Jump to content

Talk:Alfred Jodl

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

Concerns have been raised by some editors that the current image size of Nazi war criminals runs the risk of glorifying them. To address this risk, the image size has been reduced as follows

[edit]

Only one of the pictures was reduced. Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biased page

[edit]

The WWII was real and meant deaths of millions, a Jodl's defence was his personal defence and his death was a death of one person. I believe that the description of the Jodl's activities (crimes ?) should be much longer or some of his declarations shorter. Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War

[edit]

The beginning is unprecise. Xx236 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As is your complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

[edit]

I'm having trouble understanding how the signature is somehow has "no encycyloppedic value" and is just "it's just fanboy stuff", when there has been a signature for at least 6 years without it being a problem? Likewise pages like Keitel, Hitler and Göring all have their signatures shown, how are they any different? Furthermore, his signature is mentioned with "The principal charges against him related to his signature of the criminal Commando and Commissar Orders." and "Jodl signed the instruments of unconditional surrender on 7 May", so why not show it? Skjoldbro (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC

In what way, exactly, does showing the signature inform the reader? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does any signature inform the reader of? How and why is his signature different from Albert Speer's, Joseph Goebbels's, Karl Dönitz's, Rudolf Hess's, Joachim von Ribbentrop's, Heinrich Himmler's, Reinhard Heydrich's, Wilhelm Keitel's, Adolf Hitler's or Hermann Göring's? Skjoldbro (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please give reasons for how the reader is better informed about Jodl by seeing his signature in the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean "The principal charges against him [was] related to his signature", so why not show that signature. But what do you see as the argument for all those other pages having signatures then? Skjoldbro (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not the signature, per se, but his signing the document. What the signature looked like is irrelevant.
We're not discssuing any other pages, we're discussing this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes his signing the document, with his signature. Well, it seems like we are discussing your rule that there needs to be an argument to allow a signature in the "| signature =" place in the infobox. So I am asking, where you see the argumentation in all the other ones, since you have no problem with them having one. Cause, otherwise theirs would certainly have to be deleted too, would they not? And maybe if you pointed me to their written argumentation for having a signature, maybe I could get some inspiration to write improved argumentation for allowing it on this page. Skjoldbro (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So one of the signature responsible for the death of many lives and in signing the instruments of unconditional surrender, has no interest for any reader what so ever? I simply just don't understand, why all those pages can have a picture of a signature, but one this specific page is somehow "superfluous", "no encycyloppedic value" and is just "it's just fanboy stuff". WHY is this page different than any other page? Even Bill Gates has his signature shown, you can hardly argue that his signature "improve readers' understanding of the topic, more than Jodl's would, and has for the last 6 years. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care either way and I agree with you. We are talking about his signature on a document that (in part) ended the most destructive and significant conflict in human history (to date). I also don't get the "fanboy" comment. That violates WP:AGF.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the signing is significant, the document is significant, but not the signature itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what makes a "significant" signature in your opinion, since ending World War 2 isn't enough? Also, taking the Template:Infobox military person as an example, how come the signature field is the only one, out of 41, which needs "a good argument" to be there? Skjoldbro (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep trying to make this a discussion about signatures in general; it's not, it's about this signature. If you want to determine whether every possible signature is significant, start a centralized discussion somewhere, but this is not the time or place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to make it a general discussion, I'm simply stating that every other page on Wikipedia don't need a 2 page essay on why the signature is significant. I'm asking what makes this page different from literally every other page and what you think qualifies as significant, since ending WWII apparently isn't significant enough. Skjoldbro (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a general discussion, not specific to this signature. Again, please read and understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "How is this page different from every other page", a general discussion? I did, if you did too, you would see "dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." Skjoldbro (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"every other page". OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on those pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In your mind, would qualify a page to have a signature? Skjoldbro (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources have discussed the signature (e.g. what it looked like, not the fact the person signed certain documents) then showing the signature might be relevant. Until then it is a superfluous decoration. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The signature can be found on the File:German instrument of surrender2.jpg and File:Undertaking Given by Certain German Emissaries to the Allied High Commands.jpg. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How A is different from B, is not a general discussion into B. Yes, I know, your only response seems to be that "Just because every other page have it doesn't mean this should have it", to which I keep asking why? Further, since you are so adamant about using OTHERSTUFF, maybe you should try reading WP:NOTPOLICY as well.Skjoldbro (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude had a f***ing magnificent signature. Imagine having a last name so powerful--and then making your signature just that last name--that's being BOSS. And yet it means nothing, encyclopedically: there can be no policy-based reasons for keeping it. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has been termed "the signature responsible for the death of many lives and in signing the instruments of unconditional surrender" was made by Jodl holding a pen in his hand. Would a jpg of Jodl's pen have encylopedic value? Would a jpg of his hand? Ewulp (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to point out that this is indeed a historically important signature, and therefore should stay in the "|signature=", which is specifically made for...signatures. I mean what is the criteria for having a signature in the infobox? If ending WWII, isn't significant enough for it to be included in the "|signature=", then I just simply don't known what is. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, there are no policies regarding when to (or not to) include it. I just find it amusing, that all other biographies include signatures regardless of "encyclopedic value". But maybe there should be made a general discussion somewhere, you guys know where it should be started? Skjoldbro (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal to mandate the display of a signature would be at WP:VPR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His signature is mentioned 6 times in the article, including a photo of him signing a document. It's mentioned in the lede section. I can't understand why anyone would argue that his signature is not important enough to include here. Elizium23 (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore signature. The fact that the article mentions it in connection to three different documents means that a picture of his signature illustrates the contents of the article well. Srnec (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment

[edit]
  • I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that We are talking about his signature on a document that (in part) ended the most destructive and significant conflict... -- the document did not "end" the war; the Allies did. It could have been anyone else signing for the German side, and it would not have made any difference. So I don't see a specific significance in Jodl's signature. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, his signature did (in part) end it. Not "anyone else" signed it....he did.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, the act of his signing it was what was significant, not his signature, per se. Do you suppose that if Jodl had said to himself, "I'll fool those damned Allies, I'll sign the papers, but I'll use a fake signature", the documents would have been any less binding? The fact that he signed it, in front if witnesses, is what was binding. He could have used his ordinary everyday signature, the initials he used to leave a note for his wife, or his special "Surrendering to the Allies" signature. He could have signed "Adolf Hitler", or "Screw you, Eisenhower", or he could have scrawled an "X" -- none of that would have mattered, the Nazis would still have surrendered to the Allies. His signature itself is just a bit of trivia, of no intrinsic importance whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This "anyone could have done it/they would have surrendered" stuff is unpersuasive to me. By that logic, if Neil Armstrong had not agreed to go to the moon....NASA would have found someone else. So what is noteworthy about him (or his foot print on the moon)? There is also no guarantee the Germans would have surrendered either. They could have fought on as guerillas (which indeed some in the SS did), or not formally surrendered at all. This article/encyclopedia is not about anyone could have done it....it's about what was done.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for Jodl being significant -- if he wasn't already -- not for his physical signature being significant. No one here has argued that Jodl wasn't a significant in the Wehrmacht or in Nazi Germany in general.
C'mon people, think straight! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His physical signature is significant.....considering the document it is on. I have no idea why anyone would be this adamantly against including this in a relatively short article when we are talking maybe one of the most important documents signed in the last 100 years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image size

[edit]
The current size
The default size

I believe that the aspect ratio of the infobox image in this article is such that presented at the infobox's default value it is too large, the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. I suggest that the current size is more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the issue seems to be height related, I suggest 190px, this way it will neither be too big or too small, and be closer to picture sizes such as the examples. Skjoldbro (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trump image at default size
Obama image at default size
New proposal at 190px

Recent edit

[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "rm wife -- not a reliable source/not mentioned in the article; rm battles -- was a staff officer; rm military promotion list". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baumgärtel

[edit]

The referenced source does not contain anything about "Baumgärtel". Other sources, and German Wikipedia, say that the name was "Baumgärtler".2A02:AA1:1618:8371:A014:6D19:B71C:1F18 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting second marriage years

[edit]

In the section "Early life and career" it states that Jodl married for the second time in 1944, but in the sidebar/information window it says he was married for the second time in 1945. Clearly both of these cannot be correct. Is there a definitive piece of evidence establishing which (if either) is true? Smyslov (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfred_Jodl&oldid=1223149566"