Talk:Paul von Hindenburg/Archive 2

Hindenburg, the Warrior
This article seems almost to neglect Hindenburg's experiences during the Great War [and has next-to-nothing on his pre-war life] and is almost entirley devoted to post-war political career. This is odd, since it seems to me that Hindenburg is primarily remembered as a general during the war, with events after the war being almost anti-climatic for him. --Filippo Argenti 01:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Consistency
in the opening paragraph, you say that he retired for the first time in 1913, in the core article it is 1911. Made up your minds:) --Jinxs 11:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Medals and ranks
Dates of rank and a list of all his medals would be an awesome addition to this article. Can someone provide a source for this? -OberRanks (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Podgorna St.
I wonder what Podgórna Street was called when the town was in Germany and Hindenburg lived there.

Sca (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitler believed?
The article says: Hitler, who believed that no Jews had served in the Great War. The word believed is not NPOV. Unless you can find a citation in a good source, we should replace this word by another. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Similarly for the word surprised soon afterwards. Is there any citation?  If not it doesn't sound NPOV and we should find another word to use. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First Term
The article appears to suggest that the concept of a "Presidential government" originated during Hindenburg's administration. Actually, this concept is found during the Bismarckian period under Kaiser Wilhem 1. At that time, Bismarck owed his position as Chancellor not to the Reichstag, but to the emperor. I suggest that the article include references to the similarity between the two periods.69.47.159.179 (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a difference. It was by the content of the then Constitution that the executive power belonged to the Kaiser alone, as in all constitutional monarchies. Therefore, the chancellor was only responsible to the Kaiser. (Until the Amendment of October 1918, which made it a parliamentary monarchy.) The Weimar Constitution, however, was a parliamentary republic; the presidential cabinets were not technically breaking the constitution, but definitely using exceptional provisions of it. That's why it is a new idea. --84.154.77.71 (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment?
The last section of this article is an entirely unexplained summary of the opinion of a single source. It purports to "assess" an entire person in two sentences. Such inclusions are inappropriate unless they are justified and contribute to the reader's understanding of some aspect of the subject. This section should be removed entirely.AWBridges (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)