![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not to mention the Minister of Armaments, Dr. Todt, is a major failing in this start-class article. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 04:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
" Nazism thus transformed the Weimar Republic's Reichswehr into Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht, a military large enough to launch another world war."
This is an interpretation of German rearmament in a manner consistent with the gist of Allied propaganda, that Hitler had intended "another world war" all along. It implies that all blame for "another world war" belongs to Hitler, when in fact it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany. Also, the change in the name of Germany's army from Reichswehr to Wehrmacht is neither here nor there. I am removing that sentence. Your Buddy Fred Lewis ( talk) 23:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The article currently seems to be written largely from a sociological perspective, which is all well and good, but it is lacking in economic and military information--surely the key subjects for a rearmament program. What specific measures were taken to increase the production of armaments? How did the Wehrmacht become more powerful, and how were civil defense measures and the reserve military improved? Statistics and economic/military specifics would really improve the coverage of this topic. Knight of Truth ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This article is about politics and organizations. Almost nothing about armament itself or its development, not even references to other articles. Nothing at all about co-operation with e.g. Sweden, Soviet Union and Italy. 130.234.6.147 ( talk) 10:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The following is a rather technical issue (sorry if it's in the wrong place, correction welcomed):
Under the heading: "Weimar era",
the sentence: "The latter motive viewed the Treaty of Versailles, which was ostensibly about war reparations and peace enforcement." appears. There seems to be something missing here - the writer is about to tell us how the motive viewed the Treaty of Versailles, but, after the clause "which was ostensibly about war reparations and peace enforcement", leaves us hanging waiting for said writer's statement about how the treaty was viewed.
ZevFarkas ( talk) 13:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
PhD dissertations Present new information on a topic, which has to be thoroughly sourced and approved by a dissertation committee of professors. The dissertation cited here has not even been written yet and cannot be called a reliable published secondary source. The editor who posted the description says that anyway everything is already well known-- in that case, it will not be approved as original research by the dissertation committee. The allegations are highly controversial, and are not at all well known or agreed-upon in the reliable secondary sources. The new scholarly books or journal articles even mentioned here. Rjensen ( talk) 17:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I renamed this, minus the superfluous hyphen. The spelling re-armament is not even a secondary spelling for rearmament. Mathglot ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
German rearmament → German rearmament between the world wars – The current meaning of this title is imprecise and ambiguous (see related Move request at Talk:Wiederbewaffnung).
One meaning of "German rearmament" is the interwar arms buildup carried out by Germany after WW I and the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and the other is the post-WW II rebuilding of the German military facilitated by the United States. The Wikipedia article for the latter meaning is currently at "Wiederbewaffnung", and there is a pending move request there as well.
Both articles should have a WP:PRECISE, unambiguous name. This article should be renamed to a distinct, descriptive title that unambiguously refers to the interwar period, perhaps German mobilization after World War I, German rearmament between the world wars (or, "...in the interwar period"), Military buildup in Nazi Germany, or the like.
If the related move at Wiederbewaffnung and this one are adopted, then a disambig page should be created linking both titles. Mathglot ( talk) 21:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the Google books search, I'm not so sure as User:Buidhe indicates above, and I'm doing some tests and will report back. For starters, looking at just the top ten results, of the top four it's two and two. But that's very preliminary and not too meaningful; the data may end up supporting Buidhe in the end. More soon, but I did want to separate this into its own section, so we don't clutter the Survey section with discussion. Mathglot ( talk) 22:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Off-topic musing about the
parenthetical part.
|
---|
( edit conflict) One additional point: the alternative " German rearmament (1919–1939)" has a nice feature in its favor, but it's almost an Easter egg; the fact that the dates are in parens, as one might see even in running text in a book, has the additional benefit of corresponding to Wikipedia's parenthetical disambiguation syntax. Among other things, this makes it very handy to use, where you want the article content as viewed by a reader to render, "German rearmament" but you want the link to point to the 1919–1939 article; the WP:PIPETRICK makes this trivial. This is not a reason to favor (or oppose) that choice, it's just a nice fringe benefit, and one I use all the time in similarly-named articles, and I thought I'd mention it. Mathglot ( talk) 22:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Regarding
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, after an initial experiment in Google books checking the top ten de-duped results, I'm not seeing a preference in numbers in either direction, whether for titles about interwar, or cold-war rearmament:
If this holds up on subsequent pages, there is likely no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Mathglot ( talk) 00:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not to mention the Minister of Armaments, Dr. Todt, is a major failing in this start-class article. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 04:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
" Nazism thus transformed the Weimar Republic's Reichswehr into Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht, a military large enough to launch another world war."
This is an interpretation of German rearmament in a manner consistent with the gist of Allied propaganda, that Hitler had intended "another world war" all along. It implies that all blame for "another world war" belongs to Hitler, when in fact it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany. Also, the change in the name of Germany's army from Reichswehr to Wehrmacht is neither here nor there. I am removing that sentence. Your Buddy Fred Lewis ( talk) 23:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The article currently seems to be written largely from a sociological perspective, which is all well and good, but it is lacking in economic and military information--surely the key subjects for a rearmament program. What specific measures were taken to increase the production of armaments? How did the Wehrmacht become more powerful, and how were civil defense measures and the reserve military improved? Statistics and economic/military specifics would really improve the coverage of this topic. Knight of Truth ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This article is about politics and organizations. Almost nothing about armament itself or its development, not even references to other articles. Nothing at all about co-operation with e.g. Sweden, Soviet Union and Italy. 130.234.6.147 ( talk) 10:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The following is a rather technical issue (sorry if it's in the wrong place, correction welcomed):
Under the heading: "Weimar era",
the sentence: "The latter motive viewed the Treaty of Versailles, which was ostensibly about war reparations and peace enforcement." appears. There seems to be something missing here - the writer is about to tell us how the motive viewed the Treaty of Versailles, but, after the clause "which was ostensibly about war reparations and peace enforcement", leaves us hanging waiting for said writer's statement about how the treaty was viewed.
ZevFarkas ( talk) 13:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
PhD dissertations Present new information on a topic, which has to be thoroughly sourced and approved by a dissertation committee of professors. The dissertation cited here has not even been written yet and cannot be called a reliable published secondary source. The editor who posted the description says that anyway everything is already well known-- in that case, it will not be approved as original research by the dissertation committee. The allegations are highly controversial, and are not at all well known or agreed-upon in the reliable secondary sources. The new scholarly books or journal articles even mentioned here. Rjensen ( talk) 17:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I renamed this, minus the superfluous hyphen. The spelling re-armament is not even a secondary spelling for rearmament. Mathglot ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
German rearmament → German rearmament between the world wars – The current meaning of this title is imprecise and ambiguous (see related Move request at Talk:Wiederbewaffnung).
One meaning of "German rearmament" is the interwar arms buildup carried out by Germany after WW I and the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and the other is the post-WW II rebuilding of the German military facilitated by the United States. The Wikipedia article for the latter meaning is currently at "Wiederbewaffnung", and there is a pending move request there as well.
Both articles should have a WP:PRECISE, unambiguous name. This article should be renamed to a distinct, descriptive title that unambiguously refers to the interwar period, perhaps German mobilization after World War I, German rearmament between the world wars (or, "...in the interwar period"), Military buildup in Nazi Germany, or the like.
If the related move at Wiederbewaffnung and this one are adopted, then a disambig page should be created linking both titles. Mathglot ( talk) 21:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the Google books search, I'm not so sure as User:Buidhe indicates above, and I'm doing some tests and will report back. For starters, looking at just the top ten results, of the top four it's two and two. But that's very preliminary and not too meaningful; the data may end up supporting Buidhe in the end. More soon, but I did want to separate this into its own section, so we don't clutter the Survey section with discussion. Mathglot ( talk) 22:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Off-topic musing about the
parenthetical part.
|
---|
( edit conflict) One additional point: the alternative " German rearmament (1919–1939)" has a nice feature in its favor, but it's almost an Easter egg; the fact that the dates are in parens, as one might see even in running text in a book, has the additional benefit of corresponding to Wikipedia's parenthetical disambiguation syntax. Among other things, this makes it very handy to use, where you want the article content as viewed by a reader to render, "German rearmament" but you want the link to point to the 1919–1939 article; the WP:PIPETRICK makes this trivial. This is not a reason to favor (or oppose) that choice, it's just a nice fringe benefit, and one I use all the time in similarly-named articles, and I thought I'd mention it. Mathglot ( talk) 22:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
|
Regarding
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, after an initial experiment in Google books checking the top ten de-duped results, I'm not seeing a preference in numbers in either direction, whether for titles about interwar, or cold-war rearmament:
If this holds up on subsequent pages, there is likely no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Mathglot ( talk) 00:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)