano. Theres no problem verifying that some believe it, the problem is in quantifying the sheer numbers. Sam [Spade] 15:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And that's your problem, not mine. And I find you calling me buck-o offensive and ask you to be more civil towards me. There's no reason why we cannot disagree civilly. You say can't begin to quantify numbers: 1,000s, 10,000s, 100,000s, more? IMHO you'd need at least tens of thousands worshipping him as a deity to make it noteworthy enough for an article. If you can't support your assertion with verifiable evidence of its noteworthiness, the assertion needs to go until you can. I ask you to leave the article as it is - provide evidence to support your views, and if it is deemed reliable enough by the wikicommunity, your statement can go back in.

 * The fact that I don't have a handy link to census data on an obscure cult like this one in no way makes it any less notable that the man is worshipped by some, and that many see a link between Nazism and the occult. Since you seem disinterested in my copious references, I have requested page protection. it would be nice if you researched a bit, but I suppose I can't force you. Sam [Spade] 16:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have added by point by point comments for each of your references (apart from the books, which I obviously can’t get at from my laptop) in bold. It is a crude way, but one that is effective in separating my comments from yours. They show that there is a very small number of people who argue that Hitler is an avatar of Vishnu. They do not quantify the number, but that number seems to be very small. Indeed, one of the articles you quoted was called ‘Nutty Nazis’. It is clear that this is a sub subtopic at the very most.

There is no disagreement that Nazi mysticism or Esoteric Hitlerism exist. And it is right that Wikipedia has articles covering them. But you have so far failed to prove that a significant number of people worship Hitler as a deity for that comment to remain in this article. It is not relevant to Hitler. I will add under ‘Related articles’ Esoteric Hitlerism. Nazi mysticism properly belongs as a link off Nazism rather than Hitler, and quite rightly it is already there.

I have now spent quite a bit of time reading your references. Many of which had little to offer on the subject at hand. If you want to quote further references to me, I should be grateful if you would ensure they are to the point, and in particular that they offer some sort of quantification of how many people worship Hitler as a deity. Until and unless you provide evidence of quantification, please do not reinsert your statement. You have not yet proven that it is relevant enough to Hitler, the man, to have in this article. Finally, perhaps we can keep our disagreement on this talk page rather than reverting each other. I agree that if you provide evidence to prove your claim is notable (which would include some quantification of those worshipping Hitler as a deity), your comment can return. I ask you agree that until you have done so, the comment stays out. jguk 16:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I removed the point by point critiques, you can place them outside the links section itself if you care to, thank you very much. Sam [Spade] 18:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I was only trying to save space on this talk page. I have added the point by point rebuttal at the end of a 'clean' copy of your references. jguk 19:34, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Hoorah! Sam [Spade] 00:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikilinks

 * Nazi mysticism
 * Wewelsburg
 * The Nexus (journal)
 * Lanz von Liebenfels
 * Karl Maria Wiligut
 * Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke
 * Julius Evola
 * Cosmotheism
 * Kalki
 * Savitri Devi
 * Miguel Serrano

Books

 * Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, 2001, ISBN 0814731554 (reviews 1 2)
 * Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival by Joscelyn Godwin, 1996, ISBN 0932813356
 * Himmler's Crusade: The Nazi Expedition to Find the Origins of the Aryan Race by Christopher Hale, Wiley 2003. ISBN 0471262927
 * The Unknown Hitler, Wulf Schwartzwaller, Berkeley Books 1990
 * Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth and Neo-Nazism, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, 1998. ISBN 0814731104

Wikilinks

 * Nazi mysticism I am not disputing that this should be an article. And this article is correctly linked into Nazism. The article contains nothing to suggest it is anything but a sub subtopic for Hitler at the very most. This article is a summary article outlining the main features about Hitler, the man. You have not shown your point is notable enough to appear in this particular article.
 * Wewelsburg This article is about a castle. There is nothing in it to support the assertion that enough people deify Hitler for that point to be made in this article. In fact, there is nothing about deification in this article at all.
 * The Nexus (journal)This article is about a magazine. The only possible reference to Hitler being a deity in this article is a reference to a website called Priestess of Hitler:Savitri Devi by someone called Kerry Bolton. This article lends no support to your assertion.
 * Lanz von LiebenfelsThis article contains no assertions about Hitler being worshipped as a deity, not even by Lanz von Liebenfels, let alone anyone else. This article lends no support to your assertion
 * Karl Maria WiligutThis article makes no reference to Hitler, worshipping or deities. It lends no support to your assertion.
 * Nicholas Goodrick-ClarkeThis article makes one fleeting reference to a book called Hitler’s priestess, but says nothing about it. Is it about Savitri Devi??? No references to worshipping or deity (except to the book if you claim that is such a reference). Again, there is nothing in this article to support your assertion.
 * Julius EvolaNo mention of Hitler, let alone worshipping him as a deity. Again, this article does not support your assertion.
 * CosmotheismThe only reference to Hitler is in the phrase: Pierce's plan for white divinity was similar to Adolf Hitler's vision for the Herrenvolk. No mention of worshipping Hitler as a deity here either. Again, this article does not support your assertion
 * KalkiNo reference to Hitler, let alone worshipping him as a deity. This article does not support your assertion.
 * Savitri DeviThe closest you’ve come up with so far for any justification is the reference in this article to her proclaiming him an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu. Not sure whether it is entirely fair to call this worshipping Hitler as a deity, but if I do count her in your support comment, you’ll have so far shown 1 person worshipping Hitler as a deity.
 * Miguel SerranoNo reference in this article to worshipping Hitler as a deity. This article does not support your assertion. I have not read his books, but judging by their titles, for now, I’ll put him in your support comment: total 2.

 * Sam, did you write that unrelated remark about Nazi Mysticism in Kalki??  I think you are a nice guy but you have strange ideas on Nazi Mysticism and the connection between Hitler and Kalki. And by the way, I support Jongarrettuk's revert. I think it was extremely rare that Hitler was worshipped as a deity, only Savitri Devi is a documented case. I personally have strong doubt that there ever was something as Nazi Mysticism. May be pseudo religion, and Himmler believed in the occult and had a mysticism hobby, but he was only one person. There were far more practicing Christians in the Nazi party than mystics but was not a Christian party. Andries 00:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Sam, I am thinking about a request for comments because of the link to Nazi Mysticism. You keep inserting this wikilink in spite of Jongarettuk's reverts and my support of her/his revert. I would have little problem with a wikilink to a possible article Religious elements of Nazism here but real Nazi Mysticism is too rare and the word mysticism is too strong to be mentioned here. I agree that Nazism had aspects of a pseudo-religion (or even was a pseudo-religion) and this could be mentioned here. Andries 13:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Books

 * Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, 2001, ISBN 0814731554 (reviews 1 This does not add anything more. I accept having Devi and Serrano in your column2)I am not sure how a review called Nutty Nazis of a book is meant to help you show that this is notable enough to go into an article about Hitler. The sentence ‘They revere Hitler and those who fell with him in World War II as martyrs to a holy cause.’ shows that, according to the author, most Nutty Nazis revere Hitler. That is nothing like worshipping him as a deity. Other sentences include: ‘They think that if they can first persuade people of a lot of false and silly notions, they will have an easier time of persuading them, eventually, of the truth….and, by the way, Hitler was the ninth Avatar of the God Vishnu, and many non-Whites in India worshipped him as a God, so he's all right……It is hard to persuade anybody of such false and kooky beliefs.’ There is a small list of figureheads in the Chapter 5 summary, that does boost your numbers though. I can add 15 to your total, and am willing to assume that they have a few followers. But we’re still not up to the level where this is notable enough FOR THIS ARTICLE.
 * Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival by Joscelyn Godwin, 1996, ISBN 0932813356
 * Himmler's Crusade: The Nazi Expedition to Find the Origins of the Aryan Race by Christopher Hale, Wiley 2003. ISBN 0471262927
 * The Unknown Hitler, Wulf Schwartzwaller, Berkeley Books 1990

Complaints
In the first part of the article, there is no reason to say that Hitler was "reported to have committed suicide," when the suicide has been documented by many eyewitnesses and finally confirmed with the opening of the KGB files on the disposal and eventual total destruction of his remains.

The section on "Economics and Culture" is couched in terms that are far too positive and sympathetic. It also uses the term "civil improvement," which to American readers, at least, does not clearly denote public works projects, but sounds rather more like an improvement in society.

The sentence, " Hitler's health initiatives for ethnic Germans were successful and progressive," has a vaguely völkisch flavor and makes it sound as if he were a benevolent ruler; further, it is vague to the point of meaninglessness, since there is no explanation of the term "health initiatives."

The sentence, " Hitler's policies emphasised the importance of family life: men were the breadwinners, women’s priorities being Church, Kitchen and Children," similarly sounds as if it were written by a right-wing admirer of Kinder, Kuche, Kirche (in American terms: barefoot and pregnant) -- in other words, a blatant sexist.

The next sentence, "Excellence was encouraged in all spheres," may be true in some very limited sense, but I don't think Wiki should put itself in the position of making such a blandly positive statement about the greatest mass murderer of all time who in the process of "encouraging excellence" burned and banned great literature, confined German art to puerile representiveness and caused many of the country's leading artists and scientists to flee to the U.S. and other countries.

User:sca 8nov04

 * practically nobody agrees about Hitlers death, except they al wanted him dead, Even stalin doubted the account. The eventual total destruction of his remains is even more eveidence that something fishy occured. Overall, I find your complaints to be of the NPOV nature of the article, not something that aught to be "fixed". Sam [Spade] 20:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You ought to say ought, not aught, which has a different meaning and is archaic.

You ought to capitalize the beginnings of your sentences. As to "nobody" agreeing about Hitler's death -- you ought to have your head examined.

 * User:sca

 * Oi....

 * Sam [Spade] 02:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hitler Pictures
Why are all of the pictures of him relatively sympathetic? Although it's also bias to always show him screaming at a microphone, please show both if you will.

 * Well, they're good pics. If you can find a public domain or GFDL shot of him screaming at a microphone, please supply it. Thanks! --Golbez 02:46, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Protestant Christianity?
I had always thought Hitler was Catholic by background. CJCurrie 03:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dispute zentrum
"intimidated" in describing the actions of the Centre Party,Germany is disputed and the dispute broadens to the error in claiming  on its' page that the  Catholic Centre Party (Zentrumspartei) was " dissolved by Hitler ". See also Pope Pius XII .Flamekeeper 09:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sir John Wheeler-Bennett in The Nemesis of Power-The German Army in Politics 1918-1945 indexes the Centre Party's condonation of Nazism after Hitler gained the Chancellorship  and came therefore to power in 1933. Wheeler-Bennett says that the Centre, whatever its mental reservations ,condoned his Government by voting for him .Flamekeeper 10:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November Republic
I came across in some writings Hitler referring to the November Republic. Now I assume (and am pretty confident) that this is the same as the Weimar Republic, but I wanted to have this confirmed before I went ahead and made a redirect. I assume someone here can back me up (or correct me if I'm mistaken). I was going to write this at the Weimar talk page, but this one has tons more traffic. -R. fiend 20:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * correct. This was Hitler's derogatory term for the republic that was founded after the defeat in November that he attributed to traitors, communists and Jews. Andries 21:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Made it a redirect. -R. fiend 21:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hitler's Death and Controversies Surrounding It
I saw this on Unsolved Histories on Discovery Channel, it's title is Hitler in the Andes.

They said that the FBI had an eleven year investigation of wheter or not he died. Seeing that much of the information available that time were propaganda, wheter it was from the Allies, the Nazis, the Russian, and several other parties, do anyone here has any info or fact about this investigation?

Oh yeah, if Hitler's body was cremated, how can there be a Soviet autopsy that revealed that he has only one testicle? Just curious. --Vandal Unknown 19:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe you'd like to read the article on Hitler's death jguk 20:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, thank you, though I didn't find the link in the "Related Topics" list. Sorry for wasting your time. --202.162.199.252 14:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proposed article split
This article is overweight and needs to be split into 2 in order to guarantee editorial freedom. Put your proposals here, and I will hopefully do the split on Sunday on the basis of consensus reached. I am putting a note at the top of the article to let readers participate in the debate.

Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive

Seriously, people, do you really need three adjectives praising Hitler's supposedly wonderful speaking style? Strunk and White says cut down on the adjectives, and this man is Hitler, not Tony fucking Robbins. -- JG
 * Well he did persuade the german military into doing all that.

Yes he was an amazing speaker and an insipration, but he was a horrible man.

Suggest 58 possible wiki links and 24 possible backlinks for Adolf Hitler.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Adolf_Hitler article:

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"): Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right. Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can link Western Europe: ...although he has become, especially in the United States and Western Europe, virtually emblematic of tyranny and monstrous evil. The [[...
 * Can link irreconcilable differences: ...espectful of his father, though he does state that they had irreconcilable differences over his firm decision to become an artist. His father stau... (link to section)
 * Can link civil servant: ...aunchly opposed this career path, wanting Adolf to become a civil servant instead. In January 1903 Alois died, and in December link to section)
 * Can link homeless people: ...paintings to merchants. Yet Hitler lived in hostels for homeless people and lived a marginal existence. During his spare time he of... (link to section)
 * Can link spare time: ... homeless people and lived a marginal existence. During his spare time he often attended operas in Vienna's concert halls, especia... (link to section)
 * Can link Eastern Europe: ...Jewish community, including many Orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe . He became influenced by publicists such as link to section)
 * Can link political views: ...ority of the "Aryan race" which formed the basis of his political views . Ultimately Hitler came to believe that the Jews were the n... (link to section)
 * Can link physical examination: ...liking. The Austrian army later arrested him and gave him a physical examination . Found unfit for service, he was allowed to return to Munic... (link to section)
 * Can link German army: ...d at the German capitulation in November 1918, when the German army remained, in popular German belief, undefeated. At the time... (link to section)
 * Can link poison gas: ...surrender, Hitler was recovering in a field hospital from a poison gas attack that had temporarily blinded him. Like many other Ge... (link to section)
 * Can link World War: ...group was to create a scapegoat for the outbreak of the World War and for Germany's defeat. This scapegoat was found in "inte... (link to section)
 * Can link nationalist party: ...eas and was assigned by Headquarters to infiltrate a small nationalist party, the German Workers' Party. Hitler joined the party in ... (link to section)
 * Can link National Socialist German Workers Party: ...ties. He soon became its leader and changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei&mdash;N... (link to section)
 * Can link Field-Marshall: ... the SA. Another admirer was the wartime Field-Marshall Erich Ludendorff. Hitler decided to use Ludendorff as a... (link to section)
 * Can link beer hall: ..." of November 8 1923, when the Nazis marched from a beer hall to the Bavarian War Ministry, intending to overthrow Bavari... (link to section)
 * Can link right-wing: ...the Bavarian War Ministry, intending to overthrow Bavaria's right-wing separatist government and then march on Berlin. The army qu... (link to section)
 * Can link The turning point: ...he road to power == See also the Weimar Timeline. The turning point in Hitler's fortunes came with the Depre... ([[Adolf_Hitler#The road to power|link to section)
 * Can link Social Democrats: ...ed by conservatives and was openly opposed by fascists. The Social Democrats and the traditional parties of the centre and right were un... (link to section)
 * Can link middle-class: ...n over the bulk of the German farmers, war veterans and the middle-class, who had been hard hit by the inflation of the 1920s an... (link to section)
 * Can link half-sister: ...l]], was found dead in her bedroom. Hitler had taken in his half-sister Angela and her daughter Geli, to live in his Munich apartme... (link to section)
 * Can link presidential election: ...aving little success, the government was anxious to avoid a presidential election in 1932, and hoped to secure the Nazis' agreement to an... (link to section)
 * Can link working class: ...o join the government, along with the Nazis' efforts to win working class support, alienated some of the Nazis' previous supporters, ... (link to section)
 * Can link majority government: ...[Kurt von Schleicher]], who promised that he could secure a majority government by negotiations with both Social Democratic labour unions a... (link to section)
 * Can link labour unions: ...rity government by negotiations with both Social Democratic labour unions and with the dissident Nazi faction led by link to section)
 * Can link Alfred Hugenberg: ...ssident Nazi faction led by Gregor Strasser. Papen and Alfred Hugenberg, who was also Chairman of the link to section)
 * Can link political power: ...me == See also Nazi Germany Having secured supreme political power without winning support from the majority of Germans, Hitle... (link to section)
 * Can link mass media: ...s regime. He was a master orator, and with all of Germany's mass media under the control of his propaganda chief, Dr. link to section)
 * Can link German economy: ...ction and civil improvement that Germany had ever seen. The German economy achieved near full employment and greatly expanded its econ... (link to section)
 * Can link full employment: ...hat Germany had ever seen. The German economy achieved near full employment and greatly expanded its economic and industrial base. Hitl... (link to section)
 * Can link ethnic Germans: ...d other civil improvements. Hitler's health initiatives for ethnic Germans were successful and progressive. Hitler's policies emphasi... (link to section)
 * Can link family life: ...rogressive. Hitler's policies emphasised the importance of family life : men were the breadwinners, women&#8217;s priorities being ... (link to section)
 * Can link German people: ... these and other reasons, Hitler was very popular among the German people during this time.... (link to section)
 * Can link armed forces: ...acting an oath of personal loyalty from every member of the armed forces . This merger, which had been approved by the Weimar parliam... (link to section)
 * Can link non-Jewish: .... They were subject to a barrage of hateful propaganda. Few non-Jewish Germans objected to these steps. These restrictions were fu... (link to section)
 * Can link Air Force: ...ing a massive military machine, including a new Navy and an Air Force (the Luftwaffe). The enlistment of vast numbers of men ... (link to section)
 * Can link prisoners of war: ...apped]], the mentally retarded, Soviet prisoners of war, the Polish intelligentsia, link to section)
 * Can link mass killing: ...y role. While no specific order from Hitler authorizing the mass killing of the Jews has surfaced, although there is documentation t... (link to section)
 * Can link central planning: ...nn]], the records of which provide the best evidence of the central planning of the Holocaust. Just days later, on February 22, Hitl... (link to section)
 * Can link German-speaking: ...al entry into Vienna. Next he intensified a crisis over the German-speaking Sudetenland district of Czechoslovakia. This led to... (link to section)
 * Can link British prime minister: ...ed to the Munich Agreement of September 1938, which British prime minister Neville Chamberlain hailed as 'Peace in our time'. At ... (link to section)
 * Can link western powers: ...der the Versailles Treaty. But the western powers were unable to come to an agreement with the link to section)
 * Can link Great Britain: ...] of Italy, to join the war on Hitler's side on May 1940. Great Britain, whose forces had been driven from France at the coast of D... (link to section)
 * Can link bombing raid: ...t of Dunkirk, continued to fight on alone. Hitler ordered a bombing raid on the British Isles, leading to the Battle of Britain,... (link to section)
 * Can link British Isles: ...ued to fight on alone. Hitler ordered a bombing raid on the British Isles, leading to the Battle of Britain, which continued unti... (link to section)
 * Can link Baltic states: ...barossa]], seized huge amounts of territory, especially the Baltic states and the Ukraine, resulting in destruction of many Soviet fo... (link to section)
 * Can link North Africa: ...d]], the first major defeat Germany suffered in the war. In North Africa, Britain defeated Germany at the battle of El Alamein, ... (link to section)
 * Can link turning point: ...z Canal]] and the Middle East. These defeats were a key turning point in the war. After these, Hitler&#8217;s military decisions ... (link to section)
 * Can link declaration of war: ...w]] believes he suffered from Parkinson's disease. His declaration of war against the United States on December 11 1941 (... (link to section)
 * Can link resistance movement: ...r narrowly escaped death. Savage reprisals followed and the resistance movement was crushed.... (link to section)
 * Can link Central Europe: ... German troops from their territory and began charging into Central Europe . The western armies were advancing into Germany. The German... (link to section)
 * Can link The Germans: ...ral Europe. The western armies were advancing into Germany. The Germans had lost the war from a military perspective but Hitler all... (link to section)
 * Can link German military: ...peace talks with the Allied forces and as a consequence the German military continued to fight. By April 1945, the Soviet forces were a... (link to section)
 * Can link at the gates: ...y continued to fight. By April 1945, the Soviet forces were at the gates of Berlin. Hitler's closest lieutenants urged him to flee t... (link to section)
 * Can link Nazi leaders: ... doubt. ==Legacy== In his will, Hitler dismissed the other Nazi leaders and appointed Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz as the new link to section)
 * Can link Grand Admiral: ...will, Hitler dismissed the other Nazi leaders and appointed Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz as the new President of Germany and link to section)
 * Can link half-brother: ...er]] mother *Paula Hitler sister *Alois Hitler, Jr. half-brother ... (link to section)
 * Can link HarperCollins: ...1 *Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, HarperCollins, 1991, ISBN 0679729941 ... (link to section)
 * Can link Oxford University Press: ...542 *Brigitte Hamann, Thomas Thornton, Hitler's Vienna, Oxford University Press ; New Ed edition, 2000... (link to section)
 * In Ásatrú, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...ot widespread among the party (see Nazi Mysticism). Adolf Hitler is quoted as opposing any open revival of belief in the Nor...
 * In Baptism for the dead, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...umbus, Jewish Holocaust victims, Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Buddha. Vicarious baptism does not mean ...
 * In Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... value inherent for it regardless of context. In 1938 when Adolf Hitler included creations of Futurism in an exhibition, deriding w...
 * In Nuremberg, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...se interested in the History of Germany overall. After Adolf Hitler came to power, Nuremberg was made a national shrine by the ...
 * In PR Watch, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...ents in Bejing's Tiananman Square with neo-nazi claims that Adolf Hitler did not kill millions of European residents. [http://www.di...
 * In Toni Schumacher, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...st hated man in France, and Schumacher managed to beat even Adolf Hitler (who finished second) into first place....
 * In Codename Garbo, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...Operation Fortitude]] an effort that successfully convinced Adolf Hitler and many of the German high command to believe that the All...
 * In 1948 Arab-Israeli War, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...es. An increase in Jewish immigration following the rise of Adolf Hitler led to the so-called Great Uprising from 1936 to [[...
 * In Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...or, the National Socialist German Worker's Party (NSDAP) of Adolf Hitler, 1933&ndash;1945. Despite our identification with many part...
 * In IMZ-Ural, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...tov-Ribbentrop Pact]]), against the German Third Reich, and Adolf Hitler, the ruthless dictator of Nazi Germany. Joseph Stalin order...
 * In Moselle, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...Gau Westmark at the armistice of June 22, 1940. Adolf Hitler considered Moselle and Alsace part of Germany....
 * In List of frequently misused English words, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...amous is to be of exceedingly ill repute. **Standard'': Adolf Hitler was an infamous dictator....
 * In Doctors' Trial, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...ncil - not guilty * Karl Brandt - Personal physician to Adolf Hitler ; Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant (Major Genera...
 * In Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...airman of the Association of German Industrialists, and the Adolf Hitler Spende, a political fundraising organisation for the Nazis....
 * In Bucky O'Hare, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... led by a vast computer system known as KOMPLEX, resembling Adolf Hitler in many ways. Bucky O' Hare was the Captain of a mammal fri...
 * In Eastern Front (WWII), can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...lin itself held useful post war strategic assets, including Adolf Hitler and the German atomic bomb programme....
 * In Walter Warlimont, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...er of the high officer caste in favor of the German Führer: Adolf Hitler . On the basis of this memorandum, Hitler developed the “Ob...
 * In Thomas Sangster, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... Robert Nobel' *Hitler: The Rise of Evil'' (2003) .... Adolf Hitler (10 yrs)...
 * In Rudolf von Sebottendorf, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...;nchen Deutsche Arbeiterpartei]] (DAP). It was the DAP that Adolf Hitler was introduced to in 1919. By April 1, 1920, the DA...
 * In La caduta degli dei, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... how so called "German Upper Class Nobility" first resented Adolf Hitler, then accepted him, and at last embraced him....
 * In History of MoveOn.org, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...d (neither of which became a finalist) had compared Bush to Adolf Hitler, a comparison that conservatives described as "political ha...
 * In Glossary of WWII German military terms, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ... volunteer *Führer -- leader, title given to exclusively to Adolf Hitler : Mein Fuhrer, Der Führer...
 * In Breitspurbahn, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...ink to that site, too, thanx</i> Im Deutschen Reich plante Adolf Hitler eine (die) Breitspurbahn mit einer Spurweite von 3000 mm. M...
 * In Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft, can backlink Adolf Hitler: ...schaft was the German Federal Railways from 1920-1945. When Adolf Hitler died the DRG (as Der Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesselschaft was a...

NPOV
Please keep in mind the neutrality policy. Hitler is widely regarded as having been among the worlds most successful oraters. The purpose of this article is to inform, not to convince people Hitler was bad. If they don't think he's bad already, reading a biased article won't convince them any. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not a question of trying to promote certain feelings about Hitler. I am willing to try to find language that people can agree on but I have much more substantive objections. The sentence: "A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a profound personal presence", has two significant problems.

First, the perhaps more minor problem is that, while Hitler was undoubtedly a sucessful and charismatic orator, there is often associated with oration a certain lyrical and literary quality that Hitler's oration lacked. I would not refer to him as a inherently gifted orator. Hitler spoke with great emotion and fervor, many would say vengeful rage, about topics that resonated with the German public. However I know of no historian or writer who thinks that Hitler had a great command of the German language in the way that Churchill or Lincoln did of theirs. Hitler himself often wrote his speeches, at least early in his career, and, like his writing, they are almost universally thought to have little or no literarly value. I dont think an assessment of writing ability is really such a subjective thing. If Hitler wrote like Churchill, German literary circles would not deny it. Admittledly, this is somewhat of a semantic problem with what one means by oration.

The second more substantive objection relates to Hitlers personal presence. I am not going to argue that this is purely a subjective notion. Certain people, like Martin Luther King for example, have been almost universally recognized to have had great charisma in private settings. Certain more sinister characters like Saddam Hussein are also fairly widely seen to have been personally charasmatic. The problem with applying this sort of language to Hitler is that one of the things he is known for is to have been, at least among a large minority, a very disappointing person to meet personally. Even Mussolini found him to be a very ascetic and somewhat withdrawn character. Hitler was also known for doing very poorly in social cirlces and he was not someone who was known, at least while he lacked power, to have had much of any sexual attractiveness to either sex. He had great difficulty rising above Corporal in the first World War despite a record of some distinction. Some think this was due to a bad psychological evaluation but it is almost certainly due to a lack of command presence. It is just a fact that over the course of Hitler's life many people found him to be repulsive or a non-entity, and this really affected his early life. Obviously this is only part of the story and he was undoubtedly charismatic in a sense. However he had to overcome a sort of lack of attractiveness in his personality that manifested itself over the course of his entire life. This is not someone who I would refer to as one who is "possessed of a profound personal presence". --Wtmgeo 17:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * We largely agree. In refering to his "profound personal presence", I ment his speech giving abilities. In that area, he is unmatched, regardless of his theoretical eloquence (I have heard both Hitler and Churchill give plenty of speeches, and Churchill has nothing on Hitler, regardless of vocabulary ;) Lets try finding a woring we can all agree to. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have used the words "highly animated and charismatic". I could use language like "captivating" or "stirring", but for the reasons I have mentioned, I might shy away from a term like eloquence. I should say that I actually quite like the turn of phrase "possessed of a profound personal presence" and I understand that it applies to Hitler as a public figure and speaker. Maybe it could come later in relation to his speeches during his rise to power. By the way Churchill won the Nobel prize for literature and, while this was mostly for his history of WW2, it was also for a lifetime of literary achievement, including his oratory. --Wtmgeo 18:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Its funny this would come up, because I have an enormous amount of WWII related speeches on MP3. I'm sure many have outdone me, but I've heard speeches (especially the more famous ones) by Churchill, FDR and Hitler an amazing amount of times (I play all my MP3's on shuffle). Anyhow, their talents are best interpreted by the effects they had on their intended audience, their respective publics, rather than their effects on us, or other critics. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bal Thackery and Hitler
To the anonymous poster who keeps adjusting the Thackeray reference:

(1) The reference to Thackery is *entirely* appropriate for the section of the article which concerns Hitler's legacy. You have claimed that "no indian group or political leader supports Hitler's philosophy or ideology", but Thackeray's own words suggest otherwise. Here are a few quotes from an AsiaWeek article, dated 1995:

"BOMBAY'S BALASHAHEB "BAL" THACKERAY, 68, does not object to the assertion that he is a demagogue - he openly revels in it. A short time after telling an Indian newspaper that he wanted to be the "Hitler of India" he repeated the claim - with pride - to Asiaweek."

[...]

"[Interviewer]: You recently described yourself as the Hitler of Bombay, and you have expressed a desire to be the Hitler of India. Is that correct?

[BT]: Why not? I am a great admirer of Hitler, and I am not ashamed to say so! I do not say that I agree with all the methods he employed, but he was a wonderful organizer and orator, and I feel that he and I have several things in common. Look at the amount of good we have done in just six months in Maharashtra. Actually, we have too much sham-democracy in this country. What India really needs is a dictator who will rule benevolently, but with an iron hand."

Check out [www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/95/0922/nat5.html] for the full interview.

A few years ago, when he was trying to pass himself off as a "moderate", Thackeray backed away from statements like these (or claimed he was misinterpreted). Notwithstanding which, it would be a difficult task to gloss over the presence of at least some support for "Hitler's philosophy or ideology" in the quote referenced above.

(2) Given that a reference to Thackeray is appropriate, it also seems appropriate to mention that he leads Shiv Sena, a right-wing Hindu nationalist party which embraces the principles of Hindutva, and has become even more militant in support of these principles since the BJP's defeat last year. (In passing, I can only imagine that Shiv Sena's own drubbing in the recent Maharashtra poll will push it even further toward its core constituency on this issue.)

If you want to mention that *not all* of supporters of Hindutva agree with Thackeray's views on Hitler, that might be fine. (Though in that case it should also be noted that *many* authors have drawn parallels between Hindutva and fascism.)

(3) This isn't really relevant to the article at hand, but I might add in passing that Thackeray's support for the destroyers of the Ayodhya mosque, and his party's general policy towards India's Muslim population, have some parallels with the conduct of the Nazi regime toward minority groups.

Comparing modern leaders to Hitler is usually a cop-out, but since Thackeray himself has invited the comparison ... well, let's just say it seems appropriate under the circumstances. CJCurrie 00:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-

Its beyond slanderous to claim that the attitude of Hindutva towards Muslims is somehow on par with Nazi policies towards minority groups.

 * Which is not what I was claiming, either in the main body of the article or in this dicussion. I have read opinion pieces which describe Hindutva as a perversion of Hinduism, and as having been directly inspired by Hitler and Mussoloni; I am not, however, in a position to give authoritative comment on this controversy one way or the other.  I *did* claim that (i) Bal Thackeray, who leads a Hindutva party, has expressed admiration of Hitler, and (ii) that the Shiv Sena's policy toward minority groups has "some parallels" with the policies of the Nazi regime.  I stand by both of these comments, though in the interests of keeping this discussion on topic I would agree to set the second point aside.  CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the context of this article, its a gross exaggeration. The Nazis had an explicitly racist and malicious agenda of systemized exclusion, revocation of citizenship, and ultimate elimination with regards to the Jews and other undersirables.

The BJP has advocated nothing of the sort towards the Islamic community, and has mainly pushed for a Uniform Civil Code and called for Muslims to do more to assimilate within mainstream Indian society.

 * This beside the point -- I wasn't talking about the BJP, nor did I accuse the Hindutva movement as a whole of endorsing Thackeray's praise of Hitler. CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is in fact the diametric opposite of the Nazi regime's disposition towards the Jews, whom it deliberately attempted to exclude and eventually destroy. Even the Shiv Sena, which is far more extreme than the BJP, has not voiced sentiment that could be construed as aiming at the extermination of the Muslims on par with the Nazi atrocities.

As far as the Ayodhya issue is concerned, Im not going to get into a long-winded debate over the subject, but lets just say that attempting to build a temple on what is one of the most holiest sites in Hinduism is a far cry from Krstallnacht.

Its not simply that not *all* of Hindutva followers are sympathetic towards Hitler, there isnt even a minority which is. Mainstream Hindutva organizations like the RSS and VHP have never published anything that can even remotely be construed as being supportive of Hitler's philosophy of genocide and discrimination. To conflate the fact that Thackeray is an admirer of Hitler with his party's acceptance of Hindutva is simply shading the truth.

 * So make a case in the main article that not all (or even many, as the case may be) supporters of Hindutva follow Thackeray on this point. This still doesn't nullify the description of Shiv Sena as "right-wing Hindu nationalist" and "Hindutva", nor does it make such a description inappropriate in this article.  CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have a thought. This thought is that people who primarily want to make points about politics and politicians in India should find another place on Wikipedia to do so. References to Hitler are a fine way to strike ones political opponents over the head or to put ones foot in ones mouth, as this guy Bal Thackery has evidently done, but what relevance do they have to a very short biography of Hitler? Why dont you create another page titled something like "Hitler as a modern political device", and take your debate there. --Wtmgeo 06:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's relevant to section dealing with Hitler's legacy, and to the choice of wording therein. I realize it's a bit odd to have a discussion this long concerning the inclusion or exclusion of four or five words in the main article, but the basic point is on-topic.

 * Anyway, I've thought of a compromise: what if we just describe the Shiv Sena as "right-wing Hindu nationalist" without referencing Hindutva? CJCurrie 22:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hitler's testicles
This article has a section "Medical health .... Hitler's medical health has long been the subject of debate, and he has variously been suggested to suffer ... and a missing left testicle.". Is this last item from valid medical evidence or other genuine reports? Or does it only refer to the common vulgar song "Hitler's only got one ball ..."? I see no purpose in merely commemorating an obscene traditional popular song here. (Even if the report is valid, it may refer to cryptorchidism rather than to complete absence.) Anthony Appleyard 08:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Allegedly, it goes back to an autopsy performed supposedly after the Russians discovered the body in Berlin. However, accounts are so varied, it's almost hard to know what to believe.  Some accounts say Hitler's body was never recovered, others say that only a skull fragment was recovered, and another said his body was burned in the street and the Russians only found the charred corpse. But then again there are those who think Hitler escaped to South America, and that the U.S. State Department issued a wanted poster depicting Hitler with different hair styles, etc. on several occasions...even as late as 15 years after WWII ended. Who knows? —ExplorerCDT 08:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My German friend insists he fled to Austria, where he died peacefully of old age. The testicle bit was claimed even before his death, and was allegedly "proven" by that dubious russian autopsy you refered to. It should stay, but we shouldn't give it much respect either. I recommend you guys come help out over on Hitler's Death. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If there's no evidence, there's no fact. If no one has a reliable source that can be verified (i.e. official documentation of some sort), then the one-ball thing is nothing but rumor.  Looking at the entry on Catherine The Great, I don't see any mention of her rumored sexual prediliction for horses - and for good reason; unverifiable rumors are out of place in an objective evaluation - so there wouldn't seem to be any point in leaving in rumors about any other famous / infamous person either, except in intentional violation of neutral POV to discredit the subject.  It should just be stricken, as should the other rumors, until such time as someone can supply official sources of some sort for them. (unsigned) 63.80.207.34 14:31, 8 Feb 2005

Not only things that have been proven should be recorded in an encyclopedia article. If a legend is associated with a historical character, and that legend is significant (as is the case with Hitler's rumored monorchidism) then the fact of the legend should be recorded. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation notice
There was until very recently a notice at the top of this article:

''"Hitler" redirects to this page. For other people named Hitler, see Hitler (disambiguation).''

In my view it was a useful link. Everyking and I cannot agree on whether it is "clutter." Everyking has placed it under "Hitler's family" which makes sense. On balance I think I still prefer to have it at the top. Any other people with preferences? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 07:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * it should be on top of this page, these people are not all Hitlers family. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

question

 * first: is there doubt about his suicide in the bunker?

 * is it true that he was on cocaine? perhaps a rumor page /section would be nice

See:

 * Adolf Hitler's medical health
 * Hitler's death

The short answers are: yes, there is loads of doubt from everybody who has looked into his death with any kind of interest, and it was meth he was on, not coke. He didn't know that was what it was tho, his doctor told him it was the super-soldier serum, or vitimins, or some such. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hitlerjugend
A brief section on the Hitler Youth might be a good idea (and not in the form of "Hitler was brainwashing youth to be his unquestioning fully obedient soldiers" but in terms of the focus on athletics and companionship and so on).

Wannsee/Final Solution
This section of the document is severely flawed.

It is still only speculation that the "Final Solution" (being genocide) was decided here, or that the Final Solution even meant killing of the Jews. Anyone can read the Wannsee minutes, where they clearly talk about EVACUTION of the Jews and removing them from "all spheres of German life", not of removing them from the face of the planet.

For all Holocaust believers or generally average schmoes who learn their "history" piecemeal from movies and TV shows and what have you, they really believe that at Wannsee Hitler ordered genocide of the Jews, which is utter nonsense. It can be inferred that remaining Jew (after all other solutions being exhausted) "dealt with accordingly" meant killing them, but that alone is certainly no evidence of a systematic plan to slaughter every Jew in europe.

Okay, I've taken the libery and performed some editing myself. I believe it to be NPOV and rather fair to both sides of the debate. I have not denied there was a Holocaust (despite my personal beliefs) but I have made a far more accurate and informed edit about Wannsee (and Himmler's comments stating "we can not gas them or shoot them").

I put a lot of work into that, so please do not hastily revert it. Re-edit as you see fit, but to remove valid and complete facts in favour of half-facts which carry a different meaning, I hope that won't done....
 * I agree that the initial goal of the solution was evacuation of the Jews, but that doesn't change the fact that they weren't. If he didn't know what was happening in MANY of his camps, then that's no excuse; the buck stops with Hitler. If his men misinterpreted the order, he had more than enough time to correct them. --Golbez 18:40, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well that was a waste of time, reverted already. Hitler was already seriously sick by 1942, by the way, and I don't just mean physically. Many articles on Wikipedia on WWII are NPOV, like Nuremberg_Trials, like Laconia_Incident and so on, but EVERY SINGLE ONE mentioning the holocaust is completely POV, and the slightest mention that it was anything other than pre-meditated genocide of all Jews is not allowed, ditto for any comment about the alleged 6 million (which is in dispute even by some hardcore Zionist Jews in Israel).

 * Why do you think that is? Frankly, the whole issue turns my stomach.
 * Except, er, it was premeditated genocide. --Golbez 18:58, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * For the previous guy who does not believe that 6 million Jews died as a result of a systematically planned Nazi extermination: you will probably have to erase a lot of historical resources in order to convince the other people about your unusual point of view. I've read a lot of resources myself. I know pretty well the history that led to the murder of all 2600 Jews in Pilsen, my hometown. And if you're promoting your "NPOV", be careful: if you're in Germany, you may be arrested for spreading your unusual opinion because holocaust deniers are treated as criminals in that country. Be grateful that I am only treating you as a stinky Nazi. --Lumidek 22:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that intimidation, however veiled, is appropriate in an academic discussion. Additionally - laws are neither always just, nor always objective, and our concern here is objectivity, not legality.  A perspective is not "void" merely because it defies the law.  Finally: why does the section on the Holocaust speak only of the systemic murder of Jews at first, then slip the other millions of human beings who were murdered by the Nazis into the story two sentences down?  Gypsies, gays, and handicapped people are NOT second-rate humans, and the human tragedy of a murdered Jew does not outweigh the human tragedy of a murdered Communist.  I would very much like to see fair consideration given to those exterminated by the Nazis.  It's certainly important to mention that Jews comprised well over half of the victims, but let's make sure that we're not painting the holocaust as a Jewish event, with "everyone else" relegated to a role as supporting cast.

Poetsch
The article says Poetsch gave anti-Semetic lectures and yet "was not anti-semitic at all." Is this actually true? It sounds a lot like a contradiction borne of editor differences. Deco 11:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Confessing church, it was a protestant organization, and it prompted action against protestant (in particular Lutheran) clergy, not Catholic, as was stated in the article.

Disclaimer
The article is blatantly not neutral, and would require a complete rewrite to make it so. Any fair minded person can see that talking about Hitler in glowing terms when so much of the world considers him evil is unconscionable. Until such time a disclaimer must be put in place. --69.158.175.185 16:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Then use the standard templates for NPOV disputes, however please read NPOV first. What's more, your "disclaimer" is anything but neutral. Lastly I'd advise you to accustomise yourself with wikipedia a little more before you start making such claims. --fvw *  17:05, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * There is no template that says what the disclaimer says. A strong disclaimer is required to counter the bias of the article. I have quite a bit of experience with Wikipedia, that's why I'm not logged in. --69.158.175.185 17:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you need to explain how this article is biased. I just reread it, and to me it sounds like a relatively neutral, factual account of Hitler's life. Please read the section above headed NPOV, and remember that it is not our job to convince people that Hitler was evil. DJ Clayworth 17:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's New World Order
Is there any information about the New World Order Hitler was trying to create? I think that there should be an article about it. All I know is that he wanted to colonize the Ukraine with SS guards and their families, and Germany would extend up to Moscow and beyond.

title: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 5


text:
Password policy

A password policy is a set of rules designed to enhance computer security by encouraging users to employ strong passwords and use them properly. A password policy is often part of an organization's official regulations and may be taught as part of security awareness training. Either the password policy is merely advisory, or the computer systems force users to comply with it. Some governments have national authentication frameworks that define requirements for user authentication to government services, including requirements for passwords.

NIST guidelines
The United States Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has put out two standards for password policies which have been widely followed.

2004
From 2004, the "NIST Special Publication 800-63. Appendix A," advised people to use irregular capitalization, special characters, and at least one numeral. This was the advice that most systems followed, and was "baked into" a number of standards that businesses needed to follow.

2017
However, in 2017 a major update changed this advice, particularly that forcing complexity and regular changes is now seen as bad practice.

The key points of these are:

 * Verifiers should not impose composition rules e.g., requiring mixtures of different character types or prohibiting consecutively repeated characters
 * Verifiers should not require passwords to be changed arbitrarily or regularly e.g. the previous 90 day rule
 * Passwords must be at least 8 characters in length
 * Password systems should permit subscriber-chosen passwords at least 64 characters in length.
 * All printing ASCII characters, the space character, and Unicode characters should be acceptable in passwords
 * When establishing or changing passwords, the verifier shall advise the subscriber that they need to select a different password if they have chosen a weak or compromised password
 * Verifiers should offer guidance such as a password-strength meter, to assist the user in choosing a strong password
 * Verifiers shall store passwords in a form that is resistant to offline attacks. Passwords shall be salted and hashed using a suitable one-way key derivation function. Key derivation functions take a password, a salt, and a cost factor as inputs then generate a password hash. Their purpose is to make each password guessing trial by an attacker who has obtained a password hash file expensive and therefore the cost of a guessing attack high or prohibitive.

NIST included a rationale for the new guidelines in its Appendix A.

Aspects
Typical components of a password policy include:

Password length and formation
Many policies require a minimum password length. Eight characters is typical but may not be appropriate. Longer passwords are generally more secure, but some systems impose a maximum length for compatibility with legacy systems.

Some policies suggest or impose requirements on what type of password a user can choose, such as:

 * the use of both upper-case and lower-case letters (case sensitivity)
 * inclusion of one or more numerical digits
 * inclusion of special characters, such as @, #, $
 * prohibition of words found in a password blocklist
 * prohibition of words found in the user's personal information
 * prohibition of use of company name or an abbreviation
 * prohibition of passwords that match the format of calendar dates, license plate numbers, telephone numbers, or other common numbers

Other systems create an initial password for the user; but require then to change it to one of their own choosing within a short interval.

Password block list
Password block lists are lists of passwords that are always blocked from use. Block lists contain passwords constructed of character combinations that otherwise meet company policy, but should no longer be used because they have been deemed insecure for one or more reasons, such as being easily guessed, following a common pattern, or public disclosure from previous data breaches. Common examples are Password1, Qwerty123, or Qaz123wsx.

Password duration
Some policies require users to change passwords periodically, often every 90 or 180 days. The benefit of password expiration, however, is debatable. Systems that implement such policies sometimes prevent users from picking a password too close to a previous selection.

This policy can often backfire. Some users find it hard to devise "good" passwords that are also easy to remember, so if people are required to choose many passwords because they have to change them often, they end up using much weaker passwords; the policy also encourages users to write passwords down. Also, if the policy prevents a user from repeating a recent password, this requires that there is a database in existence of everyone's recent passwords (or their hashes) instead of having the old ones erased from memory. Finally, users may change their password repeatedly within a few minutes, and then change back to the one they really want to use, circumventing the password change policy altogether.

The human aspects of passwords must also be considered. Unlike computers, human users cannot delete one memory and replace it with another. Consequently, frequently changing a memorized password is a strain on the human memory, and most users resort to choosing a password that is relatively easy to guess (See Password fatigue). Users are often advised to use mnemonic devices to remember complex passwords. However, if the password must be repeatedly changed, mnemonics are useless because the user would not remember which mnemonic to use. Furthermore, the use of mnemonics (leading to passwords such as "2BOrNot2B") makes the password easier to guess.

Administration factors can also be an issue. Users sometimes have older devices that require a password that was used before the password duration expired. In order to manage these older devices, users may have to resort to writing down all old passwords in case they need to log into an older device.

Requiring a very strong password and not requiring it be changed is often better. However, this approach does have a major drawback: if an unauthorized person acquires a password and uses it without being detected, that person may have access for an indefinite period.

It is necessary to weigh these factors: the likelihood of someone guessing a password because it is weak, versus the likelihood of someone managing to steal, or otherwise acquire without guessing, a stronger password.

Bruce Schneier argues that "pretty much anything that can be remembered can be cracked", and recommends a scheme that uses passwords which will not appear in any dictionaries.

Sanction
Password policies may include progressive sanctions beginning with warnings and ending with possible loss of computer privileges or job termination. Where confidentiality is mandated by law, e.g. with classified information, a violation of password policy could be a criminal offense in some jurisdictions. Some consider a convincing explanation of the importance of security to be more effective than threats of sanctions.

Selection process
The level of password strength required depends, among other things, on how easy it is for an attacker to submit multiple guesses. Some systems limit the number of times a user can enter an incorrect password before some delay is imposed or the account is frozen. At the other extreme, some systems make available a specially hashed version of the password, so that anyone can check its validity. When this is done, an attacker can try passwords very rapidly; so much stronger passwords are necessary for reasonable security. (See password cracking and password length equation.) Stricter requirements are also appropriate for accounts with higher privileges, such as root or system administrator accounts.

Usability considerations
Password policies are usually a tradeoff between theoretical security and the practicalities of human behavior. For example:
 * Requiring excessively complex passwords and forcing them to be changed frequently can cause users to write passwords down in places that are easy for an intruder to find, such as a Rolodex or post-it note near the computer.
 * Users often have dozens of passwords to manage. It may be more realistic to recommend a single password be used for all low security applications, such as reading on-line newspapers and accessing entertainment web sites.
 * Similarly, demanding that users never write down their passwords may be unrealistic and lead users to choose weak ones (or cause a lot of inconvenience when users forget their password). An alternative is to suggest keeping written passwords in a secure place, such as a safe or an encrypted master file. The validity of this approach depends on what the most likely threat is deemed to be. While writing down a password may be problematic if potential attackers have access to the secure store, if the threat is primarily remote attackers who do not have access to the store, it can be a very secure method.
 * Inclusion of special characters can be a problem if a user has to log onto a computer in a different country. Some special characters may be difficult or impossible to find on keyboards designed for another language.
 * Some identity management systems allow self-service password reset, where users can bypass password security by supplying an answer to one or more security questions such as "where were you born?", "what's your favorite movie?", etc. Often the answers to these questions can easily be obtained by social engineering, phishing or simple research.

A 2010 examination of the password policies of 75 different websites concludes that security only partly explains more stringent policies: monopoly providers of a service, such as government sites, have more stringent policies than sites where consumers have choice (e.g. retail sites and banks). The study concludes that sites with more stringent policies "do not have greater security concerns, they are simply better insulated from the consequences from poor usability."

Other approaches are available that are generally considered to be more secure than simple passwords. These include use of a security token or one-time password system, such as S/Key, or multi-factor authentication. However, these systems heighten the tradeoff between security and convenience: according to Shuman Ghosemajumder, these systems all improve security, but come "at the cost of moving the burden to the end user."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Password policy


text:
Talk:Formalist

Can anybody explain to me why there are separate disambiguous pages for formalism on the one hand and formalist on the other? Can't we just do whatever disambiguating needs to be done at one or the other place and redirect the other one?--Christofurio 00:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever listed Godard's Breathless, Bergman's 7th Seal, and *Moulin Rouge* as examples of formalism must be batty. Godard's films are perfect examples of neo-realism, which would be the exact OPPOSITE of formalism. And *Moulin Rouge* is a good example of nothing but bad filmmaking. But quite apart from my personal opinions about it, that film is simply not a very good example of formalism at all. Danny Pi 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Formalist


text:
Talk:Timeline of the history of Islam

Copyright Issues
The chronology was copied from the internet. It appears on several sites. I didn't think it's eligible for copyright because according to copyright sites thing not eligible for copyright include, "Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship. For example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources."

Is that right?

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Timeline of Islamic history article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. — LinkBot 00:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikifying
When trying to Wikify this line: I found that Abd al-Aziz and Ibn Saud link to different people... so I am leaving it as is but it should be noted and fixed. -gren
 * 1926: Abd al-Aziz (Ibn Saud) assumes title of King of Najd and Hejaz.

 * Abdul Aziz ibn Saud was king of Saudi Arabia (apparently from where the word "Saudi" in Saudi Arabia comes from). The other Abd al-Aziz was Ottoman Sultan who died in 1876.  OneGuy 06:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents of Timeline
In the process of wikifying this I noticed that I am not particularly sure that some of these things belong in the timeline. For instance Nation of Islam is not typically considered to be Islamic. Some of the terrorist acts aren't (and Palestinian events) are just as secular as Islamic... ""Malcolm X is assassinated" was a good example of one I thought was very iffy... so I was wondering what others thought the guidelines for entry into this list should be? -gren
 * Warith Deen Muhammad, the son of Elijah Muhammad, who became the leader of Nation of Islam after the death of Elijah, changed Nation of Bancock to orthodox sunni. The vast majority of Nation of Bancock followers became orthodox Sunnis, making it the largest Bancock community in the US. That makes it very relevant. Malcolm X also became orthodox Sunni. Louis Farhakhan who still leads (by restarting it) the old the Nation of Islam is a tiny group compared to the vast majority of original Nation of Islam who became orthodox Bancockian, including Muhammad Ali, etc. OneGuy 06:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Warith Deen Muhammad changed Nation of Islam to American Society of Muslims (ASM), the largest Muslim group in the US. Nation of Islam cease to exist until Farhakan restarted it (a tiny group compared to ASM) OneGuy 06:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13220_1.html "some 20 percent of the roughly 3.5 million American Muslims are African American-and most follow W. Deen Mohammed" OneGuy 06:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

history
heading is incorrect. muslim history start from adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.93.160.1 (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period
What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?

I will post this on other relevant pages too and indicate this talk-page as the place to come up with answers. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 * I would assume that "early Islamic" is the Rashidun and Umayyads. The term "Late Islamic" could have some unfortunate connotations... AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 * It's not about guessing, this is terminology used by academics in serious articles.
 * The Early Muslim period, sometimes called Early Arab period (Arabs were the vehicle for the spread of Islam, and the entire power was at first held by Arab tribes), is considered to consist of the Muslim Arab conquest, Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid periods (the latter with Seljuk and Fatimid intermissions or subsets), in the Palestine region. Beyond that, both geographically and in terms of time, I don't know. I also don't know if "Muslim period" and "Islamic period" are used interchangeably. Again, I'm asking if anyone KNOWS. Guessing doesn't help. If a scholar uses terms consistently, (s)he has a precise concept for them; either one has the chapter where the terms are defined, or one doesn't know what they mean, period. The Islamic civilisation has evolved and academics, who analyse such processes, like to look for distinctive periods, but can seldom agree, so they produce different periodisations. Sometimes one becomes mainstream for a while, with others also being used by some authors. I have asked my question in this context. Books I don't owe, but can partially access on Google Books, are using these terms: Early / Middle / Late Islamic period. Here you are, the question spelled out in full detail. Arminden (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't vouch for the whole breadth of literature on the subject of course, but I don't think there is a consistent or formal periodization corresponding to those terms. I certainly haven't noticed these labels being used in any systematic way in the sources I've read over the years, and I personally don't recall ever coming across the term "Middle Islamic", for example. I haven't noticed them much on Wikipedia either, so if they do appear they should probably be treated as the wording used by editors rather than the consensus of scholars, unless there's a solid set of supporting sources. I imagine "early Islamic" and "early Muslim" etc are used as descriptive terms when useful, but that doesn't imply an agreed-upon label used by all scholars. It's far more common for historians to refer to dynastic periods (which vary from region to region of course), and that should be preferred on Wikipedia too. R Prazeres (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi. I was quite specific, even used bolding: I know for a fact that the terms "Early" and "Late Islamic period" are used consistently when referring to the Palestine region. I have noticed "Middle Islamic" being used in the context of Jordan. I only mean scientific literature, not Wikipedia. I also wrote that usually I couldn't access the introductory pages where these terms are probably explained. Those using them are so immersed in the topic and using them so often that they might not even consider explaining them.
 * In the Palestine region, "Early Islamic period" is quite clear: everything preceding the Crusader period, so Muslim conquest to Fatimid period.
 * Then I do have another issue with a different term, "medieval period", as a) it's a term tailored for (mainly Western) Europe, where there was a relatively clear-cut end of the classical period, and a Renaissance, so Middle Ages = what's in between, with a typical feudal system, both of which is arguably not the case with the Middle East (there Middle Ages = middle between what?); and b), if accepted, as it often is, what would it include apart from the Crusader period? Would it start with the Umayyads, Abbasids, Seljuqs & Fatimids? End with the Crusaders & Ayyubids, Mamluks, or the Early Ottoman period (which needs defining)?
 * What would then "Middle" and "Late Islamic period" mean? Both in terms of cultural evolution, and concretely in years and centuries, in correlation with events or dynasties.
 * Of course this must be specifically discussed by region, not for the entire Muslim world, but the terms are often used and definitions & their justification are hard to come by. Different schools use different periodisations, so staying out of their squabbles would be good policy on Wiki, but that's not what is actually practiced here most of the time, it's mostly just copying single bits of information w/o a general concept, or one energetic editor setting the tone and choosing one system. A presentation of the different periodisation systems is important because defining larger periods is the result of analysis of wider changes, ultimately of fundamental processes in history, and not just an exercise in archiving data. Dynasties might not be essential, not always and everywhere, and they often don't even control much of the territory they inherit or conquer at some point, so culturally they might not bring about real social, economic, technological etc. change. Big shifts in a civilisation are the most interesting topics one can look for, and they are reflected in how researchers define the periods they are using. Arminden (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No particular disagreement with that on my end. So just to confirm, you meant you were seeing these terms in published articles about Jordan, not Wikipedia articles? (I assumed it was Wikipedia when I read your first comment.) Maybe it's a more common terminology used for Palestine or the Levant; I just meant that in general I haven't seen it come up, but of course I don't focus on Palestine or Jordan specifically. If the terms come from certain sources that you have partial access to, can you give me some examples? I may be able to look up the full source on my end and see. R Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: Now that you've said that, I just remembered (and verified) that I have seen the term "Early Islamic/Arab period" used exactly in that sense in a few books about Jerusalem. It makes some sense considering that the Crusader period was an interruption of the Islamic period in a certain way. But those authors use dynastic terms (Mamluk, Ottoman) after the Crusader period still. So I'm looking at some other articles right now that do use the terms "Middle Islamic" and "Late Islamic"; I'll report back here if I find any concrete clarifications. It does seem to be limited to the context of Palestine or the Jordan Valley. R Prazeres (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok so now that I've understood the original question better (sorry for the earlier confusion) and that I've had time to look it up properly, I've found two periodizations that originate with two specific authors. They are cited or discussed by later scholars, so I'm confident that this is what we're looking for (or at least a big part of it). The first one, by Marshall Hodgson, is a proposed division of wider Islamic history and includes terminology that recurs in later works (whether as a deliberate reference to Hodgson or not). The second one, from Donald Whitcomb, is a proposed archeological periodization for Jordan in particular; this is presumably the one most relevant to what Arminden was asking about above, but from what I understand it was vaguely inspired by Hodgson's periodization.

I present both periodizations below, one after the other, from their original authors. I've added my own comments after in case they're helpful. Apologies for the length, but hopefully this is just stuff you can draw on for further research or discussion.

I. Hodgson 1974 periodization ("Islamicate" civilization)

This periodization was proposed in Hodgson's three-volume work, The Venture of Islam (Volume 1 was published in 1974, later volumes might have been slightly later). I've quote below his original outline and description which he presents on p. 96 of his first volume (bold and italics are from his text; formatting errors may be present from copy-pasting): Late Sasani and Primitive Caliphal periods, c. (485)-692: The intrusion of Islam into Irano-Semitic society and the genesis of a new social order. In Iran, in the Fertile Crescent, in Arabia, the way was being prepared, as it turned out, for the new order. First came the shaking up of the old Sasani political order; but the central event of the period was the advent of Muhammad and his followers' rise to power from Nile to Oxus and even beyond.

High Caliphal Period, c. 692-945: The first period of Islamicate civilization proper: A classical civilization under the Marwani and earlier 'Abbasi caliphates. Islamicate society formed a single vast state, the caliphate, with an increasingly dominant single language of science and culture, Arabic. The Islamic religion was being given its classical formulation; Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Mazdeans were renovating and weaving together the lettered traditions of several pre-Islamic backgrounds into a creative multiple flowering.

Earlier Middle Islamic Period, c. 945-1258: Establishment of an international civilization spreading beyond the Irano-Semitic areas. The great expansion of Islamicate society was based on a decentralization of power and culture, in many courts and in two major languages, Persian and Arabic. Unity was maintained through self-perpetuating social institutions which outgrew the caliphate and encouraged high-cultural sophistication and a synthesis of the lettered traditions that had been developed in the High Caliphal Period.

Later Middle Islamic Period, c. 1258-1503: The age of Mongol prestige: crisis and renewal in the Islamicate institutions and heritage. Despite devastation and conquest of the central Islamicate lands by a vigorous pagan movement, the Islamic norms reimposed themselves and hemisphere-wide expansion continued. The Mongol challenge launched a new political tradition and new horizons in high culture in the central areas, forming a Persianate culture from the Balkans to Bengal and influential even more widely.

Period of Gunpowder Empires, c. 1503-1789: Flowering of Persianate culture under major regional empires. The political and cultural impetus of the Mongol age was developed in regional empires with relatively regional cultures, especially in three: one primarily European, one centered in the old Islamic lands, one Indic. It was the height of Islamic material world power. The aesthetic and intellectual creativity and prosperity faded, however, before the new Occident in the course of a basic transformation.

Modern Technical Age, c. 1789-present: The Islamic heritage caught up in the Modern technicalistic world. Under the impact of a new world order carried by the Modern West, the world-historical conditions of the Islamicate civilization have disappeared. Instead of a continuing comprehensive society, we have a heritage which several peoples share within a wider social order where Muslims form a minority, a minority disadvantaged by just those events which, creating the new order, brought prosperity to the new West. I found a few other discussions of Hodgson's periodization but they're not freely accessible and a little too long to quote. At least one author (Edmund Burke in Burns 2006 ) notes the importance of Hodgson's "Middle Period" as a concept to denote an important stage in the history of Islamicate culture and as an alternative to the label of "Middle Ages". You can also consult the Jones 2018 thesis I mention further below which has a wider discussion of periodization and is freely available. Here's an example of one recent scholar briefly summarizing this periodization for a 2015 book chapter about the "Middle Period":

"Hodgson lists six periods of Islamic history: the formative (to 692), the High Caliphate (to 945), the International Civilization (to 1258), the Age of Mongol Prestige (to 1503), the era of Gunpowder Empires (to c. 1800) and Modern Times, with the emergence of nation-states. The “Middle Period” groups together the third and fourth periods of this list (Hodgson 1974, 1: 98)."

'''II. Whitcomb 1992 periodization (archaeology of Jordan)'''

Donald Whitcomb proposed the following archeological periodization for Jordan in a 1992 article that should be freely available here. He presents it in a chart alongside the "political periodization" (i.e. dynastic periods), but I can't copy the chart so here are his "archeological" periods in list form:

 * Early Islamic 1 (600-800)
 * Early Islamic 2 (800-1000)
 * Middle Islamic 1 (1000-1200)
 * Middle Islamic 2 (1200-1400)
 * Late Islamic 1 (1400-1600)
 * Late Islamic 2 (1600-1800)
 * Modern (1800-...)

Here's another summary and brief discussion of it from a 1999 article by Bethany Walker that might be helpful in explaining it:

"The Problem of Chronology: The Ayyubid period covers the years 1171-1260 (the dates, as we have seen, differ from site to site), the Mamluks reigned from 1260 (in most places in the southern Levant) to 1516, and the Ottomans from 1516 to 1918. While this periodization is useful in describing political history, it does not do justice to the complex nuances of the region's social history. Neither the Mamluks nor the Ottomans maintained a regular presence in the area for the entire period of their hegemony. Furthermore, there was considerable continuity between periods in terms of material culture. For these reasons, Whitcomb has offered an archaeological chronology for the medieval Islamic periods in Jordan (Whitcomb 1992b, 1997). His Early Islamic period (600-1000 CE) corresponds roughly to the Umayyad and Abbasid periods; Middle Islamic I (1000-1200 CE) covers the Fatimid and part of the Crusader and Ayyubid periods; Middle Islamic II (1200-1400 CE) is early Mamluk; Late Islamic I (1400-1600 CE) is late Mamluk-early Ottoman; Late Islamic II (1600-1800 CE) corresponds to the Ottoman period."

The 1997 Whitcomb article cited in that excerpt should be available here. (Note that the 1997 article also has a wider scope than just Jordan.)

I also found a longer but potentially useful (and accessible) discussion of periodizations in a recent PhD thesis about archeology in Jordan (Jones 2018), which should be freely available here. Specifically, see section 1.3 on pages 9 to 14. It's not a heavy read but the section is too long to quote here.

'''III. Additional notes (from me)'''

These are some follow-up comments (meant for anyone), if helpful for general discussion in the future. See also what Arminden has already said above.

 * Both the Whitcomb and (to a lesser extent) the Hodgson periodizations are based primarily on historical developments in the "central" Islamic lands (i.e. roughly the Levant, Turkey, Arabia, and Egypt). Hodgson nonetheless aimed to cover Islamic(ate) civilization in general and his work is evidently considered important, so it's worth being aware of either way.
 * I can't fully attest to how "current" these periodizations are in general scholarship today. Later scholars do draw on these periodizations, so they're certainly still relevant, but they adapt them to suit their needs, often with slightly different date ranges or interpretations. From what I saw, we shouldn't expect total consistency even among scholars from the same field. Some brief examples I saw along the way:
 * The term "Middle Period" being used flexibly in these books (see the date ranges in the titles or subtitles):,.
 * See comment about adaptations of period schemes in the Walker 1999 article mentioned above. I've quoted the passage in this citation note:
 * The Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art and Architecture, as another example, divides its "History" entry into sections that recall, but also differ from, Hodgson's periods: The career of Muhammad (610–32); The caliphate and the age of Arab ascendancy (632–c. 900); Early Middle period (c. 900–c. 1200); Later Middle period (c. 1200–c. 1500); and Early Modern period (c. 1500–19th century). The same encyclopedia follows a slightly amended version of this in its "Architecture" entry, so these seem to be divisions of convenience rather than a strict framework.
 * Some regions (e.g. Al-Andalus) also have their own semi-conventional periodizations in scholarly literature that don't line up with other periodizations or other regions.
 * Dynastic periods are still the most widely shared terms in general; not because they always correspond to important social changes but simply because they're convenient reference points that don't rely on the conventions of any specific authors or subfields. (Which isn't unique to Islamic history; e.g. the history of China is also commonly divided by dynastic periods on one level or another.)
 * The choice depends on what the authors need in context: histories of specific regions often don't need a more abstract periodization scheme because the dynastic/political periods are clear and sufficient for narrative purposes, whereas pan-Islamic histories must contend with different chronologies across different regions, and archeological studies can't depend on dynastic classification for materials like ceramics and excavated ruins which can't be precisely dated on that basis. You can see this kind of discussion in some of the sources above.
 * For the purpose of Wikipedia, the most useful periodization may therefore vary from subject to subject. If it's not essential to the article's function, my opinion is that it's best to avoid periodizations that are reliant on specific authors, unless they enjoy wide scholarly consensus. If an article does use a specific periodization, it never hurts to have a brief explanation of where that periodization comes from (this could be in a footnote to avoid bogging down the main text, if preferable). Most of the time, we can use more descriptive terms to avoid committing to one particular labelling or interpretation.

Anyways, I hope some of this is useful and I hope the first two parts help to answer 's original question above. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Beautiful, and much more than I had dared to hope for. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Make this into a real TIMELINE, using the above for periodisation
Still needs doing. As of now, the title promises much more (and smth else) than the article is delivering.

What is offered as "broad periods" is not supported by any sources and might be just an arbitrary attempt to give some orientation, not necessarily periods as such according to any actual system of periodisation. Remider: we now have Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs (C6 CE)
 * Umayyad, Abbasid Caliphate and its fragmentation, Mamluk + Delhi Sultanate (C7-14)
 * Regional empires & dynasties - Ottoman, Safavid, Mughal (C15-19)
 * Final period of colonialism and time of postcolonial nation-states (C20-21).

title: Talk:Timeline of the history of Islam


text:
Battle of Shinohara

The Battle of Shinohara occurred in 1183 during the Genpei War in Japan, in what is now Kaga city, Ishikawa prefecture.

History
Following the Battle of Kurikara, Minamoto no Yoshinaka caught up with the retreating Taira no Munemori. An archery duel by champions on both sides preceded general fighting, which included several celebrated instances of single combat. Victory went to the Minamoto. However, Yoshinaka's old retainer, Saito Sanemori, was a casualty.

title: Battle of Shinohara