Talk:Julius Streicher/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use of the word nazi

Frequently since the 1930's the word nazi has been used as a slang for the NSDAP and members of that organization. The word nazi is a slang and derogatory German word similar to redneck, hillbilly, hayseed or country bumpkin in English. It is NOT a proper noun and so should never be capitalized in English. It is not the name of any organization nor is it the name of the member of any organization. In the 1930's many Germans ridiculed the NSDAP by calling them nazis. Since Germans capitalize improper nouns, English speaking journalists thought they were using the actual name of the organization. Due to this mistranslated or misunderstanding of the German language, people who speak English thought that the name of the political party was "Nazi" when that was never it's name. It was always the NSDAP. It is historically incorrect for any encyclopedic article to use a slang term when a correct historical term is available. Just because the public is used to using slang does not mean an encyclopedic article should. Encyclopedic articles should be written correctly and with historic and scholarly accuracy. Using phrases like "prominent Nazi" or "Nazi war machine" is like saying "prominent redneck" or "hayseed war machine." See how silly that sounds when you correctly render it using English words? For this reason I am proposing removing the word "nazi" from all wikipedia articles about the NSDAP except when used in the proper context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I got to agree, whenever someone uses the word Nazi in a discussion or in a text, I tend not to take the author seriously. The proper word is National Socialist. "In 1921, Streicher began his political career, joining the Nazi Party" The party name is NSDAP, "Nazi Party" is outside the limits of serious conversation. It's also not the beginning of Julius Streicher's political career. He explained this at the Nurember show trial: ...In 1909, after I had taught for several years in my native district, I was called to the municipal school in Nuremberg. Here I had the opportunity of contact with the families of the working-class children in the suburbs and of observing social contrasts. This experience led to my decision in 1911 to go into politics. I became a member of the Democratic Party. As a young democratic speaker, I spoke at the Reichstag election in 1919. The car put at my disposal was paid for by the banking firm of Kohn. I stress this point because at that time I had occasion to associate a good deal with Jews, even in the Democratic Party. I must therefore have been fated to become later on a writer and speaker on racial politics. The World War came and I, too, went into the army as a lance corporal in an infantry regiment. Then I became an officer in a machine-gun unit. I returned home with both Iron Crosses, with the Bavarian Order, and the rare Austrian Cross of Merit attached to the Ribbon for Gallantry. When I had returned home, I had no desire to go into politics again. I intended only to stay in private life and devote myself to my profession. Then I saw the blood-red posters of revolution in Germany and for the first time I joined the raging masses of that time. At a meeting, when the speaker had finished, I asked to be heard as an unknown person. An inner voice sent me onto the platform and I spoke. I joined in the debate and I spoke on recent happenings in Germany. In the November revolution of 1918 the Jews and their friends had seized the political power in Germany. Jews were in the Reich Cabinet and in all the provincial governments. In my native Bavaria the Minister President was a Polish Jew called Eisner-Kosmanowsky. The reaction among the middle classes in Germany manifested itself in the form of an organization known as Schutz und Trutzbund (Society for Protective and Offensive Action).... http://www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Der+N%C3%BCrnberger+Proze%C3%9F/Hauptverhandlungen/Einhundertf%C3%BCnfzehnter+Tag.+Freitag,+26.+April+1946/Nachmittagssitzung 105.4.6.151 (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

It is nothing mentioned about any direct victims ( either personally murdered or as a result of a personal order). Yet Streicher was sentenced to death. Was it the result of the jewish vengeance against him? There has been nothing criminal pointed out against him but propaganda. Nobody kills for words.

If the Charlie Hebdo killers wanted to find a precedent for killing people engaging in hate speech with a deeply offensive lewd undercurrent, they would need to look no further than the Streicher sentence. If anti-Muslim pogroms broke out in France the situation would be exactly the same. Streicher arguably bore some responsibility for whipping up the sentiments that led to pogroms, but was marginalized before the "final solution" was put in motion.75.111.20.66 (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are right. It is a severe breach of NPOV that the revenge aspect of his sentence is excluded from the article, in order to present a lighter picture of Streicher's executioners. It is accepted that had Streicher been tried lawfully he would have been protected by his right to freedom of speach. JewishNationalSocialist (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

^ My thoughts as well. He was killed for hating jews and hating jews is still a crime in Germany today. It's a shame Israel lives and the Reich died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.178.223 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

^You're a disgusting human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladycplum (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

From the article:

Despite having a tested IQ of 106, he was considered by many observers to be insane.

Sadly, low IQ and mental illness do not follow 1:1. In fact madness very commonly affects very intelligent people (although some cope with it better). Can we throw out the bit about Streicher's IQ? JFW | T@lk 23:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having seen no response, I took out the bit about IQ.

-Vorpalbla 2/20/05

Well, if the IQ part is true, it should be mentioned in the article. But, it should be clear that IQ has nothing to do with mental illness.--Havermayer 00:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An IQ of 106 is nothing to write home about, but it is more than one SD above the average African-American IQ of 85. And the average white American IQ is about 100.

Falange (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is irrelevant. JFW | T@lk 01:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The following quote from the book by Airey Neave is probably apposite here though:

• "Two weeks after serving the indictment, I introduced him to Dr Marx of Nuremberg who represented him as counsel during the trial. Marx found his attitudes so extreme that he asked the tribunal to order Streicher's examination by a panel of psychiatrists. Streicher lectured the psychiatrists on the Jewish problem throughout the examination. They decided that he was suffering from a neurotic obsession but was not insane. Dr Gilbert summed up the case : 'No true psychiatric diagnosis, but this man is of a personality structure which borders on the frankly abnormal and which brought him into difficulties even in the pathological social environment of the Third Reich' ..." Nuremberg, P. 95

Dr Gilbert seems to contradict himself - part of the prosecution maybe?

It has to be said that Neave, when writing the chapter in his book on Streicher, viewed the man with undisguised loathing. Given the character of Streicher, and the legacy he left in his wake, it would be difficult to find many redeeming features with which to present a more sober and balanced view, and Neave's own personal encounters with the man during the progress of the Nuremberg Trials almost certainly resulted in a certain jaundiced view, as Streicher felt no need to endear himself to his enemies. Even with this in mind, Neave's open contempt for Streicher is, if perhaps less than ideal in a book aiming to be at least a partly historical account, refreshingly honest. Neave cites extracts from Der Stürmer and other Streicher writings, including a piece from a 1935 article entitled Alien Albumen which does, quite frankly, read like the ravings of a madman, so it is not surprising that a view of Streicher as insane enjoyed considerable circulation among his contemporaries. I could quote this piece as printed in Neave's book, but to be honest, I suspect many readers of the piece will feel the need to take a long shower afterwards - it is that bad.

Neave also cites details of the web of financial corruption within which Streicher was entangled, enriching himself at the expense of Jews deprived of their property, an investigation into said corruption being ordered by Hermann Goering after Streicher published a piece claiming that Goering's daughter Edda was conceived by artificial insemination. I think it is fair to say, given the details of Streicher's life, that the man seemed to have been hell-bent on acquiring for himself the epithet of "World's dirtiest old man", particularly as even the Nazis found themselves moved to put him on trial for sexual offences ... Calilasseia 10:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

...ten evil men were hanged on that day...

This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should never present moral judgements of real people as if they were facts, no matter how great a consensus exists. --Rwehr 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Whip

I have heard that while in charge of Nuremberg, he would personally "police" the streets and dispense "instant justice" with a whip. The article at present makes no mention of this. Who was whipped, for example? Some real criminals or just Jews and people who got in his way?

• Neave mentions this on more than one occasion in his book. If I turn to the chatper of Nuremberg entitled The Beast Of Nuremberg (pp.86 96), we find the following:
  • "Streicher had been imprisoned on one occasion [under the Nazis] for assaulting a boy prisoner while on an official visit to the cells. He had arrived with two fellow sadists who had watched him while he beat the prisoner with a whip. He then announced that it gave him an orgasm." (p.87)
  • "Streicher's teachings were repeated by others in more respectable form. Generals, admirals and diplomats assured the Nuremberg Tribunal of their disgust at his writings, but even after he was deprived of his office for corruption, they never denounced his propaganda. Repugnant though the lewd figure of Streicher, strutting through the streets of Nuremberg, whip in hand, may have been, they shared his essential beliefs. The laughed at his brutal jokes." (p.91)
• The central premise of Neave's biographical account is that Streicher was an arch sex criminal with a neurotic anti-Semitic obsession intimately woven between the threads of his lurid provlicities. For example:
  • "When Gauleiter Streicher finallly came unstuck in 1940, and was forced by Hitler to retire, it ws not his sexual misconduct which forced the Party bosses to action. They were prepared to overlook his more harmless eccentricities, like walking to his office in bathing trunks. It was the cesspool of corruption and embezzlement in which he had lived for years that led to the investigation." (p.95)
  • "He was like an ape exposing himself in a cage at the zoo. He was said by the prosecution to have boasted to his chauffeur of nightly wet dreams and exhibited the semen to prove it." (p.86)
  • "Streicher was familiar with the Palace of Justice and its courtoom. He had already been tried there and in other courts more than once for slander, sadism and rape. Hitler at first protected him from further penalties." (p.86)
  • "At first sight, Streicher, as his cell door opened, seemed insignificant. He was small and strongly built, being sixty at the time. He wore a khaki shirt and trousers. The shirt was open showing a very hairy chest. There was a peculiar light in his eyes. When exicted, they had the look of a hungry animal. Streicher was primarily a sex criminal. He said when he arrived at Nuremberg, 'I have of course been here before'." (p.87)
  • "He looked, as Rebecca West as written, like the 'sort of old man who gives trouble in parks'." (p.87)
• While it may not be the place of the encyclopedia to pass moral judgements (alluding to the commentator above this section), by any reasonable standards, Streicher was a severely degenerate man. Neave went on to describe him thus:
  • "He was standing, hands on hips, chin forward, ready for an argument. He was five feet, two inches tall, broad-chested, and sordid. He would have made a good subject for an indecent sixteenth-century woodcut. It was easy to imagine him as a fat, horned devil, advancing, erect, upon a virgin." (p.87)
• And then this:
  • "The man himself was less dramatic. His head was shaped like a bullet, with a receding forehead. His nose was curved and his chin pointed. His short, fat neck made him look both coarse and evil: a professional torturer who might have operated the Iron Maiden of Nuremberg. When stripped to the waist, he appeared immensely strong for his age. A man, I thought, capable of any cruelty. He was also, I felt, stupid and cunning, and as the Nazis themselves discovered, a consummate liar." (p.88)
• Indeed, as I have alluded above, it is tempting to ponder upon the notion that Streicher seemed to be an avid competitor for the title of 'dirtiest old man of all time', and while commentators from a more academic background may have displayed a greater circumpsection with respect to revealing their disgust at the man, Neave's personal insights into Streicher provide a study in what might be termed 'the repugnant fasciantion of evil'. Calilasseia 04:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Neave to be believed, or his sources? Strange for a man of such low IQ and "well known depravity" to rise so high and accomplish so much. He was a propagandist, the history about him smells of propaganda too.

107 is an IQ which is actually higher than average. But low compared to Goering's 137. So that should say something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.35.55 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

An IQ of 106 is nothing to write home about, but it is more than one SD above the average African-American IQ of 85. And the white American average IQ is about 100.

Falange (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

During the trial the other defendants, who, to a man, despised Streicher, refused to have anything to do with him. ??? Almost unreadable.

rv

In what way is this confusing? It means that the other defendants hated Streicher and refused to have anything to do with him during the trial.

Wonder if there are any official source about other defendants' disdain over Streicher? I feel that he is somehow like Josef Mengele on whom with unusally numerous emotional remarks and thus quoting of official soruce seems to be desriable.

The German Socialist Party

By the standards of Weimar Germany, the German Socialist Party (Deutschsozialistische Partei) was a party of the political right. It had nothing to do with the real socialist parties (the Social Democrats or the Communists, or their various splinter groups). Instead, it was a völkisch party very close to the Nazis in ideology. See Joachim Fest's Hitler, for example, on this (p. 139 of the paperback edition). It competed with the Nazis for the same part of the political spectrum. When Streicher concluded that Hitler was his superior, the DSP was simply absorbed into the NSDAP. Any member of one of the socialist parties of the period would have viewed the DSP (as well as, of course, the NSDAP) as right wing rather than socialist. Bytwerk 13:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

More on the German Socialist Party

OK, anonmous. In your first edit, you confuse the DSP with the SPD. In your second edit, you think it is Fascist, though Mussolini had yet to take power in Italy, and the term was not in use in Germany. In your third edit, you claim that the DSP was not right ring, but socialist, but provide no support. Later, to support your assertion, you provide a source that does not even mention the DSP. Furthermore, at least according to the Wikipedia article on the Far Right, Murray Rothbard, the author of that piece, puts Fascism on the right, so citing him as your evidence may not be too persuasive.

The terms right and left were widely used in the Weimar Republic. The DSP and the Nazis thought themselves to the right. The Socialists and the Communists thought so, too. A standard Marxist slogan from the period was "Der Feind steht rechts," which translates as "The enemy is to the right."

There are a few folk who do argue that Nazism, etc., were "left," but they are are in the decided minority. None of them, to my knowledge, knows anything at all about the DSP. Moreover, to insert the term in the article without explanation will confuse readers, since the historical consensus puts the DSP on the right wing.

If you want to make the claim, find a source that actually mentions the DSP in a way that agrees with you. And how about providing some evidence for "socialist" views on the part of the DSP? The fact that "socialist" is in the name does not make it socialist in reality, any more than the name of East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) made it a democracy. Bytwerk 13:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bytwerk, the point I am making is this: The nascent/contributatory parties to the NSDAP were fundamentally socialist in their doctrine and ideology. As the distinguished Professor Rothbard states in the article I referred you to "Or rather, to be more precise, there were from the beginning two different strands within socialism: one was the right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism; but especially the smashing of the state apparatus to achieve the “withering away of the State” and the “end of the exploitation of man by man.”" Very few people understand this about socialism, and even fewer understand the genesis of the terms 'liberal', 'conservative' and 'left/right-wing.' It would be nice if this Wikipedia article could aim just a little higher at clarity. Mind you, when Dr. Rothbard uses 'conservative' he's speaking of the ancien regime. So, to state a-priori that the DSP was simply right-wing is misleading in the fullest sense of the term. If you'd like to remove the subjectivity, then I'll not insist on correcting it. Just leave it as "established German Socialist Party (Deutschsozialistische Partei)." and you won't hear anything more from me on the subject. Anonmous 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The program of the DSP included these main elements: "demands for a Greater Germany, land and colonies, discirimination against Jews and denial of citizenship to them, breaking 'interest slavery', confiscation of war profits, land reform, protection of the middle class, persecution of profiteers, and tight regulation of the press." As Ian Kershaw points out, these elements were standard for the völkisch Right. (Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936, pp. 144-145.) You are insisting on the view of a rather small minority, and you have yet to provide a single source that suggests the DSP was socialist in any commonly used sense of the term. Bytwerk 14:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Julius was a leader of the socialist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.216.123 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Streicher's Execution

Any record of who the hangman was. Many of the hangings were done by the official English hangman ( 100s of hangings). Most/many of the hangings seem to have been botched - were they botched intentionally? Was the crowd that "interrogated" them the same crowd that hung them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the hangman at Nuremburg was an American soldier who was brought in for the job. It wasn't Pierrepoint, who was the leading British hangman. I'll look it up. Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The hangman was Master Sergeant John Woods. Lots of people said the hangings were botched, have you seen the pics of some of the other men? They have blood all over their faces, that doesn't seem normal when a "merciful" hanging is supposed to instantly snap the neck and BOOM! Yer dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.181 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

John Woods - the hangman - botched a large percent of his hangings. 11 of 34 hangings he did on American soldiers were botched ( shocked slowly ) - siting Wikipedia article on Woods. A similar percentage is probable for German hangings. This article mentions that the hangman went behind a barrier to finish the job - any details what method the "finish the job" were? Blood on the hung suggests something other than a rope. 2601:181:8301:4510:50DC:FA4D:D573:843 (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

According to nitzor - his magazine Der Strumer was closed down by the Nazis on 3 or 4 occasions. Doesn't this cast into doubt its being a Nazi paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.141 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya for de stumer was for the nazi gobbels what is for Julie stricher his whip gool.109.58.143.200 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

According to what I've read, from a book written by Gitta Sereny, it was shut down during the 1936 Olympics, and was shut down only once before that for insulting Emmy Goering because she still did a lot of her shopping in Jewish-owned stores. Ladycplum (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Streicher was such a fanatical anti-semite that many Nazis considered Der Sturmer to be vulgar. For instance, Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz remarks in Gilbert's Nuremberg Diary that he never read it, but preferred the "more mature" speeches of Hitler and Goebbels. Furthermore, Gilbert classifies Streicher's antisemitism as a neurosis. He brings it into every conversation, and even remarks that he is adept at "detecting Jews," specifically by observing their buttocks.

Still, even though many Nazis considered themselves too civilized to read it, there is no doubt that Der Sturmer was a "Nazi paper," considering that Streicher was a Nazi, and was appointed by Hitler.68.163.249.192 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Purimfest 1946

This quote of Streicher's does not refer to a new holiday but rather to the fact that, just as Haman's 10 sons were hanged, 10 leading Nazis, or sons of Hitler, were being hanged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.112.150 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The attempt to find supposed mystery "codes" in completely unrelated things (putting aside the Biblical book of "Esther" has been judged to be entirely fictional by academics, to start with) was long ago refuted [1]

Seems quite similar to other people who find "codes" in all sorts of other things as well. [2]

quote about palestine/israel

I once saw on TV that streicher in the end said something like "I want to go to israel and fight along the jews because the will win in the end" some time before his execution. I have not been able to find this quote here or on wikiquote.--130.251.167.31 (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No source for this.Historylover4 (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Torture By Allied Troops

[U.S. Army Intelligence Captain John) Dolibois later related that Streicher complained bitterly of his treatment at the hands of American soldiers before his transfer to Mondorf. Evidently his notoriety as a fanatic racial persecutor was known to the troops at Freising. Streicher claimed that he and his wife were forced by some black American soldiers to walk in public stripped of their clothes. These soldiers allegedly spat on them and extinguished cigarettes on their bare skin. At Mondorf, an unconfirmed report was circulated stating that some soldiers had taken photographs that showed Streicher dressed only in an open coat, with swollen testicles and a crown of thorns on his head with a sign draped over his neck with the words "Julius Streicher, King of the Jews." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.251.8 (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Guantanamo! And in WWII Americans were gangs and terrorists №1.--109.172.58.15 (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop deleting

During his trial he was also repeatedly tortured by allied soldiers who ordered him to take off his clothes in his cell, burned his skin with cigarettes, the only water he was allowed to drink was water from the toilet and if he refused to drink it he would be beaten with a whip. Some of the soldiers also spit at him and forced his mouth open to spit in it.

I have sources for this, now TWO sources, dont delete this, it is very well known that they tortured him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.93.43 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The evidence on mistreatment is pre-trail — during the Nuremberg trials themselves, I know of no evidence of mistreatment during the trial. Bytwerk (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? During the trials he told his advocate that he was being tortured like this and they brought it up in the trials but the judges and all basically just ignored it. So no facts that comes up after any event should be mentioned on wikipedia or what do you mean? I add this again as I have sources in form of book(s) and webpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.93.43 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I added yet ANOTHER source, now one article, one book and one homepage, what more is needed?--83.248.93.43 (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the way you have it, Streicher was mistreated during the Nuremberg Trials. The statement he made applied to his treatment after his arrest, but before the trial began. Bytwerk (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you just copy the text I add to this article and put it in right place instead of deleting? I dont know where to put it, but it IS true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.93.43 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I did that. Look at the end of the section titled "Fall from power". Bytwerk (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're the author of the one cited source, adding other sources would be preferable. It's a pretty serious accusation, and the source isn't on the internet for people to explore further. John2510 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

removal of photo of body

I am apologizing before anyone says anything (altho I am sure they will) but I feel it is very important to discuss, and until the discussion is complete and the issue resolved, remove the shocking photos that are in I think every article about a Nazi executed.

There is no need for such gruesomeness imho and if there actually is, then a warning needs to be placed, or alternately, some user configuration to allow individuals to decide whether they want to see such things.

In any event, I will hold off for a while, but I do want this discussed. I actually see these death photos as almost a kind of vandalism.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly gruesome about these images, and they aren't vandalism. Streicher was hanged, the image shows this quite well, and is an important historical record.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a photo of someone hanged is gruesome and it seems to me that the fact that he was hanged sufficient -- what information is gained by showing the photograph?--Jrm2007 (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this is broader than merely the Streicher article, I have started a topic at the Village Pump.--Jrm2007 (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I followed that discussion to here. Given the number of other photos illustrating the article, and the morbid nature of the photo, I would favor its removal. Wikipedia isn't censored, but I don't think it needs to pander to necrophiles either. There doesn't seem to be much doubt that he was hanged. The photo doesn't illustrate much. On the other hand... it's pretty small and not particularly graphic. It's relatively innocuous, as such pictures go, but I'd favor removal. John2510 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake for me to have started with any particular article and I should have simply gone to the Village Pump at the beginning although I guess the Streicher article really got me thinking -- they hanged a man for anti-semitism, basically. But maybe this IS a reason to keep the photo of Streicher, to show the brutality of capital punishment and let people consider why indeed he was hanged. So have I made a 180? Was I disturbed by the idea that nazis hanged were shown postmortem because it is okay to show terrible people killed in brutal ways, even unjustly? --Jrm2007 (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This was here because it's a part of the historical record, and it should stay not because of some one person's anti-capital punishment agenda but for the original reason. Besides, if you check out WP:NOTCENSORED, it explains how this is permissible in general. Blue Danube (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of wrongly executed people that you should defend, but this perverted, hate mongering man is not one of them. This is irrelevant to the article, I just want to share my advice.137.22.99.108 (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

From the original article  "In essence, the prosecutors took the line that Streicher's incendiary speeches and articles made him an accessory to murder, and therefore as culpable as those who actually ordered the mass extermination of Jews (such as Hans Frank and Ernst Kaltenbrunner)."

Would it be possible to reference any evidence be that letters, or documents bearing in mind that the Nazis recorded every last detail ,that Hans Frank or Ernest Kaltenbrunner ordered any mass extermination of Jews just because they were Jews? Otherwise this statement just seems to be propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterbishop1 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Kingsbury Smith, not Howard Kingsbury Smith, was the INS reporter at the Nuremberg hangings

The article says Howard K. Smith was the INS reporter at the Nuremberg executions, but according to pages 127 and 128 of "Complete biographical encyclopedia of Pulitzer Prize winners, 1917-2000 ..." By Heinz Dietrich Fischer, Erika J. Fischer, the reporter's name was Joseph Kingsbury Smith. Googling

"kingsbury smith" nuremberg fischer pulitzer

will take you to these pages in Google Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.168.168 (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add the following sourced information which a filter prevented

The German Socialist Party (Deutsch-Sozialistische Partei, DSP) was created in May 1919 as an initiative of Rudolf von Sebottendorf as a child of the Thule society, and its program was based on the ideas of the mechanical engineer Alfred Brunner (1881-1936) - including socialist ideas like the takeover of the financial sector by the state and cutting back the "interest-based economy". Leading members of the DSP were Hans Georg Müller, Max Sesselmann and Dr. Friedrich Wiesel, the first two being editors of the Münchner. Julius Streicher founded his local branch in 1919 in Nuremberg. Streicher's arguments were primitive, vulgar, and crude, but he believed in what he said and was an uninhibited, wild agitator, to whom masses would listen, which was what mattered to the party. The DSP was officially inaugurated in April 1920 in Hanover . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.188.175 (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It just worked -- adding sentence by sentence. 79.230.188.175 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The torture of Juliua Streicher

I added a video clip in which Julius Streicher tells the court how their soldiers tortured him before they killed him, but a user named Noommos deleted the entry saying its not helpful. I said to Noommos that deliberately not mentioning how Streicher was tortured was in effect lying, because it hides evidence that suggests the trial was an act of savagery rather than justice, but Noommos deleted my entry again.

Here is Streicher telling the court how its soldiers beat him on the testicles, pulled his hair out, burned him on his body with burning cigarettes and then forced him to drink from a toilet bowel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rcBM_w-2K8

I would like to have Noommos or someone else from wikipedia justify their deliberate falsification of the the truth to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgg804 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) --109.172.58.15 (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but here I cannot find anything of Streicher talking about torture or testicles. Could you supply us with a reliable source? Jeff5102 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Guntanamo! The United States were in WW2 stupid manyaks and World Nazi-Terrorists №1.

Jeff: You must be stupid. You show a document from Yale Law School that you say does not talk about torture and I show a video of Streicher telling the court very clearly, in convincing words that he has been tortured and his testicles were beaten and you claim that because it isn't in some document it didn't happen. Are you a moron? It has been established repeatedly that the allies doctored and forged documents, left out what they didn't like and put in things that never happened. It has been established that the allies tortured many of the German prisoners and the Jew's in the British army that tortured Rudolf Hoss (commandant of Auschwitz)even bragged about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.4.229.43 (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How curious that the camera cuts away from all of Streicher's comments. If it is indeed so easy to forge historical record, how much easier it must be to forge audio for a youtube video.[Unsigned comment.]

Streicher's lengthy Lebenslauf or life story ends, in the transcript, at "I might mention here that I deliberately gave my fighting paper Der Stuermer, the subtitle, A Weekly for the Fight for Truth. I was quite conscious that I could not be in possession of the entire truth, but I also know that 80 or 90 percent of what I proclaim with conviction was the truth." The next line is the question "Why were you dismissed from the teaching profession?"

What happened is that the rest of Streicher's life story was stricken from the record. The official transcripts include (shortly after the life story is finished) an expression of concern by Dr. Marx, Streicher's defense attorney, that he may have lost the confidence of his client. The court tells Marx to continue representing Streicher. Streicher is also told by the court, several times, that he is referring to incidents which have been stricken from the record and which the court cannot hear. So, what happened is that Streicher or his attorney requested the torture story to be stricken from the record, and it was. The court's attitude is reflected on page 317 ("We have already got into this case...an attack on the United States..."). The tribunal is annoyed about Streicher's grandstanding and wants him to simply answer the questions asked of him. That is because these are the questions the court must ask to determine whether Streicher is guilty of war crimes (he was not) and crimes against humanity (he was).

There is a recording of Streicher's speech on Youtube The allegation is at 22:18 to 25:00. I cannot make claims about the accuracy of the content or the political motivations of the publisher.

Apologies for the length here, but the above is relevant for the article in case anyone tries to suggest that Streicher's testimony was coerced by torture. The reality is anything but that. He says much more than is required of him, freely. The court asks that he be admonished to answer the questions put of him and then stop talking. If anything, the official transcripts are "white-washed" to make Streicher look less like a rambling and fanatical anti-Semite.

Roches (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Neopagan label

What warrants the neopagan label? --41.151.22.132 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that is some funny **** right there, it's racist in itself to call these people neopagan, they were christian and their haters are christian or jewish, of course they want to cover that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.94.84 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Julius was not Christian but neopagan. And so called "Der Stuermer" was for NSADAP of Hitler as "Charlie Hebdo" for Marine Le Pen--109.172.58.15 (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Was Julius Streicher Jewish?

Streicher's mother was named Weiss, and he married a Roth. Both are traditionally Jewish names. Was Streicher Jewish? If anyone has research, it seems worth adding to the article. 62.178.65.8 (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I am a genealogist and have not found anything regarding his genealogy. I can tell you that the normal policy was that if you had a single grandparent that was Jewish you were considered Jewish and treated accordingly. But I can also tell you that German genealogical documents under the nazis were far from perfect. Also there were a handful of rare exceptions made to the general policy of extermination. Supposedly Hitler had a Jewish doctor whom Hitler referred to as a "good Jew." I have heard of a handful of high ranking nazis who had Jewish blood they kept hidden so while I offer no proof I will say it was possible that Streicher may have had Jewish blood. As a genealogist I have also found that the concept of pure blood is borderline ludicrous. Nearly everyone whose family tree I have looked up, especially those claiming to be pure this or pure that, has mixed ancestry to some extent. It is most likely that the vast majority of nazis need only go back 4 or 5 generations to find some Jewish ancestors. This is because Judaism was very common in pre nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Trial and execution an injustice

It seems that Julius Streicher was killed because of his views, not for any crime. In essence, "prosecutors contended that Streicher's articles and speeches were so incendiary that he was an accessory to murder". Is that not a war crime, to kill him for his views? Has there been any criticism of the persecution of Streicher?122.59.167.152 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The executions of Streicher and Alfred Rosenberg have been widely questioned. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:6051:389F:3949:8E32 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC))

He was obviously killed for his views, in the connection with the fact that others acted upon these views. And obviously, if any capital punishment for any crime whatsoever is deserved in peacetime, then he certainly did deserve to be killed for this sort of views.--2001:A61:2091:2201:1195:55E5:1213:9BE6 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Streicher was not responsible for other people acting on his views. Many of the Allied leaders, especially the Soviets, were extremely anti-Semitic. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:FF:5B53:3C80:B5A5 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC))

Minor Corrections

“Nazi” should, in fact, be capitalized, and it was used occasionally every by the Nazis to refer to themselves. I can document that if anyone doubts it. Bytwerk (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Nominated as Good Article in World History category

I have nominated this article for Good Article status. This is the first time I've made such a nomination. I believe all six criteria are met: it is well-written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated.

The fact that this article gives an easily-read summary of Streicher's life and its impact on history is a success for Wikipedia. The collaborative process has prevented the article from being used as a platform for fringe views. It has done the same for other articles on Nazi war criminals, though not all are as concise as this one.

My views on the six criteria for a good article follow:

Writing style: Properly begins the article with a summary that can stand on its own. The article presents a clear narrative with events in chronological order, separated into relevant periods.

Verifiability: some sections depend strongly on Showalter (1997) or on other single sources; this is not ideal but might not be objectionable. The text including "primitive, vulgar and crude" should be referenced or replaced with a direct quote.

Broad scope: The article covers each stage of Streicher's life with an appropriate amount of text. It does not go off-track.

Neutral: In this article, terms like "racist" and "antisemitic" are appropriate and scholarly. Claims and opinions are properly referred to as subjective.

Stable: I examined the edit log and the article is not currently subjected to edit-warring or vandalism. The talk page contains some weak arguments about capital letters and so on, but these issues have not infected the article.

Illustrated: The article has relevant images that can be freely used. It is probably valuable to include both photographs of destroyed synagogues. Note that every other article on a person hanged at Nuremburg includes a photo of the person's corpse. The images are, however, sometimes included by a fair-use rationale.

Roches (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC) (Redid paragraphs Roches (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

Some suggestions: (1) Suggest adding citations to the end of each paragraph -- otherwise it looks like a paragraph is left "hanging"; (2) expand lead with, say, two more paragraph to summarise the article, per WP:Lead which states that many users only read the lead, so you'd want it to convey the key points of the article.

Hope this helps! K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Roches, I can tell from glancing at the article that it fails GA 2a and 2c. This is because there are uncited paragraphs (I noted a minimum of 4 such instances). I bring this up because if somebody takes up the review, and I am considering it (but am abstaining for the time being), then it falls on the person who nominated it to address the issues (as they are identified). I note that you are bound to chemistry and science based articles and you mention this is your first GA nomination (I assume that is what you mean by "first time I have made such a nomination"). So I am not entirely sure that you nominated the article with the intention of working on it but rather, under the impression that it would automatically pass or pass after some minor copy-edits are done. I can assure you that this would not be the case. How far is it from GA? I can't tell you with any certainty until I did the review for the article, but, I imagine that if from a glance of it that I can see issues, then, those issues may well extend quite deep and require quite a bit of work. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Julius Streicher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 19:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately this one is going to be a quick fail as it doesn't meet the GA criteria at this time. Of particular concern are the following issues:

• The lede fails to aptly summarise the rest of the content of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Large chunks of this article are simply unreferenced, and thus may constitute original research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• The use of sourcing has been unsatisfactory. When we have so many academic biographies and studies of Streicher available, why only use free web sources and the like? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that this is going to be a fail, but hopefully these tips will help in bringing about its future improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I just happened upon the article and somehow it seemed to be a possible candidate. I haven't contributed anything and don't plan to, so I don't object to failing the review at all (if that even matters). Roches (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julius Streicher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608002919/http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Purim.cfm to http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Purim.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Part in planning the Holocaust

The "Trial and execution" section says he wasn't "a member of the military and did not take part in planning the Holocaust or invasion of other nations." Should we mention that he wasn't in the SS either? My goal isn't to minimize his war crimes, but to not lose sight of the importance of the SS vis-a-vis the military in the Holocaust. Thoughts? Scaleshombre (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Copy edits

I removed "prominent" from the lead since not really isn't needed per most lead sentences of bios, but I am not married to this. The other copy edits were delinking words already linked above, so that is more MOS type edits. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my edit summary. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda suspect that the link removals were reducing overlinking, so it's my bad for not checking on them. As for "prominent", I think it's important to indicate that Streicher was not a run-of-the-mill National Socialist, but an early supporter whose newspaper was very influential in propagating Nazi anti-semitism. He was not Hitler or Goring or Himmler or Goebbels, but, even though his name may not be as well known at those, he was at least as important as, say Hess or Bormann or Frank, or Heydrich. I continue to think it should stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

BMK, no worries. I don't think not including prominent will imply that he was a run of the mill Nazi. We usually don't use words like that in the lead sentence since the next sentence usually tells us why they are prominent, if they are in deed. Like Einstein wasn't a prominent physicist, maybe bad example since everybody knows him, which goes to your point above. I am going to look at other Nazi bios and report back in a bit. Again, I am certainly not married to my edit, I remove this thing from lots of bios and stumbled across this one. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that the examples you mentioned use "prominent" and "high ranking". This is where I cite otherstuff and then you say that idontlikeit j/k ;). I am going to restore "prominent" even though I am not a fan of it. --Malerooster (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Julius Streicher reversion

Beyond My Ken, you reverted my edit with the evasive excuse that it was poorly written. Aside from my disliked copy efforts, it seems that you considered a mere futility from my side to have:

• Replaced a totally false assertion, without citation (Wechsler-Bellevue IQ test) with the correct one, with citation (Rorschach test),
• Corrected a typo (anti=Semitic),
• Removed {{fakeheader}} as per WP:PSEUDOHEAD and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Discord,
• Revamped the use of the English language by reducing the overuse of German words, as per WP policies..

Shouldn't your action be castigated for infringing, by using vague motivations, the right of others to pursue an improvement? Carlotm (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not at all "evasive", your re-write was poor, and yopu've been told that your interpretation of the you of "fakeheader" is neither policy nor mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You continue to be evasive, not considering at all the facts I listed above, which have nothing to do with poor writing. About "fakeheader", it is not my interpretation, is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)'s. Carlotm (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Not evasive in the least, a simple statement: your edit did not improve the article. If you think otherwise, specify here in what ways you improved it -- not by the writing, that's for certain. As for "fakeheader", you seem to be under the impression that on Wikipedia, everything not specifically allowed is forbidden, whereas, in actuality, anything not specifically forbidden is allowed' -- and per WP:IAR, sometimes even "forbidden" things are allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So, you're trying to tell us that your re-written paragraph:

In April 1933, after the Nazi party gained total control of the German state apparatus, Streicher organised a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses which was used as a dress-rehearsal for other anti-Semitic commercial measures. Shortly Streicher came to rule the city of Nuremberg and "his" Franconia unopposedly, and boasted that every Jew had been removed from Hersbruck. Among the nicknames provided by his enemies were "King of Nuremberg" and, as Nazi leader (Gauleiter) of Franconia, the "Beast of Franconia", and the "Führer of Franconia" (Frankenführer).

is superior to the paragraph that was there already:

In April 1933, after Nazi control of the German state apparatus gave the Gauleiters enormous power, Streicher organised a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses which was used as a dress-rehearsal for other anti-Semitic commercial measures. As he consolidated his hold on power, he came to more or less rule the city of Nuremberg and his Gau Franken, and boasted that every Jew had been removed from Hersbruck. Among the nicknames provided by his enemies were "King of Nuremberg" and the "Beast of Franconia." Because of his role as Gauleiter of Franconia, he also gained the nickname of Frankenführer.

Is that your claim? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• If you have facts to add, them them with as little change of the text as possible, as you have shown that your writing is not up to the quality required in a Wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem not to appreciate my attempt on reducing the intrusiveness of German terms and vacuous phrasing like " As he consolidated his hold on power". Carlotm (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If by that you mean that I think your re-phrasings and re-writing did not improve the article, then, yes, you are correct. And, BTW, there is absolutely nothing "vacuous" about "As he consolidated his hold on power" - so I suggest that you might limit your contributions to Wikipedia to the addition of facts (properly sourced) and not to copy-editing, as your appreciation of what is good and what is bad in that arena seems somewhat tenuous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact I was unable to find any source asserting Streicher's need to consolidate his hold on power in 1933. His adjustment to the wealth of power that fell on him after the rise of the Nazis in Berlin can be easily expressed with "soon", "shortly" and the like. The longer phrasing, if one pretends to consider it somehow different than vacuous, must imply the occurrence, yet improbable, of some political difficulties. Carlotm (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversy over the grounds for his execution

Surely his execution for speech and speech alone was controversial, even among those that though his antisemitic views deserved punishment? We should seek out views of notable people past or present that criticized the allies for executing him on offensive speech grounds alone (rather then as a result of any actions) while supporting imprisonment and include those views in the article. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:F537:E917:3525:50A0 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Controversial to whom? His hate speech went far beyond rants to the point of being an accomplice to war crimes. His short execution was justified by the vast majority of people at the time and the historical viewpoint as well. This was one nasty rat, and the RS's reflect this. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Criticism of Judaism

I am currently removing antisemites from that category because they never criticized the actual religion of Judaism, or at least their articles do not say they did. If they are not already in an antisemitism or anti-judaism category, I add the one I find most appropriate.

Streicher seems to escape that removal because of this sentence:

"Streicher also combed the pages of the Talmud and the Old Testament in search of passages potentially depicting Judaism as harsh or cruel"

What do you think? Does this justify the category? In any case, I am adding Category:Antisemitism in Germany. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I will now remove the Criticism category. Any objections? --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is hatred of Jews, as a ethnicity - not Judaism. The category stays.50.111.51.247 (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguating Nazi Party in lede

Why would we want to including a lengthy disambiguation/official name for the Nazi Party in the lede of this article? [3] The common reader neither knows nor cares what the official name of the Nazi Party was, and can easily click on the link if they do. It makes sense for the actual Nazi Party article (where it is right in the lede), but what is the point here? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Obenritter, I see you've undone your reversion with this edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

After looking at it a little more, I think the original removal was the right call. It is unnecessary.--Obenritter (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Julius Streicher (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead image size

The lead image of this article was deleted on 13 April, and new ones were inserted on 22 April and 7 May. Since then, an edit-war has broken out regarding the image size, which include accusations of pro-Nazism. What size should the lead image be? DrKay (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Reduced

50/50 Compromise

Default

Headcrop at default size

By way of comparison...

Obama...

...Bush...

...and Clinton, all at the default size

Clinton cropped in to take up about the same amount of the frame as Streicher does; shown at default size

• Reduced preferred; the compromise would be acceptable at 198, 203 is a little too big - Just to note that a "default" is not necessarily the best choice in all circumstance, it is merely the size that the image displays at if no other size is chosen. Many images will look perfectly fine at the default size, some will have to be increased in size in order that the reader can easily take then in visually, and some -- like this one -- will need to be reduced so we do not give the impression that we are glorifying the subject. A look at the articles on recent American Presidents -- Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, for instance -- shows that those official photos look perfectly fine at the default size - they can be easily taken in, and they do not overpower the top of the page. The Streicher image, however (and it is a better image than the previous lede image), unlike the presidential images, is dimensioned such that at the default size it is overpowers the page and visually lionizes this person, who was a reprehensible Nazi anti-Semite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• The other possibility is to use a headcrop of the image at the default size, as shown in the fourth image on the right. That would be acceptable to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Default Preferred Large images can be unflattering too. This picture is far from glorifying, which is also POV. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, glorifying someone is indeed POV, even when done with images and not words. We wouldn't allow text in the article that praised Streicher, and we shouldn't allow an image which does the same. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nominate the ugliest image?! Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Leave the stupid image sizes alone and go find something that's actually productive to do. We do not spam the same discussion across dozens of articles and then edit war against a half dozen editors until that discussion is concluded to your liking. Stop it. GMG^talk 18:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS is our central tenet, but WP:Consensus can change. There is nothing wrong with raising issues when there is a legitimate concern, as there is about glorifying Nazis by presenting their images at overly large sizes. Remember, the default size does not mean that all default-size images will look the same size, because the aspect ratio of the image changes how it is seen. What matters is not the "let's not use our minds and just leave things alone" of a numerical default, but the visual effect presented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• This issue has been discussed numerous times before. Here are the most notable and largest discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4. Each arrives at the same conclusion: standard image sizing DOES NOT glorify Nazis. Skjoldbro (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• On the contrary, they can, and do, sometimes. This is one such case, and this discussion will decide what happens to this image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• As you can see in the presidential pictures, the looming effect of the Streicher picture is not present. That's because Streicher takes up a very large portion of the frame, while Bush and Clinton's headshots take up much less, and as a result they don't visually dominate the way Streicher's does. Obama's image is even less dominating, as it's a body shot which takes up only about half the frame. The reasons are obvious. The Nazis wanted their official portraits to show them as strong, disciplined, dominating, powerful individuals, while the Presidents want to be seen as friendly and approachable. By showing the Streicher image at the default size, we're playing into the hands of the Nazi propagandist, something we should avoid doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• And if I crop the Clinton photo so that his head takes up about the same percentage of the frame as Streicher's dpoes, and resize the image to the same size as the Streicher image, then show it the default presentation size, you can see what a difference it make. It dominates the page in a way that the oriiginal Cinton image does not do. This is why the default size is not always the best size to present an image, because images differe substantially intheir aspect ratios and their composition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is a stupid dispute. It was a stupid dispute two years ago. It's still a stupid dispute now. Stop jacking around with image sizes as if it matters and stop wasting people's time. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse; you're beating the sun-bleached bones of what used to be a horse before it died back in 2018.

I would also note that the result of the last time this was brought to ANI was that if BMK wants to pursue arbitrary image sizes based on their ...unique... interpretation of their meanings, they should open up an RfC at a neutral venue such as the Village Pump, and not continue to spam individual articles incessantly. This discussion should therefore be closed and they should follow the advice they've already been given, or drop the stick and step away from the horse skeleton. GMG^talk 11:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I gather you think this is a "stupid dispute" -- but not so stupid that you're not compelled to comment upon it again, or, rather, to comment on me again.

There would be no purpose in a VPP proposal, as I do not want to change the infobox image default size, I simply want it to be considered for what it is, a mechanical default, and not necessarily the ideal size, a concept that same editors seem to have trouble wrapping their heads around. No proposal is going to force editors to understand that plain and obvious English language concept if they want articles to carry overly large images of Nazis and fascists.

May I suggest that now that you have made your views known (twice!) on the stupidity and lameness of the discussion, and the desirability of closing it, that you refrain from repeating the same point again, as further repetition is unlikely to be explicative or useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don't disengage from this discussion, I will open an ANI discussion to have you topic banned from infobox images. GMG^talk 18:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to note for the record that with this edit GreenMeansGo was WP:Canvassed to this discussion by Sjkoldbro, using a non-neutral comment:

Hey GMG and @Andy Dingley:, I don't if you remember this fun discussion, but BMK is back again with a new trick up his sleeves: Calling some a Nazi and thereby claiming WP:NONAZIS, allowing him to do what he wants. He has not learned from the previous discussions and continues to push for his view. This is honestly really tiring. You both previously expressed a desire to take it to ANI, still interested?

This is, of course, a violation of WP:Canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? Because what it looks like to me is that an editor was dragged to ANI over their disruptive behavior, and they decided to ignore the result of the discussion, and then do the exact same thing that got them dragged to ANI to begin with a few months later. GMG^talk 20:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Reduced preferred; Considering the disreputable history of the individual on display and the general arguments made by @Beyond My Ken: concerning how some default image sizes disrupt the spacing of a page, the smaller image is more appropriate in my view. --Obenritter (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Per WP:Canvassing, neutral pointers – i.e. "This RfC may be of interest to the members of this project." – have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Default Preferred Any biographical article ought to have the best image available, generally at the default size (depending on aspect ratio, size of subject in frame etc - i.e. technical considerations). The moral qualities of the person pictured simply isn't relevant in an encyclopedia. People reading the article can make their own mind up based on the text of the article. A clear, default sized image doesn't glorify the subject. On the flipside, are images of the morally upright people at default size, glorifying them? If they are, that's POV and all their images should be reduced. Or perhaps, we should generally use the default size for everyone, however much abhorrence, indifference, or respect we have for them as editors. (Hohum ^@) 20:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Default Preferred (edit conflict)The reason why English has the expression “The Great and the Good” is that these two do not always line up. Many of the great figures of history were, as human beings, somewhere below pond scum, which at least has its uses in water purification. Qwirkle (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – (edit conflict) not sure where I stand on the size issue, but there are some alternatives to consider. The image we are using now comes from the digital image archive of the Federal Image Archive of Germany. That archive has other images of Streicher, such as this raised arm image, for example, or some of these. As our original was acquired from the federal image archive, maybe we could request a different one, such as the raised-arm image, or one of the others. So, that's my first thought.

My second thought is, looking at the four discussions linked to by GMG, they are all from the same period: mid-December 2018, and whereas I understand the feeling of some here who have expressed their frustration of having to "go through this again", barring some community decision to set future discussions aside for X interval as sometimes happens, 15 months doesn't seem egregiously soon to raise it again. OTOH, I clearly see from the ANI non-decision, and the tone of the other discussions, that there was a lot of sentiment to moving this discussion away from a proliferation of individual Nazi bios which had images, to a single, central location, and have an Rfc there about it. So, one option would be to move it to a WikiProject or other agreed central location (maybe where to move it should be discussed here) and then draw a line under this discussion (see Template {{Moved discussion to}}) and have it there. But that shouldn't quash the possibility of requesting another image from the German Federal Archive, and a two-prong approach might, I hope, reach an accommodation that would be acceptable to everybody. Mathglot (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Mathglot: Having been warned that I will be taken to ANI if I don't "disengage" from this discussion, I suppose I'm taking my Wiki-life in my hands by replying, but here goes: Thanks for your comment, which I appreciated. As I've said above, I have no objection to the current image per se, it's certainly better than the one that was there before, or the others on Commons. If others wish to look for a different image from the Bundesarchiv that would be fine by me, but having been branded with a Scarlet A here, I'm not inclined to do that myself, and since the trend of !voting here appears to be converging on "default", I doubt others will be inclined to do so either. I also note that I offered a headcrop of the current image (#4 above) which I would be fine about it being presented at the default size, but no one has picked up on that compromise, leading me to believe that compromise is just not in the air this spring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: understood, and appreciated. Okay,let's see where it goes, and don't risk getting burned by that 'A' on my account! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Default preferred: There should be a standard size across articles, both in order to prevent there being some preference / variance across articles (potentially leading to NPOV issues) and to eliminate unnecessary unproductive disputes. The character of the subject of the article shouldn't be a factor in choosing image size; we don't need to reduce the image sizes of people that most editors think are terrible, just as we don't need to enlarge the image sizes of people that most editors think are great. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure what I'm for yet, but I know I'm against having a standard size across articles. No reason to force a (foolish?) consistency when we don't know the circumstances of individual articles; length, other images, sandwiching issues, and so on. There could be plenty of reasons for varying image size elsewhere (or here) for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with this Rfc. Let's not hamstring ourselves by unnecessary rules. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  With due regard for Emerson, that is begging the question to assume, against any evidence, that this particular drive for consistency is foolish. Qwirkle (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: I’m not arguing for an inflexible hard-and-fast rule to be universally imposed. Rather, a standard size should be in place, unless there are formatting issues (e.g. aspect ratio or sandwiching) or other significant reasons for a different size.

  Whether many editors think the subject of the article is of good or poor character is not one of those reasons, in my view. That’s a variable that leads to many unproductive disputes. Using a person’s character/popularity/“goodness”/virtuousness/morality/whatever is something that will almost never lead to consensus on the number of pixels to be displayed on an article-by-article basis (even if the consensus on character itself is near-unanimous, as is probably the case here). — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Mathglot: It's somewhat easier to judge the impact of the image sizes in the article itself rather than out of context here, so:

• Reduced (187)
• Compromise (203)
• Default (220)
• Headcrop at default (220)

• Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Default - I visually don't see the issue of sizing here inside the infobox. Why is there edit warring about this, especially predicated on WP:NONAZI when wikipedia is WP:UNCENSORED? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Also, the width of the image should not be fixed by px per WP:IMGSIZE and MOS:ACCIM. This due to accessibility if the viewer needs to magnify the image in scale with the entire article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Default Ugh what a horrorshow, one of them isn't even an American. Fretting about image size in an infobox? What's the point? Keith-264 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Default per MarkH21. --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Default - doesn't overpower the page and certainly doesn't glorify him, i.e. – reading the lead paragraph clearly defines him as being a reprehensible person. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Dumbest edit war... but honestly reduced looks better to me, and there's no reason to use default if non-default looks better. buidhe 19:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Reduced, ignoring MarkH21's consistency-for-its-sake argument and wondering why User:GreenMeansGo has such an enormous bug up his butt about this issue. --Calton | Talk 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

External links

@Beyond My Ken: WP:ELNO says we should not include: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." Both the USHMM article and spiegel article appear to be basic summaries of factual information that ought to be included somewhere in this article. How can they meet this criteria?

Furthermore, you moved a cited source to the external links section (despite being cited) and changed the formatting in a way that violates MOS:LAYOUT. buidhe 06:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

First, MOS is not policy, and is not mandatory -- so that's out of the way.

Secondly, the United States Holocaust Memorial Musueum is a completely reliable source, and there's absolutely no reason to remove an EL from it. Der Spiegel is also a very reliable source, so there is no reason to remove it from the ELS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, how are these providing a unique resource? MOS is a guideline and should be followed unless there is a good reason. And while they're reliable, neither USHMM nor Der Spiegel should be used in favor to peer-reviewed published sources, of which there are plenty. buidhe 07:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia, not an academic encyclopedia. and we use many different kinds of resources, ranging from museums, to newspapers and magazines, to academic sources. There is absolutely no policy that says that academic sources must be used and other sources should not be. Each has their uses, and there are many among our readers who would have difficulty reading a formal peer-reviewed academic source who would not have the same trouble reading a source focused more on a popular audience. Please do not take actions that make Wikipedia less useful to our entire reading audience. If you wish to write for an academic audience, there are plenty of outlets for that -- we are something quite different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot follow your reasoning here. What information is in these sources that would not be in a comprehesensive Wikipedia article? That is the requirement for being an external link. buidhe 10:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:ELYES Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. There is no definition of what cam be an acceptable EL which conforms to your criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The removed external links are considered reliable sources and can add to the general readers understanding of the subject. Therefore, should remain per WP:ELYES. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Spiegel article seems to fail WP:LINKSTOAVOID. It's just a 20s-read article written in German with 10 key dates of his life. Alcaios (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed?

• It was proof that Streicher's unofficial motto for his tactics was correct: "Something always sticks."[citation needed]

I'm a little confused here since the use of the motto within this text has clearly a describing character of Streichers tactics, as it is also understood that it is not something Streicher said or printed. The remark can be deleted.

--89.183.105.141 (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)