Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Hitler Diaries

Hitler Diaries

 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add   to the top of the discussion and   at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at TFAR nom/doc.

The result was: not scheduled by — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn 

The forged diaries of Hitler were a series of sixty volumes of journals purportedly by Adolf Hitler, but created by Konrad Kujau (pictured) between 1981 and 1983. The diaries were purchased in 1983 for 9.3 million Deutsche Marks ($3.7 million), by the West German news magazine Stern through one of their journalists, Gerd Heidemann. Stern sold serialisation rights to several news organisations, notably The Sunday Times. In April 1983, at the press conference to announce the forthcoming publication, several historians—including two who had previously authenticated the diaries—raised questions over their validity, and subsequent forensic examination quickly confirmed the diaries were fakes. As Stern's scoop began to unravel, it soon became clear that Heidemann, who had an obsession with the Nazis, had stolen a significant proportion of the money provided. Kujau and Heidemann both spent time in prison for their parts in the fraud, and several newspaper editors lost their jobs. The scandal has been adapted for the screen twice; once as Selling Hitler (1991) for the British ITV channel, and the following year as Schtonk! for German cinema.
 * Most recent similar article(s): ? This was a unique event, and I'm not too sure what to compare it to! Debora Green (October 2015) is the most recent crime, but that's a bit of a stretch to this
 * Main editors: SchroCat
 * Promoted: 31 July 2015
 * Reasons for nomination: A huge joke to everyone else, but not, perhaps those involved! If there are other articles with a better claim to All Fools Day than this, it could be shifted back to 22 April (the date Stern announced their ownership of the diaries) or 28 April (the date Stern ran the story). It's the 33rd birthday, so not a great claim to the date if something better comes up on any of the three days.
 * Support as nominator. SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support yes, was fascinating story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC) oppose for this day but support for another day (April 22 sounds good) due to significance of events pointed out below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support fantastic choice for 1st April - a genuine article about a genuine hoax. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very strongest possible oppose you can imagine Too many people's lives were blighted by this man. Many of them are still alive. Millions of them have children alive today. For us to link Hitler with merrymaking and joking is hugely offensive. I would like to stress, I am not critical of those who have nominated / supported and may do so after this post - it's a perspective that may not be obvious to those lucky enough not to be affected. But I, and many of those close to me, were ... and still are massively affected on a day to day basis by the results of Hitler's actions and I'd be horrified if this were chosen as the April Fool article. Please, please, please withdraw this nomination and think again. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is very little to do with Hitler: it is to do with some clever, intelligent newsmen in Germany and the UK being made to look very, very foolish by a forger. The event has been depicted humorously in two screen productions and at least one book, largely because it does mock Hitler to some extent (something that started with Charlie Chaplin and has continued since). I understand the angle you're coming from on this, but I think you've missed the point of what the daries were (or, more to the point, what they were not!) - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the diaries. I remember their "discovery", and the ridiculous/offensive use to which David Irving put them to further his agenda, flipflopping along the way. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you need to lighten up Dweller. This, as pointed out throughout this page, is more to do with the hoax and less to do with Hitler.   Cassianto Talk   19:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a lighthearted topic, Cassianto. I think this is a seriously misjudged idea and will really offend a lot of our readers. Not to mention editors. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic is not purporting to be lighthearted, so I don't really see your point. Hitler was a dispicable piece of shit, I think we can all agree on that, and if we were considering putting the dictator himself on the main page on that day, then I'd be voting oppose too. However, we're not, we are talking about the hoax of a set of diaries that Hitler had nothing to do with.  April Fools Day is also not limited to just lighthearted antics, by the way.   Cassianto Talk   20:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support a well documented and effective hoax. Great choice for 1 April. I don't agree with Dweller. It is about the hoax, not Hitler. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fraudulent Hitler Diaries were Holocaust denial literature which arose from the sub-culture of elderly but still committed Nazis and their associates in West Germany during the 1980s. While the circumstances around their commissioning and publication are absurd when taken at face value, this isn't actually a lightweight or funny topic: at heart it's about Holocaust deniers and Nazis scamming one another and sucking in some media magnates and historians who should have known better. I'd like to see this excellent article on the main page soon, but it isn't suitable for the April Fools Day slot. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into an extended discussion here, but the Diaries were not Holocaust denial literature. They did not mention the Holocaust at all, which was the fact Irving used to try and claim Hitler didn't know (and made himself a prime candidate for putting up on All Fools Day and mocking). The diaries did not ever say the Holocaust never took place, nor did they try to somehow explain Hitler out of any knowledge. Your opinion on not running the aritcle is a valid one, but that point does need to be clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Richard J. Evans states in his book on Irving Telling Lies About Hitler that in addition to ignoring Hitler's central role in the Holocaust, the diaries presented Hitler in a positive light, included entries falsely claiming that he tried to stop Kristallnacht and generally were in line with the way Irving portrayed Hitler in his books (see page 26, or paragraph 2.4.8 of the online version of Evans' expert report here). With the greatest respect to you and your fine work on this article, I don't think that it is suited for 1 April. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It takes a little twisting of logic by Evans (and the odious Irving) to make the claim that they are denial literature: the diaries as they stand to not ever say the Holocaust never took place, nor did they try to somehow explain Hitler out of any knowledge. I've already said I don't want to get into an extended discussion on this, but I do think this is a valid article to run on AFD. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gitta Sereny also states in her book The German Trauma that the diaries presented Hitler as "a reasonable and lonely man", who while not liking Jews didn't intend to harm them. She also states that her investigations into the origin of the diaries in the 1980s indicated that they were part of a project run by elderly Nazis to demonstrate that Hitler was a statesman and played no part in the Holocaust. She concludes that the diaries affair shouldn't be seen as a joke as it was an attempt to manipulate history (see pages 190 to 193). This might be a useful source to incorporate into the article BTW - I only realised it covered the topic from searching Google books, and then checked my (unread) copy. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already said I do not intend to get into an extended discussion on this, and I do not intend to change that stance because one journalist has a differing opinion to mine. - SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I understand Dweller's reasonable oppose. If we run it on 1 April, I suggest to say early on that even though Hitler is bolded, it's not about him, but about a forgery and its consequences. We might say: "The forged Hitler diaries ..." (alleged, socalled, - find something better). This would also help readers for whom April Fool means nothing. We have a global readership with different cultural background. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support with the already changed wording, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – serious article, serious blurb. sst ✈(conjugate) 16:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support An excellent choice.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose quite frankly, rather tasteless to run on April Fool's. Hitler wasn't a joke, and while these are forgeries, since when are forgeries jokes? And a forgery about Hitler is so not a joke... it's just plain tasteless. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Running a serious article on a high-profile hoax and fraud on AFD is hardly tasteless. AFD isn't just about "jokes", which is a bit of a narrow definition. – SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has suggested taking the article to AfD. Just that running the article on Main Page, portaying it as "a joke" (and on a high profile day for our Main Page) is tasteless/insensitive/A Bad Idea. I'd be swift to support this article running on any other day of the year. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by AFD, I meant All Fools Day, not AfD. – SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Never come across that acronym before. --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – An article about a hoax, to be displayed on April Fool's Day is quite appropriate here and I'm happy to see it on the main page. I can see why some are a little touchy about linking Hitler to a day of fun, but those clicking onto the article from the main page will discover that the "joke" is not a joke at all and is to do with the hoax of the diaries.  I like the irony that such a dispicable subject can appear on AFD although it isn't really about Hitler at all, it was about the hoax.  I envisage that a lot of people will be introduced to the diaries as a result of curiosity and may think that Hitler appearing on AFD is, in itself, an April Fool.   Cassianto Talk   23:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: If the revisionist historians had seriously sought to rewrite history around the image of a kinder, gentler Führer, would they have chosen an incompetent crook like Kujau to mastermind the process? I don't think so. This affair is what it was, an attempt to make money by exploiting the public's credulity. The joke is that the hoax was remarkably successful, for a while, and its aftermath left a lot of self-important people looking stupid. They were the fools, and All Fools Day seems an appropriate opportunity to remind ourselves of their folly. Brianboulton (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose April 1, Support April 22. April 1 1933 was the day persecution of Jews became state policy in Germany following the Nazi seizure of power, and readers will reasonably assume Wikipedia is running this in tribute to the fact, given Wikipedia's well-known practice of commemorating anniversaries at TFA. I have no issue with running it on April 22 as also suggested. &#8209; Iridescent 15:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The instigation of the state-sanctioned boycott of Jewish shops on 1 April 1933 is another reason for considering deferral until 22nd, but the assertion that if we run it on 1 April readers will "reasonably assume" that this is as  a "tribute" to the beginning of this persecution seems somewhat far-fetched. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I find it a bit of a stretch to somehow make the connection between the greed of publishers in the 1980s with the events of 1933, an event most readers will not have made any connection with. – SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Tribute" is possibly not the right word; make it "recognition". Most visitors to the main page just skim the blurbs and don't follow through (as a glance at the view stats will confirm), and the subtlety of "no, this is an article about a false belief about Hitler, not an article about Hitler" will be lost. &#8209; Iridescent 19:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As an example of how short-sighted press (and public) can be, Money for Nothing (song) was a dire straits song about two (not too bright) removalists dissing rock stars...didn't stop the press widely reporting it as a dig/attack at/of aforesaid industry....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose April 1, Support April 22. This is a very well-written article, but I am also concerned about the connection to April 1 (see Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses). Although I don't think the article is a tribute to Hitler by any means, it is about an attempt to profit from interest in Nazism. There are other excellent April Fool's Day candidates listed at April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article; let's save this article for another day. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not on April 1st, okay for another date. The use of the main page on April 1 for lightheartedness is a reasonable tradition, as long as the content is accurate, and "historical hoaxes" within reason can fit into that tradition. Running an article relating to Adolf Hitler, even a 1980s hoax that he personally had nothing to do with, is so far removed from our traditional uses of the April 1 mainpage, and will create such a jarring note with other potential content of the main page in columns like DYK, that it is likely to offend many readers and threaten the reputation and well-being of the entire project. I am frankly shocked by some of the support rationales above, and will if necessary escalate this matter using any permissible internal means to prevent the project's being brought into disrepute in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While I do not in any way condem your opinion, or your right to say what you do think, I do think you're stretching the point a lot to suggest that this will "threaten the reputation and well-being of the entire project". I am glad you copy edited your comment- the initial statement did look a little like a legal threat, but that suggestion has now been removed. Still, I do find the thrust of your promised actions to be chilling. – SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I obviously wasn't making a legal threat, partly because I wouldn't, and partly because there's no legal threat to be made. But I will certainly escalate this discussion on-wiki beyond the bounds of this page if need be, or to the Office level, because I am convinced that running something relating to Hitler as the mainpaged featured article on April Fool's Day would be exceptionally harmful to Wikipedia and the people associated with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm glad you changed it, because that is how it read before your edit. As to the rest, your threats are still chilling, especially as you've repeated them again to make them very clear. – SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What I would find "chilling" is if we were to make such a disastrous decision; and the only thing I am "threatening" is to seek to overturn that decision if it is made. But the fact that I've reacted as strongly as I have is a signal that, at least, you might step back and consider why I might feel as strongly as I do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An article about a second-rate fraudster making some very smart people look foolish with some cheap and very bad forgeries is not chilling. Running an article about a hoax on the day that focuses on hoaxes is not chilling. I think a little too much is being read into this, and the connection between the horrific events of the 1930s and 40s, and running a TFA in 2016 about a hoax in the mid 1980s is something of a stretch. If the thought of running an article about a hoax an the day of hoaxes is chilling because of a perceived connection, the we may as well scrap the thought of this ever going to go onto the front page, because someone will always object to the content. – SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not agree at all. I wonder if it's possible for someone to provide a screen-shot of the April 1 mainpage for a prior year. That might help make some of my concerns more clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Main Page history/2015 April 1, - for previous years just change the year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The usual collection of death, knowledge, humour etc that appears on most days, as far as I can see. – SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * if it's any consolation I didn't think anything bad about the day until it was pointed out. Thing is, opinion here will also reflect the wide readership, which means there is a high chance a significant number of readers will get extremely annoyed/upset by the running of this on this date too. Sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Until what was pointed out? The utterly unconnected event of 1933? – SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (cross-posted from my talk) I appreciate the dedication that went into creating a featured article. It deserves its turn as the face of the best work that the English Wikipedia community can produce. But I'm not the only person opining that running this article on April 1 would be a poor idea. Now that we have the link to the main page last April 1, on which some of the other items on the page included the DYK and OTD observations "... that Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators were forcibly withdrawn after officials clamped down on them" and "... that the government of Nova Scotia ordered the people of the City of Halifax to mate with over 200 multiple partners around the area", among others (and compared to some previous years those are rather bland). The tone for much of the April 1 mainpage, including the FA (ITN is an exception) is generally "here are true facts, in quality articles, but phrased to be amusing or momentarily confusing." The Hitler diaries hoax is far, far from that, as you I am sure will acknowledge. Is there some especial reason why it needs to appear on April 1 as opposed to some other day? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Threatening to take all lawful measures you can to keep this off the front page is a damned funny way of avoiding confrontation. Threats to go behind the community's back to have "the office" block the article is a damned funny way of avoiding confrontation. DYK has always been the most purile section of the front page, but I see the 3,000 deaths under Pickett don't seem to bother anyone. Given the sudden influx of votes from strangers to TFAR it seems likely that the threats and bullying may have got their way. – SchroCat (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Gavin, that is desperate stuff. We all have watchlists, and I am seeing no "strangers" here. One can visit an area of Wikipedia to register a sincere opinion. I think this is just a poorly - judged idea. The article is excellent. But not for April 1st. Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it's utterly desperate to threaten to "escalate this matter using any lawful means" and to take it "to the Office level": that kind of mindless bullying is utterly, utterly desperate and despicable. – SchroCat (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @NYB: I'd like to point out that the tone of TFA has changed in recent years. Last year we ran invisible rail, and the year before we ran Disco Demolition Night. Neither was given a "traditional" misleading-but-true write-up. Thus, the fact that this blurb is not "here are true facts, in quality articles, but phrased to be amusing or momentarily confusing" should not be a consideration. Other arguments may be considered by myself and my fellow TFA coordinators. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that those would both be considered lighthearted topics (at least in retrospect, that is&mdash;the crowd control aspects of Disco Demolition Night were quite seriously dangerous at the time). Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence why I didn't comment on the lighthearted-ness of the subject. I simply commented on the way we've presented AF TFA blurbs in the past two years. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not on April 1, Definitely support on any of the other 364 days Running it on a day where almost everything else on the page is silly/lighthearted/goofy would be a serious mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * From 2015: "1865 – Ordered to hold five forks, Confederate General George Pickett (pictured) instead lost almost 3,000." oh how we laughed at the "silly/lighthearted/goofy" event.... Just because DYK aims for purile content (and 2015 was a low even for them, with no hoaxes, jokes, pranks, etc, just purile bollocks), there is no need for TFA not to cover something vaguely intelligent and relevant. All Fools Day does not mean we need to be as purient or juvenile as possible, and an article on a very high profile hoax is appropriate. – SchroCat (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not on April 1 or Yom Kippur There are times when running an otherwise fine article is simply not appropriate no matter what the context. Debouch (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Extremely poor taste for April Fool's Day, per Dweller and Newyorkbrad. Coretheapple (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In opinion, that is.  I don't know what nationality you are, but is it just a coincidence that most of the opposes here are coming from people other than from the UK?   Cassianto Talk   18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going anywhere near that, but I will say that it's a mistake to view the Hitler Diaries hoax as being in any way material to the spirit of April Fool's Day. That is a lighthearted, humorous occasion, and the Hitler Diaries are dark, tinged with the detritus of World War II, and simply not relevant to April Fool's Day any more than Bernard Madoff would be. True, that is a value judgment, as would a desire not to see the Madoff article run as an April Fools Day article. It is a very good, very informative article. I would be happy to see that featured any other day. I don't see why there is such angst about it running on April 2 and not April 1. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See The Great Dictator or The Producers for a more cogent approach. – SchroCat (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

*Oppose Per the compelling arguments of Nick-D, Newyorkbrad and Dweller. Dark stuff, not April fool material. Irondome (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral I fully understand and respect the concerns flagged up by colleagues. However, I cannot after further thought actively oppose. As a London Jew seeing it on the page and reading the article, would it piss me off? No. Would I give thought to the purely coincidental but little-known (to the vast majority of readers) convergence of dates with the 33 boycott? I would be seriously over - analysing if I did. As an April fool example? Not convinced but not offended. I would be a damn sight more offended if it came out on April 20th. As we all know, the Nazi's hated and feared ridicule. Richard Grunberger mentions a pastor who was grassed up by a builder whom he had told a joke about Hitler to. He was beheaded at Plotzensee Prison in 1943. Hundreds were executed for the same reason. The article's relationship to Hitler is actually the same as The Producers (1968 film), as a plot device for a very different agenda, that of fraud and guile. While I can't support I cannot oppose, because it mocks Hitler as a "brand" it does not glorify or validate Hitler in any way. This has been a very thought - provoking debate, certainly for moi. Respect to all. Simon Irondome (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd encourage people to make alternative suggestions, or support ones that have already been suggested at April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article. At this late-ish stage, I think it'd be best to pick an existing FA rather than try to work up a GA or similar. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That subpage is essentially dead. Discussion of what can be worked up to FA status in time for nomination, fine, do that there.  But we are past that stage for 2016.  Discussing which of our existing FAs should be TFA belongs at TFAR, not there, as per the last several previous years. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose for April 1 per Brad, etc, fine for another date. --GRuban (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of points. (A) "The Office" never interfered with my choices of articles to run as TFA, even if some people didn't like them. I had one message about one article (in fact, one that I wasn't planning to run anyway and didn't) to put me in the picture about a non-Wikipedia matter, but it was made clear to me that the decision was left to me. Nor did I have any adverse comments afterwards from the Office about articles that had run as TFA, and those of you with memories going back a couple of years to much-discussed TFAR nominations will be able to guess which ones I'm talking about. I have every confidence that The Office will not overrule any decision made here, because it is an editorial matter for the community through its appointed representatives (the TFA coordinators) with the input of people making comments here. Once they take a stand on main-page content like that, they have to take responsibility for everything appearing on the main page and that's not what the Office would want, I'd guess. (B) The suggestion that people will associate this article running on 1st April with the anniversary of adoption of the Nazi policy of Jewish persecution is... far-fetched. I have a lot of respect for some of the names I see in the "oppose" camp, but that argument is unconvincing. The blurb is clear that this is not about reality but about a modern-day hoax that famously fooled The Sunday Times. The story was made into a television series on ITV, a light entertainment channel, so it's hardly a controversial topic that ought to be avoided at all costs. (C) To have someone volunteer an article for which they are considerably responsible for the thankless task of TFA 1st April is not to be sneezed at. Most of the suggestions at the TFA 1st April page involve people volunteering articles written by other people, which perhaps isn't the ideal scenario. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather any of this lot: User:Dweller/Featured ran, rather than this, which I consider to be poor taste. Unfortunately, none of the articles I've got to FA lend themselves to this genre. Actually, I'd rather we ran a totally 'straight' main page or a blank one, rather purporting that this article is suitable for April Fools. --Dweller (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A thought experiment How would Mel Brooks vote on this? Think The Producers (1968 film) How far does mocking evil lessen it's weight? The article has many humorous aspects. Is Hitler and the vile Nazi regime in any way validated by this article's inclusion? It is a genuinely complex ethical issue we are dealing with here. This thread raises some profound questions. Simon Irondome (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Hitler Diaries were never intended as satirical or comedic works. As I argued above, they were Holocaust denial literature developed and marketed by Nazi sympathisers to some reckless journalists. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's bollocks to suggest they were created as Holocaust denial literature, utter, utter bollocks, and the journalist you quoted above must have made that claim on a very scant knowledge of the subject. Simon you ask how Mel Brooks would vote: probably the same way as Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator), or those involved in the two screen productions Selling Hitler (1991) and Schtonk! (1992), the latter two of which were humerous takes on ... the Diaries hoax. When researching this article and looking at the critics' reaction I don't recall any such angst within their reviews. – SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Gitta Sereny describes investigating the history of the diaries in detail at the time in her book and is clearly a reliable source in this field, so don't talk bollocks about her. Similarly, Richard J. Evans can be assumed to know what he's talking about given he's also an expert in the field. Robert Harris also goes into great detail about the sub-culture these works emerged from, and argues that David Irving eventually endorsed them as they backed up his views on Hitler not being involved in the Holocaust. I'm not sure why you're seeking to dismiss these experts' views out of hand, and with respect I'd suggest that you withdraw this nomination or switch it to another date. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afriad that there has been a lot of bollocks written by people who have not grasped the chain of events, including Sereny. Evans does not even remotely claim that the diaries are holocaust literature. He quotes Harris in saying that Irving used the diaries because they "did not contain any evidence to suggest that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust". (Irving ended up looking one of the biggest fools of the lot, given his flip-flop opinion on the diaries). That's a big step from saying Evans calls them holocaust denial literature. Harris, by the way, was another who saw the humour of the hoax by a second-rate forger, and the Selling Hitler series was based on his book. To try and suggest that there has been a deliberate attempt to create holocaust denial literature is, indeed, utter, utter bollocks, despite what your one source says.
 * I have no absolutely intention of withdrawing this nomination, despite the attempts of bluster and bullying of a very small number. This is because I have not seen a single oppose rationale with which I agree or had previously considered but rejected as being insufficient grounds. – SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. One day is a good as another.  The puffed up blowhards here probably don't know that the vast population of English speakers don't even know what April Fools is, not counting the rest of the planet.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's enough heat in this discussion with calling people "puffed up blowhards". I see you're new to Wikipedia. Please read: No personal attacks --Dweller (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A thread for possible alternatives can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests


 * Oppose. This could be viewed as an honest mistake, but the perfervid, last-ditch insistence of the proposer that it must be April 1 and only April 1 will do, does cast some doubt. NewYorkBrad is correct; it this were to appear on the home page on April 1, the outcry would be even worse that last year’s tempest over "Did you know that Christ is Risen" last Easter, and could well do lasting damage to the project. In any case, it is clear that this is not amusing, not appropriate, and not going to appear on Wikipedia's home page on April 1; the discussion ought to be closed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please date and quote correctly, it was in 2014 and said (clearly as a quotation): DYK ... that "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , and I've lost the interest to count, the article is not asking to appear on the main page because it thinks of itself as "humorous"; nor does April Fools Day mean "only funny things allowed". Please do keep up.   Cassianto Talk   18:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ~sigh~ I do wish people could be bothered to read things before commenting. "the perfervid, last-ditch insistence of the proposer that it must be April 1 and only April 1 will do, does cast some doubt." Could you provide a diff where I have said that? I can point to the "Reasons for nomination" at the top, where I have provided other dates, so that's a poor basis for doubt or opposition. "not amusing": can you point to anything that says All Fools Day has to be amusing? Last years wasn't "amusing", and if an article on a hoax can't be run on the day of hoaxes, then it's best not to bother with even give a nod to anything like it. "it is clear that this is ... not going to appear on Wikipedia's home page on April 1": really? No decision has been made by the TFA co-coordinators, and just because you make the statement doesn't make it a fait accompli. "the discussion ought to be closed": why? Just because you don't like the idea? There have been excellent comments either way today, and I see little merit in your suggestion for cutting that short just because you think so. – SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion should be closed because very convincing arguments have been made above that the proposal is not only unseemly, but is likely to embarrass and damage the project. It is conceivable, as I acknowledged, that the proposal for April 1 was an honest mistake; if so, others have foreseen the problem and another date will serve. It is conceivable, too, that the proposal was made in the honest belief that this is an appropriate topic for an April Fool’s joke; if so, others disagree. In any case, nothing is lost by choosing a more appropriate day, while failing to do so runs the very real risk that Wikipedia will again be embarrassed by the antics of some its editors. Given current problems in governance and recent problems with harassment, this would be a particularly bad time for a self-inflicted wound. Since all this is evident to all, closing this discussion promptly will free volunteers for more useful tasks while reducing a potential source of tension. Nothing good can come of further discussion, as the outcome is clear. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No "convincing" arguments have been given (and 's change from oppose to neutral is a good refutation of your statement). Some have opined that they think that will happen, but they (and you) have no more crystal ball than I do (and the same applies to much of the rest you've written—"self-inflicted wound", "embarrassed"? I don't know when you're getting this from, but it's a bit bold to make such predictions based on nothing but your prejudice. It's fairly obvious that the nomination wasn't made as a "mistake", only that you don't like it. As to the rest, well done for insulting people by saying this is an "antic", (my self-control not to revert to base Anglo-Saxon in response to such a crass statement is being pushed to the limit here), and if there is a source of tension, it's because of unguarded statements like yours. I'm still waiting for you to provide diffs to back up your falsehoods above, or at least an acknowledgement that you didn't bother to read or take on board what was written. As to withdrawing to "free" volunteers, no-one has to comment here, especially once they have registered their opinion, so no time is being wasted, except in replying to insulting comments from people who really should know better. – SchroCat (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Because of the way this page is transcluded, watchers may not be aware that I've nominated an alternative suggestion for April 1st. It's buried at the bottom of the requests page, or can be clicked through via Today's featured article/requests/Pixies (2016 April Fool nomination) --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many people have commented that the very mention of Hitler on All Fools Day will be greeted with major complaints and problems. I've searched for the thread for such comments and complaints following the 1 April 2014 DYK ("...that Christian Griepenkerl thwarted Adolf Hitler because Alois Delug (pictured) could not?") I don't seem to be able to find the complaints: could someone please provide a link to any subsequent discussion? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On which you can play the game 'spot the dead link': there are five to find, and no prizes for the lucky winners. There are also some unsupported statements in there, and some prose issues. These all need to be looked at before anyone seriously considers running this 2006 promotion. - SchroCat (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to fix any deadlinks. The bots haven't tagged any, so please let me know (you can put them on my talk page, if you like). Same for any other issues. I've got a lot of experience getting articles through FAC and this will be a lot easier as it's already passed. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've highlighted the issues for you above. – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An awful and desperate choice, Dweller.   Cassianto Talk   21:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You could be right. It has the considerable advantage of being inoffensive. --Dweller (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What a fucking stupid thing to say. The Hitler Diaries isn't offensive either, and it's a rather petty comeback when I've tried to be helpful and point out that the article is sub-standard and the write up little more than gibberish. Perhaps if you'd have spent a little more time looking at the article before hitting a panic button with a second rate article you wouldn't need to drop to such a pathetic response. – SchroCat (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Floq (it's important to consider what kinds of things will be on the Main Page that day), per Nick-D, per the main argument of Dweller (i.e.: for some of our readers, it's too soon to make fun of the Holocaust etc.), and because we've got something better to run (see below). - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm trying not too comment too much in this thread, except when something needs to be objected to, but can you rephrase your comment that we are, in any way, trying to "make fun of the Holocaust". That's quite an objectionable accusation to make on the article and on those involved. The article, like the blurb, is about the publishing hoax, and there is NO connection to the Holocaust at all. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a respectful reply to that. (I tried.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dank I strongly suggest you try much, MUCH harder. It's a rather nasty comment without any basis in truth, and I think you could re-phrase it in several better ways than as the base insult it is. Just to clarify, I don't think anyone above has suggested we're making fun of the holocaust, just that they are uncomfortable with the perceived connection between the date and the subject matter. – SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, don't bother Dank. Your crass and false comment was the last straw. - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No offense was intended, and I'll be happy to resolve this another time. "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard." The discussions that do the most harm to this community each year involve April 1. I'd like to propose that we put a stop to this by collaborating on FACs for April 1 articles that would be more suitable. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|43px]] Thank you. Sorry for the negative tone the conversation has taken; I'm sure everyone who wrote anything derogatory similarly regrets it. And please note that the article is fine for a different day. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There have been way too many crassly idiotic comments given by people who should know much, much better, and I've been accused of many things, (and all the truly objectionable ones have been from Admins, so anyone can read into that what they wish). The latest and most fatuous of the comments is that in some way we've tried to "make fun of the Holocaust", which is not only untrue, but one that the editor in question couldn't be bothered to re-phrase when asked. It's the final straw for me, and the bullies have won the day. My very deep thanks and respects to all those on either side who gave their balanced and measured opinions without the need to lower themselves into falsehood, slurs or threats. – SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw