Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:15, 3 May 2022

Stab-in-the-back myth was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 11, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stab-in-the-back myth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: World War I / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War I task force
	World War II task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Template:Vital article

Section sizes

Section size for Stab-in-the-back myth (16 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	3,827	3,827
Background	12,376	12,376
Assessments of Germany's situation in late 1918	319	6,465
Contemporary	2,441	2,441
Post-war	3,705	3,705
Development of the myth	9,588	9,588
Antisemitic aspects	6,614	6,614
Aftermath	2,081	3,351
World War II	1,270	1,270
Wagnerian allusions	1,849	1,849
Psychology of belief	1,102	1,102
Equivalents in other countries	35	1,865
United States	1,830	1,830
See also	492	492
References	3,131	3,131
External links	1,329	1,329
Total	51,989	51,989

"worldwide" versus "inside and outside of Germany"

To nip off an incipient edit war, I am opening this discussion. I hope the IP editor sees this since they can't be pinged but also inviting @Beyond My Ken: and @Smuckola:. I don't believe this needs any sort of formal process. In my reading, the "worldwide" version does read better but does not accurately reflect the sources given for the text. Do we really know what the historians in Burkina Faso or Sri Lanka think of Nazi historiography? I'm guessing no and further that no-one thinks it's necessary or productive to find out. The "inside and outside of Germany" version better reflects this and also emphasizes that it is not merely historians from Germany's former enemies that reject the myth. Please feel free to add any comments. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Worldwide" misses the point, which is not so much that historians all over the world reject the myth, but that it is rejected both by German and non-German historians. That's a much stronger point than is made by "worldwide", regardless of whether it reads better or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 To nip off an incipient edit war, I am opening this discussion. I hope the IP editor sees this since they can't be pinged but also inviting {{ping|Beyond My Ken}} and {{ping|Smuckola}}.  I don't believe this needs any sort of formal process. In my reading, the "worldwide" version does read better but does not accurately reflect the sources given for the text. Do we really know what the historians in Burkina Faso or Sri Lanka think of Nazi historiography? I'm guessing no and further that no-one thinks it's necessary or productive to find out. The "inside and outside of Germany" version better reflects this and also emphasizes that it is not merely historians from Germany's former enemies that reject the myth.  Please feel free to add any comments. [[User:Eggishorn|<span style="background-color:#FF7400; color:#FFFFFF;">Eggishorn</span>]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 15:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 *"Worldwide" misses the point, which is not so much that historians all over the world reject the myth, but that it is rejected '''''both''''' by '''''<u>German</u>''''' and non-German historians.  That's a much stronger point than is made by "worldwide", regardless of whether it reads better or not. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
-== A myth? It's a theory. ==
-And it is a credible theory, with circumstantial evidence scattered all throughout history. And contained within the history of Spain is direct evidence.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/174.126.197.242|174.126.197.242]] ([[User talk:174.126.197.242#top|talk]]) 15:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->