Talk:Anton Drexler

Succeeded by: Adolf Hitler as Führer

It says "Succeeded by: Adolf Hitler (as Führer)" but i thought Hutler didn't become Führer till nearly two decades later? That title replaced the presidency of Hindenburg when he died. Irtapil (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hitler was Fuhrer of the Nazi Party starting in 1921. "Fuhrer" simply means "Leader" or "Guide". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

BMK is correct; he became leader of the Party in 1921. That is what the article is referencing. Kierzek (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kierzek and Beyond My Ken: Possibly needs an explanatory note then, it reads as if it means Fuhrer of the nation, given that's the Fuhrer position Hitler is most well known as. Should the info box maybe have an English version "(as leaser of the Nazi party)", for clarity, and then the German version can go in the text where there's scope to explain the distinction. Irtapil (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

for now it's (as [[Führer|leader]] of the party), change it if you can think of anything clearer. Irtapil (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I think adding "of the party" is a good idea, but I have restored "Führer" as I think it's important to indicate that Hitler used this terminology with the Party before he did with the country. Also, I've added "dictatorial" because without it, the inference might be drawn that his position was equivalent to Drexler's chairmanship, just with another name, when, in fact, Hitler demanded and received dictatorial power along with the title as a condition of his returning to the Party after he had quit it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Drexler work

The title of the Drexler work is "My Political Awakening: From the Journal of a German Socialist", i don't understend why you don't want to put the full title. The current title is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.93.211 (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the full title is ""My Political Awakening: From the Journal of a German Socialist Worker", but it's really not necessary to have anything more than "My Political Awakening", as it's not an article about the pamphlet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, you've used 3 different IPs to edit the article today alone. Please do not do this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think instead that is important to report the entire title, because you don't do a proper service if you delete what you want. Also is important because with the entire title you understand that Drexler and his party as socialist root, which he claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.101.118 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You cannot use sources as you want: delete some pieces, add something and censor some parts. You have to report the correct title and my act is not vandalism is report correct information, because otherwise it's about writing lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.101.118 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

In point of fact, the source that is cited -- Kershaw's Hitler: A Biography -- gives only "My Political Awakening" for the title of the pamphlet, so it is being cited accurately. The "full title" that you wish to include would have to be sourced to something else, but even then it wouldn't be appropriate, since the "full title" is the actual title and its subtitle. It would be as if every time we refer to Moby-Dick we used instead Moby-Dick; or, The Whale, or instead of Gulliver's Travels we used Gulliver's Travels, or Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World. In Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of Several Ships which is the actual, full title of the book. In this instance, the title of the pamphlet is "My Political Awakening", while the title with subtitle is "My Political Awakening: from the Journal of a German Socialist Worker". Since this article is not about the pamphlet, it is not necessary to cite the entire thing, especially since the source does not.

But, as you make clear in your previous comment, you only really want the title listed because you want the word "Socialist" in there to make it appear as if Drexler's party was left-wing, and not right-wing. Well, I can call myself an acorn as much as I want, but no mighty oak is going to sprout from me, and Drexler's calling himself a "German Socialist Worker" doesn't make it any more true than that the Nazis were "socialists", which they weren't. So, your motivation isn't accuracy at all, it's completely political, based on your own PoV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I checked my copy (hardback) of the 2008 edition of Kershaw's Hitler: A Biography. The WP:RS cited source gives the title of the pamphlet as stated by BMK, above. Cited to and on page 75 of the book therein. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, from the answer you gave me you seem more politicized than me, don't use excuses because the entire title is important, are you afraid to admit that some of the origins of the Nazi party were socialists?Your mere opinion is worth nothing, because the truth is that Yes nazi were in some way socialist and some currents within the party were close to socialism, especially at the beginning of the DAP. Also the ideology National Socialism is it is not called that by chance. I know that today the banal world view is between fascists and others, but political ideologies were once a little more complex.

P.s. Drexler was socialist,I think he knew better what he believed than you who judge him partially with today's mentality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.33.165 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, no other editor seems to agree with you, so your changes are not going into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And don't give me any bullshit about you not being political, you changed the description of two Marxist historians to read "Marxist criminal". [1], [2] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)