Talk:Stab-in-the-back myth

Removal of comma in lead

@Beyond My Ken Why did you revert this [1]? It is the WP:MOS to add commas after years in a sentence – not only is it compliant with the MOS, but it's objectively grammatically correct. chri. (talk | contribs) 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC) 02:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it reads better without it. Remember, MoS is a guideline and is not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's your subjective interpretation. It is *objectively grammatically correct* to add a comma after a year. Wikipedia isn't a place for your personal writing and reading tastes. It baffles me this is a dispute, but the fact is, what reads the best is what is grammatically correct. chri. (talk | contribs) 03:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "objectively grammatically correct", no matter what your fourth-grade teacher told you. If it reads better without it, leave it out. In this case, the added pause indicated by the comma is disruptive and is not needed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/commas-in-dates/, https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/extended_rules_for_commas.html, https://www.businessinsider.com/a-guide-to-proper-comma-use-2013-9?op=1#8-use-a-comma-to-separate-the-elements-in-a-full-date-weekday-month-and-day-and-year-also-separate-a-combination-of-those-elements-from-the-rest-of-the-sentence-with-commas-8 – can you give me a source demonstrating why you don't need to add a comma after a year? Because it is grammatically correct, whether you like it or not. No matter how "disruptive" you find it commas are always added after a year in a full date. There's a reason you'll be corrected if you type "On February 22, 2021 I went to the store" into anything with a grammar checker. Plus, if the manual of style is "just a guideline," could the same not apply to WP:HOAX, which is also "just a guideline?" There's a reason guidelines exist, and there's no reason why WP:IAR should apply here. chri. (talk | contribs) 14:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a professional writer with over 30 years experience in technical and professional topics published in both popular and technical press. The blog of a prescriptivist grammar crutch application doesn't impress me much as a source, nor does Business Insider. But I'm always willing to help a fellow editor: For the premise that grammar should never interfere with clear writing, see, e.g., The Elements of Style, by Strunk & White. Neither WP:GUIDELINES not WP:IAR is the operative principle here. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD are. You made a change, you were reverted, you came here to discuss, and the only one making a case for the comma is you. Generally speaking, a single comma is not worth making a stand for but if consensus is that it is not needed, it is not needed. I hope that helps explain things. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point – I think you're right. Sorry for being a nuisance. chri. (talk | contribs) 20:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with chri and don't believe that there is any unnecessary pause caused by this comma. Practically all style guides recommend the use of a comma in this instance, perhaps for purposes of clarity. I am deeply saddened by its removal. Snuish (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2 Geez, did you really think it was necessary and appropriate to come here, to the talk page of an article you've never edited [2] to register your disagreement with me over a minor MoS matter, simply because we had a dispute on Talk:Zionism#Edit Request - Removal of Unreliable Source? You got what you wanted there, after all. Following another editor around in this manner could be construed as WP:HOUNDING, so if you were thinking of doing some more of it. I'd reconsider. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Have you heard of WP:BITE? I've never edited most of the articles on Wikipedia and am bound to run into editors more than once. If you really think an isolated instance like this could be construed as hounding, you're welcome to report it. I would love to see how that report turns out. One would think I'd pick something you've edited more recently if I was hounding you. Snuish (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Sure. A complete coincidence. No doubt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW you're not a newbie - just the fact that you know about WP:BITE is a pretty damn good indication that you're not. In any case, you've got 3 months on this account, and 6 months on your previous one, plenty of time to know the basics, like don't follow an editor around who you're in a dispute with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not take our quickly resolved disagreement personally--it seems rather clear you did. Less hostility is useful all around. Snuish (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't bother me in the least. What bothered me was seeing you here -- where you've never been before -- immediately after that dispute. If you're not following me around, fine, we don't have a problem; if you intended to follow me around, don't, your gig is blown; and if you follow me around anyway, rest assured that I will not take being HOUNDED lying down. That's a lesson I learned a long time ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That history explains your reaction. Okay. I assure you that I certainly don't have the time required to make bugging people on Wikipedia the least bit entertaining. I jest, but "we don't have a problem" given your post above. Snuish (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And my opinion about this comma still stands. Snuish (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Goetterdaemmerung

The article asserts that the stab-in-the-back myth reminded Germans thought of Wagner's opera Goetterdaemmerung. Yet I find no evidence for that assertion in German sources. The image of Siegfried stabbed in the back by Hagen comes from the Nibelungenlied, which became popular decades before Wagner wrote his opera. Its plot was taught in schools and so widely known that references like the words Nibelungentreue and tarnen that were not used by Wagner were used for PR purposes during WW1. The Anglosphere associates Siegfried primarily with Wagner, but Germans don't. You could quote Hindenburg's Out of Life if you want a better source: "Just as Siegfried fell to the treacherous spear of terrible Hagen, so did our exhausted front line collapse. They tried in vain to draw new life from the dried-up well spring of the home front". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.156.94 (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Could it be changed to a reference to the Niebelungelied instead, then`Sjö (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the information because (1) it is reliably sourced, and (2) the IP's removal is based on their own personal investigation, which is a violation of WP:Original research. (3) The reference to the "Anglosphere" puts this into the realm of ethnic/nationalistic PoV editing, and (4) the reference to what Germans do and don't associate with Siegfried is, again, OR.

The information should not be removed again without a consensus in this discussion to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have the book cited, which was written by a well-respected historian, J. M. Roberts. Roberts writes: "In the music-drama Götterdämmerung, Wagner's hero, Siegfried, is murdered by a spear thrust into his back by his enemy, Hagen. The image was evocative for many German patriots." That's very clear, and does not support a change to "Niebelungelied". Robert was writing, c.1999, of Germany in 1918, when the stab-in-the-back myth was first promulgated. A person living in Germany in 2021, over a hundred years later, cannot by their experience of contemporary Germans, speak for what Germans may or may not have found evocative back then. It takes a historian and suitable research to determine that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• In their introduction to their book The Stab-in-the-Back Myth and the Fall of the Weimar Republic, the authors, Vascik and Sadler, write of Germany in 1918: "Across society in endless permutations, people came to wonder whether—as Hagen in Wagner’s Götterdämmerung had stabbed Siegfried in the back—their own individual hopes had somehow been similarly betrayed." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• In this essay, the author and journalist Kevin Baker writes:

  "Ludendorff’s eyes lit up, and he leapt upon the phrase like a dog on a bone," wrote Hindenburg biographer John Wheeler-Bennett. "'Stabbed in the back?' he repeated. 'Yes, that’s it exactly. We were stabbed in the back.'"

  Ludendorff’s enthusiasm was understandable, for, as he must have known, the phrase already had great resonance in Germany. The word dolchstoss – "dagger thrust" – had been popularized almost fifty years before in Wagner’s Götterdämmerung. After swallowing a potion that causes him to reveal a shocking truth, the invincible Teutonic hero, Siegfried, is fatally stabbed in the back by Hagen, son of the archvillain, Alberich.

  Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I was wrong to delete a paragraph I disagree with. But your source is not very accurate, Beyond My Ken. The word "dolchstoss" does not appear anywhere in the Goetterdaemmerung's libretto. Also note that Wagner's Siegfried is a somewhat foolish and less heroic character than Siegfried in the Goetterdaemmerung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.156.94 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The source does not claim that "dolchstoss" appears in the libretto. It says that the word was popularized by the opera. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)