Talk:Nazi salute/Archive 2

Anonymous engraving from the Illustrated Exhibitor Magazine dated 1852
There is an anonymous engraving that depicts raised arm gestures during the installation of an ancient German king. According to the The Illustrated Exhibitor and Magazine of Art (1852) that shows this engraving to illustrate an article about the investiture of early medieval kings, the reconstruction of such ceremonies among the Gauls and Germans was undertaken by the French historian Augustin Thierry. The 1989 edition of the Brockhaus Encyclopedia repeats the claims of a Germanic origin for the salute, stating that "the Nazi salute was derived from the Late Germanic Time".

I removed the photo and reference to "anonymous engraving from the Illustrated Exhibitor Magazine dated 1852, illustrating an article about the investiture of early medieval kings". If anyone actually has this article from 1852, lets discuss its contents.--Work permit (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Worthy of discussion. FWIW, I've gone through the related Roman salute article found that statements with referenced footnotes were not consistent with the references (specifically clark). I cleaned them up. And so I think its worth while to question this particular reference. I have no access to this 150 year old manuscript from a defunct journal. What exactly does Augustin Thierry say in it? And what should we make of it? Is the Illustrated Exhibitor and Magazine of Art a defintive source worthy of mention? Is highlighting an "an anonymous engraving" giving too much wp:weight? All other sources in this article are readily availble secondary sources directly addressing the issue at hand. Except for this source.

I also deleted the statement from the "Brockhaus Encyclopedia". It is a Tertiary source and should not be relied as a reliable source when secondary sources conflict. To quote
 * Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Wikipedia itself.

Access to these UK/ Ireland libraries?
Does any one have access to these libraries in the UK/ Ireland and would be willing to check the above mentioned article about the investiture of early medieval kings, in the Illustrated Exhibitor and Magazine of Art (1851): Mootros (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * British Library, London, VOL. 1, 1852- 2, 1852 *A=1: Humanities and Social Sciences, St Pancras Reading Rooms    PP.1803.E
 * University of London - ULRLS, Senate House Library STACK SERVICE PR    Z     Vol. 1-Vol. 2, Published in 1852 only
 * National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, General Reading Room (George IV Bridge); stored in George IV Bridge    K.208.a ; Reference use in NLS
 * Trinity College Dublin Santry Book Repository    C.c.39,40
 * National Art Library (V&A Museum); Periodicals Store    PP.8.QDW
 * Cambridge University Libraries UL: Order in West Rm (in Rare Bks if pre1850) Not borrowable    L900.b.63.1; UL: Order in West Rm (in Rare Bks if pre1850) Not borrowable     L900.b.63
 * Oxford, Bodleian Library Bookstack    Johnson d.4774     In place 2 v. in 1; Bodleian Library Bookstack     Per. 170 d.17     In place 2 v. in 1


 * A copy of the article about the investiture of early medieval kings, could be put on wikimedia because copyright will have expired: "This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years "

Origins
I've provided more direct statements, and used more specific page references, for the description of the origins of the gesture. In general, references shouldn't span many pages, since that leads to wp:synth. I've addressed the art work citations, and will address the plays and films shortly.--Work permit (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Parentheses mismatch in the first sentence
.
 * ✅ Lars T. (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Falange Española
I think it's important to say in the article that before 1945 this salute was used in Spain like an "official" salute in the Franco's regime. People said "Arriba España" when they did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.58.221 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the top of the article

--Work permit (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Move?
Nazi salute is probably the most popular term for the NSDAP's saluate, but the official term for it was the "German greeting". Would anybody object if the page were moved to that title?--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, Germans would, I for one. This would mean following a line of Nazi propaganda. The German greeting is Guten Tag (North), Grüß Gott (South), Guten Morgen (everywhere, though in the evening it naturally becomes humourous). --77.4.72.90 (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I believe that moving the Nazi salute to "German greeting" would be offensive to many German editors (me included). Plus, the name could create the perception that the salute is still common among Germans. --Der rikkk (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Goebbel's list
In the 'Sieg Heil' paragraph, I found a mention of a list Goebels made of prominent Nazi-members. Although the list Goebbels made is probably a fact, it is totally unrelevant as a text in the place where it was entered. It doesn't even have a reference to the 'Sieg Heil' greeting in it. It was probably meant to be somewhere else, perhaps a different article (?). I therefore removed it, a week ago, to improve the logic of the whole text, but an unnamed reader has reversed my edit.

Why? I don't think its inclusion is useful (there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLA (talk • contribs) 13:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. A second agenda seems at work here. I found exactly the same sentence "In 1944 Joseph Goebbels made a now infamous list with "irreplaceable artists" called the Gottbegnadeten list with people such as" ....etc. inserted in other articles, e.g. Nazism and cinema (appropriately, more or less), Joseph Goebbels (also appropriately, I'd say) and Hermann Göring (out of place) - and of course here. Was this mainly meant to unfavourably highlight someone's name as often as possible? --CLA (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears to be banned sock-master User:Pierlot, who is solely obssessed with adding pictures of and references to the German actor Johannes Heesters on as many pages as possible. Far from unfavourably highlighting his name, I think the editor wants to elevate him to the level of Strauss as an indespensible major artist. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Anders Breivik
Is the Breivik's salute far-right should be included in the post 1945?

Anders Breivik just far-right salutes while he entered court in Oslo, Norway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.5.89 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No direct link to this article. Mootros (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Olympics???
"During the opening ceremony for the London 2012 Olympics, a German dignitary jokingly raised his arm in a Nazi salute in pride, as his country's athletes arrived in the stadium. This greatly amused Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall and London mayor Boris Johnson, and also sparked much entertainment in the social media.[65]"

This is POV since there is no evidence that it was "jokingly in a Nazi-salute" the article itself indicates that the Hitlergruss is right-handed and there seems to be nothing to attribute any motive to than one dubious "humorous" news story. So I'm deleting iton teh grounds of POV and probably casual racism at the base of the joke and assumptions. 94.197.127.186 (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Portuguese Consul General incident in Hamburg
Is it known when this happened? Mootros (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From the source it's not clear. Presumably before the effective disbandment of the SA in july 1934.--Work permit (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The SA wasn't disbanded in 1934, just decapitated. It continued with a large membership, though not its former political power, until wartime conscription thinned its numbers; the SA provided the principal muscle for Kristallnacht in 1938. Solicitr (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah nazi salute
I have my doubts about the salute of Hezbollah is equal to the Nazi salute. The Hezbollah salute comes from Shiite customs and is a salute for Imam Hussain, he was an important Shiite figure who had his right hand cut off: "http://www.hujjat.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=166:imam-husain-a-murdered&Itemid=100013"

People visiting the grave of Imam Hussain each year also salute Hussain using this gesture: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=835045769870545

Thus i don't think Hezbollah fits in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spenk01 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan salute
Some American KKK groups use a Nazi-style salute with the left arm raised to a 45-degree angle with the hand extended. Is that salute, if identified with Klan activity, legal in Germany?Pbrower2a (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Heil
Prior to fascism it was a common greeting in Bavaria and Austria. Mostly in Germany the supporters of the Greater German solution used it after the victory of Prussia in order to show that Austria was part of Germany as well and it always was connected to politics. In western Austria however, it is still common esp. in rural areas. (Heil!, Berg heil!, Schi heil!...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.46.163.139 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Although it is not an English word, the word "heil" is included in the English translations. This only works for readers who already know that it means "hail", with which it is cognate. I propose to amend it to "hail" in the English translations: "Heil Hitler!", "Heil, my leader!" and "Heil victory!". Any thoughts? AlanS1951 (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Heil Hitler!
I read somewhere that Hitler himself disliked being greeted with "Heil Hitler!" because he didn't want to talk about himself in the third person, and instead wanted to be greeted with "Heil, mein Führer!" to which he would reply with simply "Heil!". But what's the distinction here? What other Führers could there have been? What would have stopped Hitler from replying to "Heil Hitler!" with simply "Heil!"? J I P &#124; Talk 14:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding "Mein Führer" ("My Leader") restates an implied bond of personal loyalty and lasting submission to the Leader - compare the use of "the/our dear Leader" in North Korea. The name Hitler would not have made that point. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Satirical Use
I remember seeing footage in one episode of the 1970s documentary series 'The World at War' of a dance in England, probably before the war got serious in May 1940, in which the dancers were encouraged to give the Nazi salute as a gesture of mockery. There was a song that went with this footage, of which I only remember the words 'Not to love the Fuhrer is a big disgrace, so we'll Heil, Heil, right in the Fuhrer's face!' Perhaps worth a mention, if anyone is interested in digging for the reference.

Djwilms (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting, those same lines are prominently featured in the marching-band song in Disney's Donald Duck vs Hitler satire Der Führer's Face (1943) 83.254.154.164 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

'Breaking Bad'
The section on Breaking Bad seems really tenuous - are we really having a separate section for one TV show because it references Germany? There must be countless TV shows which have references to Hitler, given his significance in the perception of "evil". The source seems to be a fan looking specifically for things to do with the Germany, it seems no more significant than if someone went through looking for similarities with the concept of plastic or ghosts. E.g. "There is one character with the surname 'White', another 'Black', another 'Pinkman', which shows a link between this TV show and colours. Also 'Salamanca' which sounds like 'Salmon' which is a kind of pink." Is this really worth mentioning? Darthmax (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I never realized the color theme on BB. We should put that in the article right away. 139.225.184.5 (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

'Occupation of Czechoslovakia'
The photo caption about the 'German occupation of Czechoslovakia, 1938' (complete with a link to the Wikipedia article on the occupation) strikes me as misleading, for it implies that the salute is being given by native Czechs or Slovaks, supposedly weeping for joy at the invasion of their country. There were of course pro-Nazi Czechs and Slovaks, but this picture must surely have been taken during the Reich's annexation of German-speaking Sudetenland in 1938, as the shop signs in the background are in German only. The rest of Czechoslovakia wasn't occupied until the following year. In fact, given the German signs, perhaps the photograph isn't from Czechoslovakia at all but from Austria, which was also annexed in 1938. I mention all this because knowledge of what actually happened all those years ago is starting to fade, and I feel Wikipedia should try to preserve historical accuracy.92.111.250.34 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ...When Hitler initially invaded Czechoslovakia it was to prevent the persecution of three million Germans in the region given to Czechoslovakia by a Versailles treaty. Therefore, the local populations would certainly have felt liberated.

Afterwards, Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia because huge amounts of armaments were discovered there. and because Benes, leader of Czechoslovakia, stated that his country would be used as an aerodrome to attack Germany ( See Hitler's speech: reply to Roosevelt/ Der fuhrer antworted Roosevelt, which lists the armaments found).1.144.97.53 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

After 1945
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/mongolia-far-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mootros (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

where is the photo of the Brit. Royal family doing the Hitler salute?
That is quite relevant and descriptive of contemporary thought. Photo was printed in Brit. press. Vladimir 2017 (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary; a description of the event, which is already in place, should suffice. (Plus, I'm not so sure about the copyright of the image; it's probably in the public domain but I honestly don't know). JudgeRM   (talk to me)  03:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This well-publicized photo of the royal children is an indication of the positive and friendly nature of the salute (I am unarmed, I come in peace). in Philip Gibb's book, England Speaks, also known as Ordeal in England, he notes that the German people were positive towards Britain and the royal family. Hitler always displayed friendship towards Britain until Churchill made it impossible. As I recall it, Hitler supported the British Empire, Roosevelt wanted it destroyed.1.144.97.53 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Hitler's attitude towards the UK went through phases, depending on what exactly was occurring at the time. He did keep returning to the idea that Anglo-Saxons and Germans were both Aryan peoples, and therefore should be working together, and at various times he tried to persuade Britain to give him a free hand on the Continent in return for which Britannia could continue to rule the waves, but that price was much too high for the UK to accept - and if Hitler had the slightest knowledge of British foreign policy, he would have known that it had always been their goal to keep any one Continental power from getting to be too strong, hence their shifting alliances.  But Hitler also had many times in which he virulently wanted to destroy Britain, who he saw as the main enemy.  (I think the former attutude was more indicative of Hitler's Germanic romanticism, and the latter more practical.)As for Roosevelt, it was never his goal to "destroy" the British Empire (although that's what happened), but, like most Americans, he was opposed to traditional colonialism (except when the US did it), which Churchill knew, and therefore took steps to make sure Roosevelt didn't know about various things he did to promote the expansion of the Empire -- like the "Naughty Document" with Stalin, which spelled out (in a vague way) who would have post-war influence in which Eastern and Central European countries.So to say that Hitler wanted to preserve the British Empire and Roosevelt to destroy it is a drastic and misleading oversimplification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nazi salute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130808112153/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=e3157f0d-21ad-41e9-b26e-a3c06a460e73 to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=e3157f0d-21ad-41e9-b26e-a3c06a460e73
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nypost.com/2015/07/22/should-the-queen-be-judged-by-her-decades-old-nazi-salute/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Image placement in this article
Another editor, whom I have at times collaborated productively with, apparently started a discussion here about my recent efforts to bring this article into compliance with our accessibility and layout standards. But then, for some inexplicable reason, he removed it.

Apparently his beef is that the MOS, which sets these down, is now considered a guideline. Yes, it is. But guidelines are another way of saying "generally a good idea, such that you have to justify why you're not following it if someone asks". And if you have to justify it, "because I like it that way" is not sufficient justification, not by a long shot. It should be no surprise that when I saw that (instead of perhaps gently leaving me a note on my talk page explaining why he had chosen to place the images this way), he chose to just revert and say essentially that. I did not find that sufficient justification, so I reverted, citing the MOS. And was reverted again, with an explanation of "I disagree" after which my reversion which cited the relevant portion of the MOS was again reverted. Since I can stand opening discussion about this, instead of running off to RFPP I am doing it now.

I am sure, before someone says it, that "Ignore all rules" will be the first line of defense. But anyone invoking that should remember that we have a page, not itself policy but widely accepted nonetheless, on how to ignore all rules. And it says, in what I consider to be relevant part: ''"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a carte blanche. Rule-breakers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged.''

I await this information if it is to be provided. In the meantime I see that most of the changes I made have been kept in the last edits, but I still think the placement of the two stacked lead images in the "from 1933 to 1945" section should be changed to the right.

In making those moves originally I relied on a provision I thought was in the MOS somewhere, and I'm pretty sure I recall seeing it there, that says left-justified images should not be placed such that they come between heds and body text. But to be fair I have not found it.

However, I think this is just basic layout. I worked in publishing once, in particular newspapers, and at one point in that career had some page-layout responsibilities. And left-justified images below a hed, without any interposing text, is a cardinal sin. You just don't do it in a newspaper (Pick up one, if you haven't in a while ... you'll see that this is avoided). And not in books or magazines either, I'm pretty sure. I also don't see many professionally-run websites doing it, which is to say that I don't see any.

The hed text sets the reader up for what they're about to read. If you want them to read it, you want them to get right to it, without having to skip over anything in the way. Make them pass a picture, and they might just move on to something else.

I can understand if the other editor here likes alternating image placement—I do too. It is more conducive to reading as it accentuates the sweep of our eyes across the page (at least on a big enough display). This is one issue where I take issue with the MOS, although crucially it sort of allows for this departure. But it has to be done within our other constraints, not all of which are aesthetic. I'd like to be able to put left-justified images at section heds by putting them above the heds in the source as this article once did, but apparently this creates an issue with screen readers. And since one of our most important values in this project is to make the sum of all human knowledge available to as many people as possible, I will not put my sense of aesthetics over some visually impaired person's ability to apprehend the article. We also now have to take into account how the article looks on mobile, something that was not an issue back in the mid-2000s when we started and everyone was reading and editing on their desktops. And if you can't alternate placement under those constraints, better to just put them all on the right. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you pursuing something that I dropped, and restored your edit? Isn't that a bit WP:POKING? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)