Talk:Food and agriculture in Nazi Germany

Quotes

These quotes do not belong in the article. We aim to be an encyclopedia, we do not plaster Nazi quotes (and other random quotes) devoid of context in articles to spruce it up for extra flavour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hardly devoid of context, and certainly not flattering to the Nasties. Qwirkle (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are completely devoid of context, these are pure "flavour quotes" without any commentary or context from reliable sources. The Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture quote? Zero context or commentary. The Goering quote? Zero context or commentary. The Mahlendorf quote, zero context, commentary or significance. Buidhe may want to opine here as well, since they thanked me for the removal. Only the Tooze quote offers context and commentary on the topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to quoteboxes in principle but I don't see what these are adding to the article. buidhe 21:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The question might be: What is objectionable about these quotes? Do they detract from the text which they supplement and augment? Why shouldn't Herman Goering, arguably second only to Hitler in the Nazi hierarchy, be quoted on the agricultural and food policy of Nazi Germany? Why shouldn't the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture be quoted on Nazi food and agricultural policy?

User:Headbomb has not questioned the accuracy or the provenance of these quotes, but rather has called me "ridiculous," (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history) which I believe is a personal attack. Furthermore I asked him on that linked page to discuss his objections to these quotes which he has not done. Plus on my talk page I asked User:Headbomb to explain his "position calmly and quietly, rather than accusing me of an edit war."

As an uninvolved editor I would ask you take a closer look at this article and the relevance of the quotes which User:Headbomb has deleted four times. You have stated that you have no objection to quote boxes, a comment I take as sincere.Smallchief (talk)

As an uninvolved editor? You're the very definition of involved. As for asking to explain my position calmy yadda yadda yadda, I did so 3 days ago. You're the one that kept reverting and not participating on the talk page. Glad you finally came around. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My comment about 'uninvolved editor" is directed to User:Buidhe

The quoteboxes are, I think, a separate issue from the quotes. The quotes here would be better off integrated into the text, and at least one of them might be better as a footnote. Qwirkle (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a particularly WP:LAME reason why one would want to go to WP:Dramaboard. Can't this just be resolved calmly with a little bit of cool-headed ness and some research (arguably, that's the time-consuming bit) to figure out if this can be included? A prima vista, the quotes seem fine, though proper secondary sources should be added which comment on them so they can be integrated into article text. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I got no objection to integrating these quotes in the main text, but they have to be put in context, with commentary, instead of the uncritical/contextless repetion of Nazi views for flavour or original syntheses. Or quotes from random people that happened to eat things one day. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The word "food" is in the title of this article and, thus, it seems appropriate to discuss what Germans ate. The source of the quote is Ursula Mahlendorf, author, professor emeritus at the University of California (Santa Barbara), and a child in Germany during WW II.Smallchief (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

That children ate food is not something that needs a flavour quote to enhance/augment a section about "Until late 1944 and early 1945 when American and British military advances in the west and Soviet advances in the east cut Germany off from its non-domestic food sources, the German civilian population received an average of 2,500 calories daily with supplements for people engaged in hard labor and pregnant women. Foreign workers received less food as did "useless mouths" such as prison and concentration camp inmates." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Quotes

Should the article contain the quotes found in this version? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• No, those add nothing to the article. These are context-less quotes from Nazi officials, uncritically repeating Nazi propaganda and viewpoints, or contextless quotes from random children that lived in Nazi germany. Compare with, for example Economy of Nazi Germany, or Nazi–Soviet economic relations (1934–41) which are devoid of these context-less quotes. Or really any other article out there. This is not encyclopedic writing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll concede that the Tooze quote has some merit however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No opinion on the quotes, but ex(c)eption is misspelt in one.Pincrete (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, but the format? I agree with @Headbomb: that the writing style reads more like a magazine article. Isolated sidebar quotes generally do not belong in this sort of article, especially one this size. This does not, however, justify the “undue” tag now on the article. Qwirkle (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll let this discussion go on for while without commenting on substance. However, I can't let one of User:Headbombs comments go unremarked as it reflects on my integrity. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography, Headbomb said these quotes in this article are "repeating Nazi propaganda." Is there anybody out there, besides Headbomb, who thinks that the quotes in the article are pro-Nazi? Smallchief (talk)

I didn't say they were pro-Nazi, I said they were quotes that simply repeat Nazi views uncritically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: feel free to replace {{undue}} with something else that makes sense. It's the most relevant tag I found, since this gives undue weight to irrelevant quotes or Nazi quotes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly favor the quotes. They really sum up the essence of this article, particularly the one by the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture. You can read that quote and understand just where the Nazis stood on this matter. (Obviously you don't have to agree with it.) As for the other one, we should tell who Adam Tooze is or was. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What's more, as long as WP allows such quote boxes, we should not simply delete them 'cause we don't like them to be used. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Go here for more info about the use of these boxes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that the quotes are without context and simply uncritically repeats Nazis views. Or are completely irrelevant, like a random kid eating bread and potatoes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak no. (Summoned by bot) They aren't bad, but they're not great either. The main issue is not that they're "Nazi" sources, but primary sources (except for Tooze). As such, per WP:PRIMARY, they must be treated with care, and we're not treating them with anything here, just presenting them. As quotes from first-hand participants, the reader can be expected to understand they may represent only a very narrow viewpoint on the issue discussed, but why put this expectation on the reader at all? If the quotes presented concisely some significant information that was hard to fully appreciate otherwise, then they'd serve a definite purpose. But I don't see that here. Instead, they have no more impact than interesting tidbits -- similar (as noted) to what a magazine might do to keep the reader's interest, and not something an encyclopedia should really be doing. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) I agree with A D Monroe III's assessment above. The scope is too narrow to include the quoted views. Lindenfall (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. The quotes are relevant and confirm the text. The objective of allowing illustrations, including block quotes, to appear in encyclopedia articles is to give credence and amplify what is said in the text. Let's look, for example, at the wikipedia "Fine Article" about the Gettysburg Address. Included in that article are illustrations of the original, handwritten forms of the Gettysburg Address. Is anybody objecting that the inclusion of the handwritten text is just "flavor" and therefore unencylopedic and unnecessary? Is anybody claiming that a quote of the handwritten text of the Gettysburg Address is a primary source that doesn't belong in the encyclopedia? If illustrations and block quotes are valued in some articles, why not this one? Smallchief (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Address has quotes from the Gettysburg Address because it's a speech. That a random kid ate food under the agricultural policies of the Nazis is irrelevant or the likelywise random quotes from Nazi officials that are thrown without context or commentary. Those are not at all equivalent to excerpt from Nazi laws and official documents interpreted via reliable historians. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)