Talk:Eduard Dietl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Up from the ranks[edit]

Interesting - he seems from the list of ranks to have started as an enlisted man. Unusual in the German Army of that era.

Not entirely - the British and Russians were much more class-conscious than, say, the German or American armies of the pre-WW1 era. Germany was in fact a rather progressive country in matters of government, education, etc until the 1920s. It was difficult for a German enlisted man to achieve officer status, but not as hard as is commonly (now) believed. Engr105th (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was Dietl promoted captain? The main text states "In March 1918, he was promoted to Hauptmann", while the list of promotions below reads "Hauptmann: August 29, 1919”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helensq (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that he entered the army as a ""Fahnenjunker"", which is comparable to an ensign in British usage. It's an entry point for someone who wishes to obtain a commission. So he didn't start as an enlisted man, he started as what amounts to an officer candidate. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image size[edit]

Current infobox image size (190px)
Infobox size I've been attempting to institute (175px)
Possibly better size (167px), still large enough to easily identify the subject
Image at upright=0.75

Eduard Dietl was a Nazi. He joined the German Worker's Party -- a short-lived predecessor to the Nazi Party -- in 1919, and was a member of the right-wing Freikorps. He was not a "clean" Wehrmacht general with no Nazi connections.

His image as presented in the article at the moment is too large. A single editor keeps bumping it up to 190px, when 175px is more than sufficiently large to easily identify the subject -- in fact, 167px would be better.

It is not Wikipedia's function to glorify Nazis by presenting large images of them in our articles.

I believe the infobox image should be reduced to 175px or even 167px. Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with the default size seen across most articles of this nature? Why force a size at all? If anything upright=0.75 should be the max and the format used over "px" fixed size.--Moxy (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to "upright=0.75" Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: OMG, you didn't even read the edit summary I left, which states to use the | upright = parameter instead, but that does go to your "battleground and OWN" editing style, Oh, someone disagrees with me, bring out the tanks. Calm down "we're all on the same team" or at least that was the plan. By the way the upright=0.75 looks fine to me. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it at 190px or use alternative "image_upright" parameter to scale image to a similar size: The purpose of an infobox image in a biographical article is to clearly illustrate what the person looked like. An image appropriately sized to achieve that purpose doesn't "glorify" the political beliefs of the subject, it just clearly illustrates what they looked like. As long as the image size doesn't distend the infobox (which probably starts happening about 250px), I fail to see what substantive issue you are trying to address here, especially when we are talking about 15px. I have written several FAs on Nazis which have infobox images larger than this one, and I have never had a reviewer at any level of review suggest that I was "glorifying Nazis" as a result. The logical extension of what you are suggesting is that we should have a really small thumbnail of Adolf Hitler in his article, but a really big photo of Nelson Mandela in his. I fail to see how that is encyclopaedic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 190px does far more than simply identify the subject. As can be seen from the box above, 167 is sufficient to do that. Anything more than that is gratuitous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I don't really see that big a difference here between 167, 175 or 190px and certainly not significant enough to cause a dispute. Also, the editors that changed the size, other than BMK, haven't commented, but looking at the edit summaries I don't see any "sieg heil!"s or the like so claims of "Nazi glorification" are probably uncalled for. What's wrong with leaving the image size parameter blank? Anyway, this seems to be much ado about nothing. - wolf 02:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with wolf (and apparently FlightTime Phone) that we should just leave it to auto-size and let user preferences decide. For me on a 1080p monitor, that winds up at 180px, pretty close to the 175px that Beyond My Ken is advocating for. While 180px may be fine for me (and it is—it's large enough for me to see clearly but doesn't "glorify" the individual in my opinion), others may need to different settings adjustments. Leaving it to auto-size provides that flexibility. Checking through the history of the page, the image spent most of its history (2012–2017) auto-sized (and almost all of the rest of it set to at least 200px, including 300px for about 12 months). CThomas3 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a stupid dispute. It is definitely not glorifying Nazis to use the default image size. And per MOS:UPRIGHT, we definitely should not be using fixed image sizes here. (but maybe saying this means I must Heil Hitler?) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead image (sometimes the main infobox image) is often larger than default image sizes within an article - that isn't glorifying anything. For an infobox image it's really just a visual balance between a useful recognition size, and not expanding the width of the infobox. If not leaving it at default, ideally use use "image_upright=" to respect user preferences. For this image, upright=1 (usually 220px) seems fine.
Also, I'm slightly taken aback by my inference of the idea that it would be ok for "clean Wehrmacht" generals to have large images, and "dirty" ones not. Hardly NPOV. (Hohum @) 09:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leave at default setting for the infobox without any px sizing (which is deprecated anyway - upright should be used if re-sizing). This renders the image at the same width as other images in featured article biographies e.g. Elizabeth II or other historical figures e.g. Clement Atlee or Dwight D. Eisenhower. As an aside, to suggest that a minor difference in image size is somehow glorifying the individual or cause is hard to justify. I wouldn't go there. Bermicourt (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went through some "Nazi" articles to make sure they're consistent with image size and BMK instantly started reverting the changes, so ANI here we are. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Galobtter said. A really stupid dispute. Let the software decide image size and don't equate comfortably visible depiction of historic material with "glorification". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my only concern, as I left in my edit summary Deprecated infobox parameter per Special:Diff/816362689. Display size can be adjusted in user preferences. BMK brought in the Nazi thing. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it at the default size. I don't think the size of a photo is going to cause anyone to become a Nazi-lover. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Infoboxe images (and thumbnails) should not be size forced, let the template do what it's designed to do. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auto-size. I don't see any "glorifying" difference between 167px (~ 167x248) and 190px (~ 190x280), and upright=0.75 (~ 230x342) is bigger than all of them for me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion at ANI (primarily Beyond My Ken) has convinced me that there can be the need to size an image because of its particular characteristics. It seems that the ideal would be for editors to be able to specify a percentage scaling factor that would be applied to the user's default size setting, so that a "normal" size and aspect ratio headshot would appear at the user's configured default width, while over- and under-size pics could be scaled to make the face the same size as "normal" pics. BTW, the "upright=0.75" pic above has now shrunk to ~ 170x254px for me. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auto-sizing also seems sensible to me. I've seen a bit of editing going on in the last few months where one or two editors are seeking to artificially reduce the size of photos of Nazi war criminals, and it's really not a good idea. If the only photos which are available are clear-cut propaganda, we'd be better off not using them (which seems justifiable under WP:NPOV, but I'd do this cautiously). Making the photos small doesn't help anyone. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auto-size seems reasonable here. Trying to purposefully reduce size of images simply because they depict nazis or other criminals and controversial people doesn't seem like a particularly productive endeavour.--Staberinde (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see File:Codex Gigas devil.jpg used for the lead on Satan is currently 369 × 586 pixels and shown at |upright=1.1|. Propose we reduce to 50 x 50, change to black and white, and display at upright=0.4. (In other words, yes, this is a stupid dispute.) GMGtalk 15:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auto-sizing would seem the obvious solution..Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Use auto-sizing, or a proportionate use of |upright=, where relevant. Hard-coding pixel sizes is very much not the way to go here.
I also condemn the behaviour of the nominator (and some others) here, for their "nazis don't deserve large images" nonsense, and their bully tactics on GF editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to either glorify or denigrate Nazis. We're supposed to document relevant facts and information on all manner of topics, that's it. WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED come to mind here. Infobox images should be made a reasonable size, and should be treated uniformly, with regard only to aesthetics, proportions, and functionality, not to subject matter. I believe image output can be adjusted in personal preferences, which is what I'd recommend. Otherwise, you're attempting to impose your personal taste on everyone else. Xcalibur (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To add onto what I said before, using Wiki formatting to cast moral judgments seems like a case of WP:RGW, as well. Xcalibur (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are we on this now? Where's the ANI thread, is it still open, or do we need another one? BMK is now off on a crusade across all the articles he dislikes on undeserving nazis, trying to reduce the image sizes. He's also claiming (see Talk:Hjalmar Schacht) that it was ANI which instructed him to behave in that way. That is so not the way to do things, and it's ANI-worthy behaviour to be so disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the only ANI thread I can find is here: Wikipedia:ANI#We have a problem, where a bunch of admins have said the usual, that BMK is an admin, therefore do not question him and you risk a BOOMERANG if you do so. Fortunately the close was a bit better, saying that it wasn't an ANI issue (which I think it has now turned into though). I'm happy to discuss this sizing issue here, if no-one wants to move it to a biog project, or the template.
So far, for this discussion here, I see strong opposition to BMK either making per-article changes to individual biogs, to doing that with hard-coded pixel sizes, or to doing it because nazis only deserve small pictures.
IMHO, I'm open to discussing better guidance on smaller images for biog infoboxes with portrait shaped images (MW has long been weak there), but this should stay based on |upright=, not require hard-coding, not require per-article hard-coding and certainly not be based on subjective appraisals of the subject. It's also disruptive for BMK to start opening new individual article changes before this issue is resolved, and downright untrue for them to claim "ANI told me to do this, and to do it like this". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: BMK is not an admin. FYI - wolf 00:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BMK started discussions, in a short period of time, on the talk pages of over twenty Nazis and affiliates, that the size of the image was shouting. In about half the cases he shrank the image and then referred to it as "the current size". We need to have consistency in our image practices and imposing a view on articles where you can make it stick seems unwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair, but this is not the place. I would suggest a community wide discussion and an official policy on image size. If thre is an "official size" then it is one size fits all (even NARRRZISS!).Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair. I do not mean, by the way, to denigrate Beyond My Ken, who is a very solid editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taking an ANI thread that was closed as review the helpful input provided here and then open an RfC on neutral ground such as an appropriate Wikiproject, noticeboard, or village pump, and interpreting that as I should click the revert button across 20 or 30 articles, and then copy paste the same thread across another 20 or 30 more is pretty openly disruptive. Moreover, this issue goes back to at least July, when when they felt it necessary shout at me for a little while for using a high quality svg (as policy says we should) rather than a low quality, off center jpg.
This is an exceedingly stupid and pedantic dispute, even for infoboxes, but "I do what I want." is the wrong answer, and unless BMK comes back with the right answer I'm liable to open the next ANI thread myself, but I'd rather not have to spend the better part of an hour putting together diffs. GMGtalk 12:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As they're pushing 3RR at Hjalmar Schacht, I might open such a thread myself. I see that they've already "warned" you for edit-warring on that page, despite their own revert count being the higher. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And at Albert Speer.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Observation: the photos for top Nazis such as Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Albert Speer all sit comfortably at 220px; Adolf Eichmann sits lower at 187px, however this is still noteworthily larger than the suggested size of just 167px. I feel that the much larger 220px is standard for ALL figures, Nazi or not, and thus does not represent glorification; Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and George S. Patton all have 220px portraits in their userboxes as well. I feel that 220px is appropriate for ALL Nazis (and all other figures) because if we did otherwise it would display systemic bias. Cogaidh (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 15 December 2018[edit]

Rewording to avoid repetition. Original: On 23 June 1944, Dietl, along with generals Thomas-Emil von Wickede, Karl Eglseer and four other passengers, was killed in an air crash in Austria. The Ju 52 aircraft carrying Dietl, General der Infanterie Thomas-Emil von Wickede, General der Gebirgstruppe Karl Eglseer, Generalleutnant der Gebirgstruppe Franz Rossi and three other passengers crashed in the vicinity of the small village of Rettenegg, Styria. There were no survivors.

Proposal: On 23 June 1944, the Ju 52 aircraft carrying Dietl, General der Infanterie Thomas-Emil von Wickede, General der Gebirgstruppe Karl Eglseer, Generalleutnant der Gebirgstruppe Franz Rossi and three other passengers crashed in the vicinity of the small village of Rettenegg, Styria. There were no survivors.
Skjoldbro (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eduard_Dietl&oldid=1212540320"