User:TheTeaDrinker/sandbox

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019
In Economy and Culture it says this Wages were slightly lower in the mid to late 1930s compared with wages during the Weimar Republic, while the cost of living increased by 25 per cent. I might be wrong but I think it's supposed to be "25 percent"? Gekku032 (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm not sure if this was an WP:ENGVAR situation, but I've changed all instances of "per cent" into the percent sign, "%", which should be acceptable in any variety of English.
 * ,WP:PERCENT, this IS an Engvar situation. I have no strong opinions on the use of the symbol, but MOS appears to prefer the 'word form' to the symbol in non-technical articles.Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC) .... ps, this isn't as clear-cut as spelling differences, it's more like a hyphenation difference. Modern UK readers probably use and understand both forms with equal facility. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Chicago Manual of Style also calls for words to be used rather than the symbol in non-science writing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The New York Times Manual of Style basically agrees, saying that the symbol can be used in headlines, charts and table. It also specifies that "percent" is one word, not two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, having replaced all instances of "per cent" with "%", I've now replaced "%" with "percent" in accordance with the discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Derrrr? In what part of Britain is New York located? At the risk of contradicting myself (since I acknowledged that Brits understand both forms), if we're going to consult style guides on an Engvar matter, let them at least be British - or follow MOS - which says 'gapped' for UK English. (This is maybe one of those rare instances when UK use is more rational, or at least is consistent with per annum, per capita etc). Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that if the usage in the UK is "per cent", then that is fine, but do you have a source similar to the style guides quoted above which says that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PERCENT.Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have an Oxford University Press dictionary here (978-0-19-956174-2), which says the UK version is "per cent" and the US version is "percent". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. It looks like we're back where we started, and that is the right place to be.  My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Austrian-German
A hidden note says not to add "Austrian born" or anything similar to the first sentence without discussion. I propose saying "Austrian-German" instead of "German" to avoid inaccuracy (without linking it or anything). I understand that this is discussed in more detail in the second paragraph—but that's no reason to mislead readers in the article's opening statement. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is being "mislead" because nothing is actually being said there about his ethnicity or nationality. It's already dealt with down in the lede, and doesn't need to go into the lede sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The main logic of 'German' is that he is notable for being a German politician, war leader etc. This is consistent with other articles where nationality when the person became notable is used, nationality at birth being treated as secondary. To complicate matters further, modern Austria did not exist and - as an ethnic nationalist, - he saw himself as, and was seen as, German rather than Austrian. However one deals with the subject of his nationalities and birth place, it is difficult to be simultaneously comprehensive and concise and clear. I think present text is a good compromise. Pincrete (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree the text is sufficient in its present form. Kierzek (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional infos about Hitler's medical lost file ?
These additionals info (2 letters + Bernhard Lustig's testimony) have been apparently (*) published only in the 2011/09/29 paperback version of this book "Hitler's First War Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War" Thomas Weber ISBN : 9780199226382 (*) I don't have access to this book!

Excerpts from this article (2011/10/21 HITLER'S WAR BOAST EXPOSED AS A MYTH Unpublished letters disprove claim that he was blinded in action by a British mustard gas attack https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/hitlers-war-boast-exposed-as-a-myth-2373590.html Here is a similar article : Hitler's war boast is a lie, letters show https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8840279/Hitlers-war-boast-is-a-lie-letters-show.html )

"(...)Letters written by two prominent American neurologists cast serious doubts on Hitler's mental state at the end of the First World War, confirming that he was treated for "hysterical amblyopia", a psychiatric disorder known as "hysterical blindness".(...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_Blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_disorder (...)The letters, written in 1943, recall that Otfrid Förster, a renowned neurosurgeon, told each of the Americans in the 1930s that he had inspected Hitler's medical file from Pasewalk military hospital in Germany in 1918. He told them the file clearly showed that Hitler had been treated for hysterical blindness.  ''(...) Other new evidence brought to Dr Weber's attention following his book came from Bernhard Lustig, a Jewish veteran from Hitler's regiment who emigrated to Palestine in 1933. Lustig said that "in none of their encounters had Hitler displayed any anti-Semitic tendencies... nor any leadership qualities"."''

Otfrid Foerster (Otfrid Förster) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otfrid_Foerster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Foster_Kennedy I did not find a wikipedia entry for Victor Gonda.

One of the 2 letters : https://figgseyeclinic.com/2015/09/16/hitlers-psychogenic-amblyopia-during-the-great-war/

A critical review of the book https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2QT33TUOXW8J2/

I am not an expert, so in your opinion is there anything here worth to be included in wikipedia ? Thanks in advance Jurbop (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no way that information should be in this general survey article. You could try asking at Talk:Health of Adolf Hitler or Talk:Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I just asked my question here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychopathography_of_Adolf_Hitler#Additional_infos_about_Hitler%27s_medical_lost_file_%3F Please delete my question here if this is the correct way to do it. Thanks in advance Jurbop (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2019
Change this line:

Hitler followed a vegetarian diet.[414]

to this:

Hitler followed a mostly vegetarian diet.[414]

According to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism), Hitler still ate liver dumplings. This by definition would make him not vegetarian in the literal sense.

Thank you! Stix1776 (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Source is Toland, p.256. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Liver dumplings
Re "Hitler followed a mostly vegetarian diet,[414] with the exception of liver dumplings.[415]"

I originally looked at this because I thought the phrasing might be improved, however according to various witnesses at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism, AH may have 'lapsed' at various times, in various ways by eating various different meats/meat products - knowingly or otherwise (liver dumplings is simply Ilse Hess's version). Everyone there appears to agree though that AH was mainly vegetarian.

Is the liver dumplings detail worth it? It isn't that reliable and doesn't seem to indicate anything particular about his beliefs or practices. Unless anybody objects, I'll take out the dumplings! Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't object. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If we know that -- at least according to one reliable source -- his diet wasn't totally vegetarian, then we can't say that he "followed a vegetarian diet", that would be deceptive. But if we say a "mostly" vegetarian diet, people are going to wonder what the exception is, so it's best to just put it out there.  It's only 6 words and a reference, not a big deal.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with BMK, as otherwise it becomes open-ended and a little vague. And frankly, if anyone can find other example(s) through RS source(s) then a further example or examples can be added. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with BMK that 'mostly vegetarian' is necessary. I just wonder if there is a better way to describe the exceptions which nobody seems certain about what/when these were. The image of someone who only 'strayed' by eating liver dumplings is very picturesque, but doesn't seem very reliably accurate.Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2019
"who" in the intro should be "whom". 148.252.24.230 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I think in this case "who" is appropriate. I believe "he and his followers" is the subject and "at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims" is the object. Since this is the case, "whom" is incorrect. (See Perdue Owl's article on this).


 * If it were "he and his followers were responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims..." then "whom" would probably be appropriate. - Frood (talk!) 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right that "at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims" is the object, but "whom" is therefore appropriate. "Whom" is the objective form, as it says in the very article you linked to. "who" in the sentence clearly refers to the "at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims", not "he and his followers". 148.252.24.230 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)