Talk:Rudolf Hess
|
|
An event mentioned in this article is a May 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
| Contents |
Rudolf Hess vs Rudolf Heß
from the village pump
Schnee and I have a question about the following articles - Rudolf Hess and Rudolf Heß. He moved the article from Hess to Heß (making Hess a redirect), and I moved it back again. We talked it over (I am copying our discussion below) and we wanted to get everyone's opinion on which one to make the article and which one to make a redirect . It basically boils down to - Hess is the way it is always spelled in English, but Heß is the proper german way of spelling it.
- (From User talk:Raul654)
- Hi, with regard to the question which of the two pages given above should be a redirect to the other one - it may be true that "Hess" is the traditional english spelling, but the correct spelling of the (german) name is "Heß", so don't you think that Rudolf Hess should redirect to Rudolf Heß instead of vice versa? Just a thought. :) -- Schnee 01:37, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- (From User talk:Schneelocke)
- My thoughts on the matter were basically:
- This is the english wikipedia - I don't think it's a trivial matter that the titles should be only standard english-language characters, or else no one can directly link to Rudolf Heß without copying it first, like I did.
- Like I said before, Hess is the way it is spelled in English. (I've never seen it any other way) As precedent, I'd point out the fact that Italia (how Italians refer to Italy) is a redirect to Italy, Deutschland (as a disambig page) to Germany, etc etc. We usually put articles under the name by which they are most commonly known, which is not always the most "proper" name. Where languages are concered, we go with the standard English version.
--Raul654 02:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- There's a difference here, though. "Germany" or "Italy" or translations of the respective names, whereas "Rudolf Hess" is merely a spelling variation of the correct name (Heß). It may be true that it's more difficult to directly link to Rudolf Heß than to Rudolf Hess for someone who can't directly type a ß, but since one of the articles will always redirect to the other, I think that's irrelevant. And for what it's worth, there are several examples where latin-1 characters are used for article titles: take a look at, for example, Kraków, Eugène Ionesco, Josef Hiršal and others.
- Furthermore, the fact that this is the English Wikipedia does not mean anything - to quote from Wikipedia:POV, "Also be careful to avoid an English-speaking Point Of View. Although country-specific and similar POVs are often easy to spot, this can be harder to spot." As said above already, "Rudolf Heß" *is* the correct spelling, so this is what should be used for the article. -- Schnee 13:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- You make a good point. Here's what I propose - let's copy the above discussion to the Wikipedia:Village pump as a request for comments and see what everyone says. That way, should another issue like this come up again, the community can enfore uniformity. --Raul654 19:48, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Good idea. Let's do that. -- Schnee 21:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) suggests using English unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the anglicised form, which in this case it isn't as there are only 60 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Rudolf+He%C3%9F%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&output=search) Google hits for "Rudolf Heß" if you limit the search to English pages, compared to over 15000 (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off&q=%22Rudolf+Hess%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) for "Rudolf Hess". Angela. 06:19, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree: use Rudolf Hess as the almost universally-used name in English. In addition, I believe German spelling reform now means that Hess and not Heß is the proper spelling in German as well, though I'm not sure whether this is applied to names or not. --Delirium 09:57, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
- The spelling reform is not applied to names. The reform is absurd (I am a native German speaker), but it isn't that absurd ;-) Captain-c 17:49, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think the English page should be Rudolf Hess, but I wonder about the google numbers. A search for "Rudolf Heß" is extended by google to "Rudolf Hess" (at least if I use google.co.uk or google.com from Germany - even with the link above! -, I'm not sure if this applies universally, and finds some 8.000 pages). If I search for "Rudolf Heß" -Hess (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Rudolf+He%DF%22+-Hess&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&safe=off), it still get's 2.800 pages. Only if one turns it to "english language only" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rudolf+He%C3%9F%22+-Hess&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N), the page number is reduced to 45. -- till we *) 12:58, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
I'd say put it at "Hess". Practicality should be more important than issues of whether English or German speakers are using the more "correct" form of the name. The practical issues here are (1) in other articles, it's marginally better to link to the page itself than a redirect to the page, and (2) if you're writing an article in English, you'll always want the visible link text to be "Hess", not "Heß". If the article were at "Heß", then links would thus best be [[Rudolf Heß|Rudolf Hess]] rather than [[Rudolf Hess]]. That wouldn't be very intuitive, and I don't think it's worth it for a point of linguistic etiquette. If the issue needs highlighting, then the article itself should do that, not the title of the article. Onebyone 16:05, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Google tells me there's "about 87" hits for Heß on English pages. I checked some, and many of them are either quoting German text or belong to neo nazi organizations. I say, go with Hess. Zocky 16:18, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree that the article should live at Rudolf Hess (much as I love the ß) and want to add a little note thanking Raul and Schnee for demonstrating how disputes on Wikipedia should happen: polite disagreement (not just caving when someone disagrees with you), the decision to make sure the community is involved, and an overall spirit of Wikilove. I'm happier just having read this thread. :) Jwrosenzweig 16:31, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Hear! Hear! Andrewa 21:59, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Aww... I'm flattered :) --Raul654 07:20, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. We should no more have an article at Heß than at Wien. RickK 05:08, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There are lots of folks like Albrecht Dürer, Ernst Thälmann or Franz Josef Strauß. Should they all be changed to Albrecht Duerer, Ernst Thaelmann and Franz Josef Strauss if google gave more hits with the "wrong" spelling? Or do we make an exception especially for Rudolf? -- User:Moehre 08:04, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting point. As an English speaker with no knowledge of German, I'd have looked for Ernst Thälmann under Ernst Thalmann, which isn't even a redirect. This article is a stub anyway, so perhaps a name change and redirect creation will happen when the article is written.
- I think the point about Wien is well made above. The English spelling is Vienna of course. The only consistent and enforceable policy is to use English spellings. Alternatively, we could change the policy to say that so long as the appropriate redirects are there, either spelling can be used for the article. That strikes me as more Wikipedic, but may promote fruitless revert wars. I'd leave the policy as is.
- And as the policy stands, the examples given and many more should eventually get changed. It doesn't seem all that urgent to me. Andrewa 14:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I tend to favor the actual spelling of anyone's proper name (thus Rudolf Heß not Rudolf Hess). However, it becomes quickly obvious to me that while German uses mostly the same alphabet as English, difficulty in being consistent on this will arise for all languages which do not share the English alphabet — and becoming downright impossible for most Asian languages. So the only consistent approach is to transliterate these names into "English". Nonetheless, that is not necessarily my vote, as it could be argued that this Wikipedia is for English and perhaps other european users primarily, and the case could be made to use "correct" spellings for such proper names, and transliterate all others. - Marshman 22:17, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- And what about Franz Josef Strauß? WhisperToMe 22:49, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I unilaterally started converting him & his airport to Strauss, citing the naming convention which is fairly unambiguous on the point. Your average english speaker, I think, probably neither knows how to type ß into a computer, nor pronounce it when seen. Translation to ss, by the premise of this argument, provides such users with a means of pronouncing the article which seems a positive sort of a virtue. --Tagishsimon 22:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I moved it back as I learned on #wikipedia that ß is allowed in the article title. WhisperToMe 02:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That the character ß is allowed is irrelevant. It is not used in English except in very pedantic contexts. It is not even used in Swiss German. A Google test:
Search string: All Languages English only "Rudolph Hess" -"Rudolph Heß" 4,990 4,070 "Rudolph Heß" -"Rudolph Hess" 46 8
This is probably not entirely accurate, as Google does not always act with total consistancy on tests of letters which it normally equates. But I think it makes the point. English Wikipedia's policy is to use normal English forms of names, those found normally in other English texts. We use Jupiter (not the native Latin Iuppiter), Odin (not Old Norse Óðinn), Montreal which is the standard form in English Canada for that city despite some style sheets used in particular Canadian government departments (not the French form Montréal), Jesus Christ (not something like Iesous Khristos or even Yeshua` hammeshiah) and so forth. Other language Wikipedias, so far as I know, do exactly the same thing, rendering names in the most familiar form used in each language. So do other encyclopedias and reference books in various languages for the most part. That's the fact. It's what almost everyone does. If there are strongly competing forms of a name within a language or a new standard emerges outside Wikipedia which is obviously catching on, then it is reasonable that Wikipedia should go with the more authentic form. Otherwise not. Anyone who wants to innovate on this in any language must first popularize the more authentic form outside Wikipedia to the point that it becomes at least a popular form within that language even if not the most common form. Until then, for example, Caesar in German will remain Kaiser. Jallan 15:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reliable information sources?
Can somebody please confirm are the following information regarding Hess reliable?
- "[the journey] was actually a scheme conceived by James Bond author Ian Fleming". What other sources are used other than the book? Isn't this the "official" british version rather than a fact? (just wondering)
- "He degenerated mentally and apparently lost most of his memory". How about this, where has the information came from? Who else was allowed to speak to imprisoned Hess other than his son (i.e. reliable source)?
- I can't confirm or deny the other claims (I didn't write any of them), but I believe I heard this one on the history channel. If I recall correctly, the guards did talk with Hess on occasion. He was struck with a terrible case of amnesia. The guards were not sure whether or not he was faking though. --Raul654 10:45, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In addition, wasn't it true (rather than just a rumour), that Soviet Union was about to release Hess in the same year that he died (1987)?
Janne (posti_roska@hotmail.com)
reliable sources???
(From Captain-c) I've read a lot about Rudolf Heß, but never came across the story with Ian Flemming. That might be a good invention of him, but it isn't a historical fact. I'd rather remove this odd story from the article.
The same accounts for the speculation about Hess selecting the date of his flight after a planet constellation. I think this is mere speculation.
The sentence "He degenerated mentally and apparently lost most of his memory" is speculation, too.
I think, I'll rewrite the article in the future. But for now I think these three points should be removed from the article.
- I've put that stuff in its own paragraph and added some 'it is claimed'. Odd story, though. - David Gerard 10:33, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
structure
(From Captain-c)
I think the article should be structured in maybe 5 paragraphs:
1. short biography
2. Hess, Hitler and the NSDAP until 1941
3. Hess' flight to England
4. Nuremberg Trials and Spandau prison
5. Neo-Nazi commemoration
I'm not sure about the titles, but think the structure would be good. What do you think?
Maybe another paragraph "Myths and legends about Hess" could be fitted in. Would be the right place for the Flemming and the astrology story. (Captain-c 1-12-04)
- "Claims concerning Hess' flight"? I've put the book's full title and author in as well. Current structure of article is much as you suggest (1 and 2 combined, and the odd claim in the middle). If we could just find a second source or debunking of the Fleming story ... - David Gerard 12:53, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- OK. I've separated out the claims, noted they're from a single source and hence removed the 'disputed' header. The article looks good to me. Anyone got problems with the current version, feel free to change it back :-) - David Gerard 13:07, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
What a dreadful article this is - like most articles at Wikipedia dealing with Nazis, I must say. Why does this subject attract so many cranks? Never mind, I know the answer. I am adding this to my list of "articles to completely rewrite when I get time." Adam 13:13, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Rather than just blanket criticism of this article, would you care to elaborate on your claims? →Raul654 13:25, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
Do we really need to put revisionist before the IHR link? POV? I put it in considering the link itself would say all that was needed. - David Gerard 13:41, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
- As a neutral observer, I like it as-is. →Raul654 13:51, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
Hess impostor?
Is anyone familiar with the theory that the man who flew to Britain in 1941 claiming to be Rudolph Hess was in fact an impostor? I came across some book in a used book store a few years ago about this; now i'm sort of wishing I'd bought it. I don't remember the details, but I did a quick google search and got some hits. I don't suppose there's any truth to it, but is it worth addressing in the entry as a conspiracy theory? -R. fiend
- Not without a source, I'd think. (First I've heard of it!) If the man who flew to Britain wasn't Hess, then who was locked up in Spandau? - David Gerard 18:30, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
I believe the book I glanced at years ago may have been "The Murder of Rudolph Hess" by Hugh Thomas, who I guess was a doctor who examined Hess and found some descrepencies. The point of the book was that Hess wasn't the man in Spandau either. I guess maybe he even could still be on the loose somewhere. I doubt the argument is terribly convincing, and this theory may well be too obscure to warrant inclusion in the article, but I thought I'd mention it. Somewhere I came across a description of Thomas's book as a "bestseller", which would perhaps imply that the theory was somewhat well known for a time, however since it seems very difficult to find a copy of this book now that description may have been quite a hyperbole. In any case a google search of Rudolph Hess impostor does lead to a few sites that mention this theory, mostly based on Thomas's book I would guess. -R. fiend
- Well, I think there should be added some more facts about Hess first, before we start discussing all the conspiracy theories about him. IMHO there are enough speculations and absurd theories in the article right now. And yes, I think you're right and it's the book by Hugh Thomas, I came across with it a while ago, but it was too absurd IMO. Captain-c 16:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Further to discussion above re Hess and Ian Fleming, I've come across a curiosity concerning Peter Fleming, brother of Ian. In 1940, the year before the capture of Hess, Peter published the novel The Flying Visit, in which Hitler is captured in England after being shot down while watching a bombing raid. Strange... Max
"General" Goebbels?
re "...became focused on the generals, Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler."
A minor quibble, but was Goebbels a general? I'm aware that there was some blurring of military and civilian roles in Nazi Germany, so this is certainly possible. Even the article on Himmler doesn't use the term 'general', but perhaps "Reichsführer" connotes an equivalent rank. --Rapscallion 03:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the generals + göring + goebbels + himmler is meant
Why exactly he was found guilty is not specifically stated.
The article does not specifically (only generically) state why he was convicted in the Nurenberg. Someone should add details, e.g. he was proven to have raped six jewish girls, hanged three rabbies, burnt seven synangogues, skinned gays, etc. Without specifics the nazi will continue to say he was condemned in a pre-arranged trial.
- What a load of crap. And if rape was a war crime, they'd have to have sentenced 3/4 of the Russian and 1/4 of the western allied army to death.
- Please sign your posts and there is no need to be rude. I think the writer above was simply using these as examples...not as facts. --Maustrauser 11:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not last person at the Tower
The article on the Tower of London states there were prisioners during the fifties, so I'm deleting the misinformation about Heß being its last prisioner.
Vegetarian
I notice this article has Category:Vegetarians. Hess being vegetarian isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, so what is the source for this? Is it anything to with the "Hitler was a vegetarian" urban legend? - Vclaw 16:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)