Talk:Führer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feminine forms[edit]

Nillurcheier has reverted my diff so I wanted to discuss the use of the female version - Führerin - in the article. Regarding Hitler, I think it's perfectly appropriate to limit it to the masculine Führer, but we should at least somewhere make a note that the term refers exclusively to men, while e.g. a woman giving a guided museum tour would be a Museumsführerin, not a Museumsführer. The MOS recommends gender-neutral language where practical. This is relevant in particular for the translation of "Parteivorsitzende(r)" in the final section; in Germany, four out of eleven party chairs or co-chairs are women. I'm not sure how best to address this, so I am inviting discussion to form a consensus.-Ich (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence from reliable sources that the feminine form is actually used in the real world. The preference for gender-neutral language is trumped (pardon the expression) by actual real-world usage. We report what the real world does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not generally oppose the mentioning of female forms, however it seemed to me to be very selective to add this here. If somebody is going to make a huge amendment and mentioning all German female forms, he or she is welcome. But I dislike this kind of being picky. And yes, Führerin is familiar in German, eg Spielführerin and Stadtführerin have zillions of hits. --Nillurcheier (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say to one sentence, in the "Modern German usage" section: "As a language with grammatical gender, Führer refers to a male leader; the feminine form is Führerin." and let curious folks click on the link. I adapted part of Gender neutrality in languages with grammatical gender#German as a new section in Grammatical gender in German#Professions. What do you think?-Ich (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think being in the body is better than in the lead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Location of the infobox[edit]

I would like to ask why it is insisted not to have the infobox at the top of the page. The term Führer is essentially always used in the context of some reference to Hitler or Nazism, and to suggest otherwise is quite frankly ignorant if not deceitful. While it may be argued that the term Führer is used in compound words in the German language this fact is irrelevant as essentially 90% of the article is written about its use in Nazism and association to Hitler, and even the presence of the Nazism sidebar at the top of the page seems to apparently confirm this. Furthermore, while it may also be argued that the term "Führer" predates Hitler, again I point out the fact that this is hardly relevant as once again, the page is largely written about the term's association to Hitler. The page Duce has the infobox located at the top, even though the term "Duce" also predates Mussolini. Unless there is some truly compelling argument for why the infobox should remain lower in the page, I believe it is appropriate to move it to the top. 129.97.125.3 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you actually read the article carefully. While it is certainly the case that "Fuhrer" is in this day and age intimately connected to Hitler in the public mind, the term has a complete separate history preceding his use of the term, and this is what the article is primarily about. Yes, we do cover the Nazi use of it, as we should, and it is given a good percentage of the article, but it's not the primary purpose of the article, which is why the info box concerning Hitler's use is down by the section about the term's use as a political office (Hitler's use of it being the first time it was used as a political office name). The connection to Nazism is why there's a Nazism navbox at the top (which maybe should be moved down), but that is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is the same treatment not given to the terms Duce and Poglavnik, both of which are similar to Führer in that they have separate histories unconnected to their use by certain fascist regimes in those countries? If this is the standard that should be used when referring to these political office titles of fascist countries then it should be applied to all pages. Furthermore, I doubt most people coming to the "Führer" page are doing so because they are interested in Georg von Schönerer, but rather because they are interested in Hitler and his usage of the title and the political office as it was in Nazi Germany. Also, I do not see why the Nazism sidebox is to be kept at the top while the infobox should not.
129.97.125.3 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is that policy relevant in this article? Both articles exist and that's a fact. I don't see why you insist on treating this article differently for some reason. Is there some kind of ulterior motive to doing so? 129.97.125.3 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not agree with the removal of the Führer standard and the portrait of Hitler from the infobox. This was the standard as used for the office of the Führer of Nazi Germany and the portrait is included because that is consistent with other similar infoboxes for political offices. I don't see why it is necessary at all to scrub the page clean of pictures of Hitler (and not do the same for the Duce or Poglavnik pages) when the office is clearly associated with Hitler? 129.97.125.3 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while Wikipedia has standards for consistency within articles, there is no standard for consistency between articles. One less swastika and two less pictures of Hitler aren't going to harm Wikipedia or make it less useful for our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how is the omitting of relevant graphics supposed to make it more useful for people coming to read this page? And again, I would like to point out that most readers are probably coming to the article to read about the political office used by Hitler. Also "one less swastika and two less pictures of Hitler" on this particular page do not make sense when those are the only graphics in the page about Hitler and the political office. 129.97.125.3 (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the article will give them all that information, in well-written English-language words. The purpose of images is not to decorate an article, it is to help provide information for the reader. There's nothing in the article which requires displaying a swastika, and no need to remind any reader of what Hitler looks like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect this sounds like nothing more than mental gymnastics to somehow justify removing pictures from an article (for what reason???), considering these images are indeed relevant to the article (the standard is relevant as it was the standard of the political office, and the portraits are relevant as they illustrate the most notable bearer of the title as well as a propaganda poster using the name of the title. So indeed there is a "requirement" that the page "display a swastika", because it just so happens that "the swastika" is the flag/standard used by that political office. In fact, most readers know exactly what Hitler looks like before they have read the Adolf Hitler page, so why don't you remove the portrait from that page too?
It seems there is no use in convincing you of my reasons. Thus I would like to start a vote on this issue. 129.97.125.3 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored one image which does seem to be pertinent to the use of "Fuhrer".
Starting a vote is your choice, but in general some time is given for editors to respond to an existing discussion before a vote is started. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BMK: this page isn't just about the political title, its about the general usage of the word, so it is fitting that the infobox is in the appropriate section, not the article header. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I'm fine with just the one image of Hitler: the propaganda piece with Fuhrer written on it. Folks know what Hitler looks like, we don't need two pictures of him. One, showing that contemporary propaganda called him the Fuhrer (in the infobox) is fine. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CaptainEek: An editor just restored Hitler's personal standard to the infobox, but I really don't understand why. This article is about a German word, and the use of the word as a title. Hitler wasn't the only person to use that word as a title, but he is by far the best known. But Hitler's standard doesn't tell the reader anything about the word, or about the use of the word as a title, it's simply something connected to Hitler personally. It's as inappropriate as using Hitler's standard in an article about vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian. It's an appropriate image for Adolf Hitler, and perhpas elsewhere, but it has absolutely no relevance to this article and should be removed again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    90% of the article is written about its use in Nazi Germany and the comparison with vegetarianism is absurd, misinformed if not intentionally misleading. Vegetarianism as a practice is not associated with Hitler, while (as you have conceded yourself earlier) the word "Führer" is intimately connected to Hitler nowadays. As I have explained already the standard is included because that flag is the standard of the title of the Führer (in fact it is not Hitler's personal standard and there is no source to back up that claim, see here, and the following images 1 and 2 dating back to the Nazi Germany regime clearly indicate that the flag is the "Standard of the Führer"). If there happen to be a surplus of pictures about Hitler it is simply because there are an abundance of examples of the use in Nazi Germany, you are welcome to include an image Georg Ritter von Schönerer if you so desire or other pictures relevant to the term "Führer" that are not connected to Hitler or Nazism. 129.97.125.3 (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Captain Eek agrees, the one image of Hitler -- reflecting the use of "Fuhrer" in Nazi propaganda -- is sufficient, since this is not an article about Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not specifically about Hitler but it's about a topic that is intimately related to Hitler. The flag is relevant to the article for the reasons I provided earlier (the flag is not Hitler's personal flag). 129.97.125.3 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with the reasoning of BMK and Captain Eek. First, the RFC is Premature. Secondly this article is about the word, not the title and NSDAP party office of Hitler alone. It is WP:UNDUE weight to focus on Hitler alone and include his standard and flag. They should be removed. Kierzek (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just explained that the flag was not his personal flag, and that the flag belonged to the political title of Führer. 129.97.125.3 (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I explained why it does not belong in the info box. One image of Hitler in the article is sufficient. Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with BMK, CaptainEek & Kierzek. If the article does not concentrate on the term and the title (rather than AH and the ruling party in his time), then it becomes pointless. Moving pics, paraphenalia and infoboxes to the head of the page inevitably implies that the subject is the most infamous holder of the title (AH himself) and his era. Pincrete (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on location of the infobox and inclusion of images[edit]

Should the infobox for the political office "Führer and Reich Chancellor of the German People" as used in Nazi Germany be moved to the top (along with having the Nazism sidebar kept below it)? Should the images used in the page Führer be kept (specifically, the images for the standard of the Führer, the portrait of Hitler in the infobox, and the propaganda poster)?

I suggest the following options to proceed:

  • Option 1: Keep images, move the infobox to the top.
  • Option 2: Keep images, leave infobox where it is.
  • Option 3: Do not keep images, move the infobox to the top.
  • Option 4: Do not keep images and leave the infobox where it is.

I request that any editors participating in this RfC include a reason for their announced support for whatever option they endorse, and further elaborate on how they wish to implement this if they wish. 129.97.125.3 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment from opening user: While I have explained my proposal in depth in the above discussion, I reiterate my support for option 1 for the following reasons:
    • The term Führer is essentially always used in the context of some reference to Hitler or Nazism.
    • Though the term Führer predates Hitler's political office this is irrelevant as the page is written largely about the political office used by Hitler, and most readers coming to this page are doing so to read about his political office, not its use in compound words (which is what Wiktionary is for) or its use by some obscure figure before Hitler.
    • For consistency between articles: Duce and Poglavnik are also political offices used in fascist nations, which have infoboxes kept at the top of the page and contain respective images for their political office standards and holders
    • The inclusion of the standard of the Führer is relevant as that is the flag used by this political office, there is really no actual reason for removing this
    • The inclusion of the portrait of Hitler in the infobox is relevant as that was the primary bearer of this political office
    • The inclusion of the propaganda poster in the article is relevant as the propaganda poster clearly makes reference to the political office held by Hitler
    • There is really no good reason for scrubbing the page clean of images of Hitler or the flag of the political office
129.97.125.3 (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the only other editor to participate in the original discussion before the RfC was started This RfC is entirely premature, as the IP started it after only a few minutes worth of discussion between them and myself, without waiting for any other editors to comment. Also, the RfC is ridiculously over-complicated for such an simple issue. I would suggest that anyone coming to this RfC to comment instead continue the discussion in the section above this, where I believe I have explained my reasoning, and will be happy to respond to any questions or concerns about them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that inclusion of all the Nazi accoutrement is WP:Undue and a distraction. We have lots of legitimate places to drape that shit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. This article is tacitly about the office Hitler held, not about the word or everything else called "Führer". The images are fine, standard infobox stuff and relevant to the topic. @Beyond My Ken: the way I see it is we're already at RfC. Illegitimate RfCs can be closed [prematurely] and since this wasn't and there are comments I think we should let it run its course. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone interested in closing RfCs passes this way, I suggest that the discussion in the section above is more pertinent to the question at hand than is this RfC, and that therefore that it not be closed without taking those opinions into account, especially considering that there a clear consensus there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the Führerstandarte in the infobox[edit]

While I understand the concern of users like BMK as to limiting the number of Nazi-related images in this article, I believe that the inclusion of the Führerstandarte in the infobox, while not entirely vital, is harmless and does add information. The idea that the inclusion of the flag is nothing more than "accroutrement and a distraction" makes little sense, especially considering that Nazi imagery is used sparingly within the article and the standard of the political office was an important symbol used to represent the office of Führer itself.

I also oppose the view that the inclusion of a singular image is WP:Undue and somehow a "distraction", especially considering that in modern contexts the word "Führer" by itself is in both English and German sources is always used to represent the Nazi political office and not simply as "leader" or "guide".
As creating a page entirely dedicated to the word Führer, its definition and its usages on its own would be far too short to justify even being an article and has been better suited to a Wiktionary article, not a Wikipedia article. I argue then that the focus that the article places on Hitler and the usage of Führer is not undue nor is it "unnecessary weight". The article itself is not about the word itself but the title. If the article were about the word itself (which once again, Wikipedia rarely makes articles solely about words, Wiktionary is the place for that) then it could be argued that the focus on Nazi Germany is unnecessary, but that is clearly not the case here.
This is not like the case of "President" or "King" where the usage in English is diverse and could be used to represent numerous individual offices, titles and positions. The common usage of Führer in English is, and will continue to be, in reference to Hitler and a singular political office. I repeat my point once again that this article is not about the word, it is about the political office and its usages as a political title.

With that being said, the inclusion of the Führerstandarte- a political symbol of the office does not cause any harm to the article. The article does not suddenly "suck" because of another swastika, especially considering there's only 2 images in the article aside from one template image. The inclusion of a political symbol of an office is not "decoration", it is a piece of information used to inform the reader as to the symbols used by political institutions. Should we imply that the inclusion of the American presidential standard is "decoration" since it doesn't tell anything about the actual office itself? Of course not because once again, it is a political symbol used by the office to represent itself.

Even if we then continue to imply that this article is about the word itself and not about the political title (which is unambiguously used to refer to Hitler; and if it was just about the word itself it should be deleted outright), I fail to see how one could argue that the inclusion of a singular image, one which educates the viewer on the political symbolism used by the office, in a singular infobox, is harmful.

To summarize:

  • I oppose the idea that the inclusion of the image is distracting and accroutrement on the grounds that images are already used sparingly in the article, and the inclusion of the standard adds educational value.
  • I oppose the idea that the article adds undue weight in regards to its focus on the Nazi usage of the term
  • I oppose the idea that the inclusion of the image would add undue weight
  • I oppose the idea that the article should even be implied as solely referring to the word, especially considering that Wiktionary is the place for that.
  • I support the inclusion of the Führerstandarte in the infobox, on the grounds that it adds educational value by including political symbols used by the office to represent itself.

TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Führer" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect The Führer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 13 § The Führer until a consensus is reached. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Führer&oldid=1216342204"