Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Speer

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008 [1].

---

Albert Speer

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because after extensive work, a peer review, and feedback from another editor I've worked with on another FA, I believe it meets the FA criteria. I find it rather ironic that what would be the first FA about a member of the Nazi Party should be done by me, a former synagogue president, but that is how things are sometimes. As I am currently on the road and will be online on a less than continual basis, please allow for some lag time with your comments.Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

• I thought it was an interesting article. However, I think it can be stronger with some additional details and/or tweaking:
• I think the article would benefit by having subheadings under Nazi architect and Minister of armaments
• I would love to see a paragraph that discusses Speer's background, philosophy and inspiration for these Nazi buildings that are so unique, and quite imposing. In fact, I thought it a remarkable coincidence that Speer's biography should appear in the same FAC list as Major depressive disorder, since his architecture seemed to have inspired it... or been inspired by it. I noticed you did have some discussion about his inspiration from the Pergamon Altar in Anatolia, and perhaps this can be overcome by consolidating information about the Nazi building style under a subheading. At any rate, a section that stands out as an analysis of his vision - or the Nazi vision of order, power, and structure through buildings and city planning should be concise and evident. This may also be done by placing all his architecture information in a section at the bottom of the article - removing most of it from his life to analyze it separately. If you incorporate the Architectural legacy section and expand it with quotes by Nazi and WWII historians, I think it will look quite nice.
• Your dates read as American dates except for the linked date for 1944 July 20 plot to kill Hitler.
• This is an odd passage: greatly affected by the memories of the two Nazis' long relationship, and the article would benefit by having a copy editor look it over. I noticed it switches from passive to active several times.
• I know Ealdgyth at least asks for citations to go above the bibliography. I don't even know if that's a rule - I just do it.
• By restructuring some of the elements of the article, it can be a stronger one that makes the necessary points more emphatic. I enjoyed reading it, and think it won't take much to get it to FA. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll work through these. We used to have under the Nazi Architect heading "Main Article: Nazi architecture", which contains most of what you are suggesting, would that answer your concern? I'm reluctant to add too much analysis of Speer's architecture in this article; we might wind up having to split out that portion of the article. I can add a quote from when he was interrogated in 1945, even he thought his works were "awful" then, of course, he might have been wanting to please his captors, but he did say it. I'll split up the two long sections of the article into subheadings and see about asking a member of the League of Copyeditors in. Failing that, I'll muddle through on my own.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your specific concerns. I'll look through for the active/passive transitions you mention.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of the active/passive transistions that troubled you, except a couple that I think are needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I believe there's something wrong with the Harvard referencing; the links in the citations do not seem to lead anywhere, when in fact they are supposed to link to the works under "Bibliography", yes? Also, per WP:DASH, dashes for page ranges in the citations need to be changed to en dashes. María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just copied what was already in the article. Can someone point me in the right direction in fixing the refs? I'll fix the dashes after I fix the refs, just in case I totally have to redo the refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Swapping the various {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates to {{citation}} seems to have solved the issue. - auburnpilot talk 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, AuburnPilot. I will start working on the dashes.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• All done. I think Maria's concerns are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite; a few dashes were missed (19, 53, 71, 74, 137, etc). Also, what does "Geheny" in ref 12 refer to? There's not a listing for such an author in the Biblio. María (habla conmigo) 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a typo for Sereny, it will be corrected. Could you do me a favor and let me know which other notes need ndashes? It is hard to tell the differnce on this browser.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All the things you listed have been resolved. Let me know what else you see!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: mixed date formats (the infobox uses international style, but article text uses US-style dates, doesn't Germany use international style dates?) Quotes are not in WP:ITALICS, see also WP:MOS#Quotations. Also, mixed citation styles, see WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools, the remaining cite xxx templates should be swithched to citation to agree with the rest of the article. All of these are minor fixes, and there is no hurry to address them while traveling. The dashes look fine now, but in the future, you can just ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix them. (What about Karl Dönitz, a former featured article?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. They're coming hot and heavy on Holloway right now so can't spare a lot of time for this. Germany does use international style, let me look at the guidelines on that. Dönitz was only an honorary member, he never joined the NSDAP. So sayeth Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I cleared up the italics issue. The question of international style only applies to English speaking countries, which Germany is not. So as long as I am consistent, using US style is fine, so I'll change the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The citation issue is done too, so that cleans up your first pass issues, Sandy.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Watch the mixed citation (another cite web crept in, for an example of how to link Harvnb style using cite xxx templates for future ref, see Death Valley National Park). (I see what you mean about the English-speaking reference on the dates, but I suspect someone at Mos goofed the wording at Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Strong national ties to a topic, and they really meant to use the convention used in the country regardless of language -- at least the last conversation I paricipated in at MoS re: dates in Venezuela was that way. Oh, well :-) I'll ask Tony to review it that was a MoS error or the intent.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the cite web is gone, I just ran a quick search. I see by your comments on my talk page that the Mos mavens decided that as long as you are consistent on dates for non English speaking countries, either US or international format is fine.[2]. After today I will be travelling and working from internet cafes and/or when I feel like paying exorbitant rates for internet access on my computer, so expect response times to slow, though I will try to log in on a daily basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorted with Tony, dates are fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

}}

Comments -

• Current ref 75 (Speer cross examination) needs a publisher
• Still have a {{cite book}} lurking somewhere that needs to be made consistent with the rest of the {{citation}} usage.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I just took care of those, Ealdgyth.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I feel that the lead should be expanded to satisfy the demands of WP:LEDE. Currently, it leaves out details about Speer's early life and only briefly (in two short sentences) discusses his role as Nazi architect. These are vital bits of information which should be expanded upon to give the reader a sufficient overview of the entire article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've rewritten it. One paragraph as leadin/summary, one about him as Hitler's architect, one about Minister of War Production/Spandau, one about his life as author/death. I could put in a sentence, I guess, about him being Tessenow's assistant, can't think of much else of significance to say about his early life in the lede. I'd actually rather not. Speer was basically Tessenow's TA, and I just think it pales by comparison with everything else he did. Let me know what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Yup, gotta love the irony of Wehwalt bringing this to FAC but in a weird way, I like the idea of the first FA biography of a Nazi leader being about a somewhat ambiguous figure like Speer than about a more macabre one like Göring, Hess or Himmler. (not that this comment has anything to do with the FAC of course) In any case, this is a very interesting read: I don't claim any expertise on the subject so I can't judge comprehensiveness (or for that matter accuracy) but I am going through the article to do a bit of copyediting (update: I'll continue tomorrow). As I noted in my first summary, please feel free to revert any of my tweaks. I really have no serious objection to the article getting FA status though I think it could benefit from the following:

• The books of King and Schmidt, listed in the bibliography, are not cited (well not quite in the case of Schmidt...). I don't know these books but the titles certainly suggest that they cover specific aspects of Speer with greater depth and perhaps a slightly different vantage point. There might be some value in using them directly as sources in certain sections.
• I hope nobody is insulted by the suggestion but during the FAC of Leonhard Euler, the nominator contacted a math historian who had worked on Euler to get some comments on the comprehensiveness. Maybe a similar thing can be worked out in this case.
• I think it's great that nearly all references are to books rather than short articles here and there. On the other hand, from a purely practical point of view, having some pointers to online resources (supposing decent ones exist) is a plus for the average reader. For instance, if I trust WorldCat (maybe I shouldn't) there are only 18 copies of Fest's book in Canadian libraries... Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried both Amazon and my local library to try to get a quick copy of Schmidt. However, all three of the later authors discuss pretty comprehensively what Schmidt talks about and make it clear that Schmidt was out to be sensational and make his name, remember, this was a doctoral thesis, slightly expanded. I'm less sure about King, but Sereny has a long discussion of what went on at Nuremberg, with some information on the prosecutors' views, though King himself is only briefly mentioned. In any event, I take it that what is contained in a later bio is more likely to have a fuller perspective than an early one. I don't know any historians. Any ideas? As for comprehensiveness, obviously there is a lot more to say about Speer, but summary style limits me. As for online links, there are some sites about Speer's architecture, we link to the better ones. Half of them get some fact or other wrong. I couldn't find any sites I really trusted for detailed biographical info on Speer. And believe me, I looked. I didn't enjoy writing reports from five or six books on a table back in my college days, and it was a pain here, too. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the replies. I just checked and WorldCat finds eight copies of King's book in Canada and the closest is a three-hour drive away... Ideally direct references could be added but clearly the article is fine without them. I'll continue to copyedit when I can and I'm happy to see that you are undoing some of it. Pichpich (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of King myself, if for no other reason than curiosity. I haven't undone much of what you did, mostly the capitalization of party/Party. I don't want to throw the word "Nazi" around so I think the capitalization is needed, it is fairly standard. Most of your copyedits are really great, I have a tendency like most people not to see the flaws in ones own writing, and I'd say probably 90 percent of the nonquoted material in this article is mine. And the first commenter said a copyediting was needed, so it is all good.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

On AbeBooks, the cheapest price I could find King's book was for $27, plus shipping. But, they sell Schmidt's book for $1, with a shipping fee of close to $4, for a total of $5 (which is pretty cheap). Here is a link. JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have ordered King from Amazon, but judging by the reviews of both books, I'm not sure they are needed.Here is a link to the NY Times review of Schmidt. The reviewer makes it clear that Schmidt's views aren't widely shared.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Wehwalt, I'm still doing bits of copyediting and the following sentence doesn't make sense to me.

"In his final years, Speer would describe his perspective in 1939 to Gitta Sereny, later to become one of his biographers:"

Maybe I'm just tired... But the combination of "final years", "would describe", "1939", "become" and "later" has me completely confused by the timeline. I started to rewrite the sentence but stopped for fear of completely changing its meaning. (feel free to ignore if I am indeed just being stupid!) Pichpich (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you. This was Speer talking to Sereny in his final years, and he was talking about how he felt in 1939. I felt that unless I stressed that this was how he felt in 1939, people would assume he still considered Hitler a "great man" in the Seventies, and that would be unfair to him. Does that help? If not, I'll edit it myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I get it. I'll try to rewrite it, see if it helps. On an unrelated matter, if you have the time and courage to look at this, I googled "Albert Speer" on Google images and there are fantastic pictures that would illustrate a number of things. See for instance this site this one this one or these images [3] [4] and so on. Now because Wikipedia is apparently the only website that gives a rat's ass about copyrights, few of these images, if any, have a clear source and copyright status. But I'm pretty sure that at least some of these are in the public domain. I just don't have the patience to play detective. Pichpich (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Nazi pictures had their copyright revived in the 1990's. The thing is, we're pretty loaded up with pictures right now. I'm considering replacing the Speer/Breker photo with one of the Chancellery and reshuffling them a bit, but I may wait until after the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too much of a fan of pictures. By the way (ah the joys of Google) did you know about this play? It might be completely insignificant, still I wonder: do Sereny or Fest address the issue of Speer's portrayal in works of historical fiction? You do touch on this at the end but very few top-ranking Nazis have this sort of strange and ambiguous "oh maybe he wasn't so bad" image. For instance, I feel that writing a play about Speer's life is just an odd idea whereas writing a play about Goebbels would be downright creepy. Pichpich (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Yes, there are a couple of plays. I ran searches on the NY Times website as well, it had reviews of the plays. Given that this is a fairly long article which I know from experience that a FAC usually adds to an article, I avoided works of fiction and deleted the section about who played Speer on TV and in the movies. Let me put it this way, we don't have room for everything in real life ideally you'd want in here, we just don't have room for fiction! To answer your question, no they are not addressed in the bios.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if the plays themselves have been published, it would make sense to add them to the bibliography. Pichpich (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the David Edgar play. I think that should do. I got the King book, by the way, and hope to read it on the airplane tonight. I'll add anything noteworthy and make sure that at least a couple of cites about factual matters come from there. Might take two or three days, depending on what internet access I can find.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read about a third of King. It is a rather annoying read, because it is his analysis, a retired lawyer, of why Speer did the things he did, like joining the Nazi party, and it feels like armchair psychology. There are a few interesting parts, like about his interviewing Speer in 1946, but it really isn't helpful. I've added a cite from there to a support a fact. But it really isn't very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)}}

Comment - This is a wonderful article, filled with ironic juxtapositions, as someone has mentioned. I am reading it over and over. Hope you don't mind if I copy edit here and there. Very well written from my point of view. I like your sparse style and the exact distance you maintain from the subject. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - with comments.

• The reference supporting the statement that Speer's childhood was loveless is, surprisingly, not from Inside the Third Reich, where Speer wrote "My parents did their best to provide a happy childhood", and he goes on to say that social obligations made this difficult and he was left with a feeling of "artificiality" - he does not say lovelessness.
• "Speer's scheme, using huge flags, was praised by Hitler" - the source says Hitler was "enthusiastic", which is not quite the same.
• According to Speer, he chose not to become a mathematician because of his father's "sound reasons", he doesn't say that his father doubted his ability to support himself if he chose this path.
• "Congratulations! Now you're number one" is not a direct quotation, the source says "Congratulations! Now you're the first"

The rest of the uses made of Inside are accurate as far as I can tell using my old copy which has different page numbers. This is an engaging, comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written article.Graham Colm ^Talk 13:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. There are two DABs that need fixing.

Thanks. What Funk said is described differently in different books. I'll make the necessary changes to address your concerns. I'm working directly from the hardcover in all Speer books, and I've verified that the Fest hardcover and trade paperback are identical. Please state which DABs need fixing to save us clicking on every blue link in the article!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You can use the toolbox at the top of this page. ;) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, and I was seconds behind AuburnPilot on each change! Well done! Graham, did you see the other changes?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-reading the book, but as you know it's over 700 pages. So far I am pleased with the accuracy of the summary style of the article. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I well know. The article is the residue of over 3,500 pages on Speer. By the way, the "You are number one" comes from Sereny at page 115. Careless of me. She probably translated from the original German edition without bothering to check to see how Speer's translators rendered it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I finished re-reading my old copy of Inside the Third Reich today (phew!) and I remain most impressed with the synopsis presented here. I have taken the liberty of changing a little court-room jargon ("stated" "stated that" "stating") into the plain English "said", and I (hopefully) corrected a couple of fused participles. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say, of the four FACs I've been involved in, this is by far the most collegial.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, nice atmosphere. Mostly due, I think, to how thorough and responsive you have been with the comments. Pichpich (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm down to copyediting something like 5 sentences a day! In any case, the sentence

The decree, by its terms, deprived Speer of any power to interfere with the decree, and Speer went to confront Hitler, telling him the war was lost.

is a bit awkward and I'm not entirely sure I understand it correctly. Can you take a second look? Pichpich (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear. Hitler knew what Speer was up to with getting machinery, foodstuff, and spare parts in place so that the German people wouldn't all starve to death after occupation. Hitler wanted to pull the people down with him, so in the Nero Decree, he deprived Speer (either by name or title or name of ministry, the sources aren't clear) of any power to interfere. I'm closely paraphrasing the source there.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• yeah yeah yeah, me again. Just found this reference on the German wiki: Heinrich Schwendemann: "Drastic Measures to Defend the Reich at the Oder and the Rhine..." A forgotten Memorandum of Albert Speer of 18 March 1945, in: Journal of Contemporary History, 38. Jg., 2003, 597 - 614. I've just downloaded it through my university (not read yet, no idea what it contains) but I can send it to you if you want to take a look and I'll try to find time to read it tomorrow. Also, on the German wiki are two long pieces on Speer published by Die Zeit in 2004 and 2005. My German is good enough to read and understand the first two or three paragraphs but my brain fries after that. The first is by Schwendemann so hopefully the content is similar to the above article in English. The second is by a guy named Ullrich Von Volker and has the provocative title "Wie die Legende um Hitlers Liebling entstand und welche Rolle Wolf Jobst Siedler und Joachim Fest dabei spielten" (my rough, hopefully semi-accurate translation: "The shaping of the legend of Hitler's protégé and the role of Siedler and Fest"). Probably more evidence that Speer is still today a very controversial figure among historians. Pichpich (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak German, alas. I'll happily look at any English article. Can you access my email? Incidently, now that you've declared in favor of promotion, why not move these discussions to the article talk page?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just sent you an email. Unfortunately, the wiki interface doesn't handle attached files so you'll have to reply to me so that I can get your email address. As for moving the discussion to the talk page, that makes a lot of sense, especially since there's a greater chance of getting help from a German speaker there. Pichpich (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the article, which for everyone's information has to do with an order Speer issued giving military traffic on the Eastern Front priority on the railroads over civilian traffic, the author arguing that it goes against Speer trying to make things easier for civilians. I really didn't see anything that should be included in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Angeklagte-im-Nuernberger-Kriegsverbrecherprozess.jpg needs a source. There's no proof it's a government image at present. DrKay (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, Pichpich, unless you feel strongly about it, I'm just going to delete it. Feel free to readd with the info that DrKay wants, but I don't really like that picture anyway. What is it illustrating that can't be conveyed in words? By the way, I finished King and found it disappointing, although there are good parts when he includes a transcript of interviews with Speer, his daughter Hilde Schramm, and one of Hitler's secretaries. He asks too many leading questions, though. Also, there's a full copy of Speer's closing statement at Nuremberg.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I really don't feel strongly about the picture. Pichpich (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I completed my round of copyediting. Matisse seems to be going at it too. Pichpich (talk)

}}

• Support (just in case SandyGeorgia wonders where I stand) I do support FA status for this article even in its current form. I'll continue to try and help polishing the prose to the best of my abilities but as far as I'm concerned you can already tack on that Bronze star. Pichpich (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Another minor issue: can you add the reference to the 1966 Der Spiegel interview? Unless it is reproduced in its entirety Van der Vat's book, it makes sense to also point to the original interview. Pichpich (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Given that it was all in German, I don't think it is necessary in the English Wikipedia. WP:EL indicates that non-English sites are generally not linked to in the English Wikipedia, and I guess that would apply to this.[5]--Wehwalt (talk) 07:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The Spiegel does not have its archives online. But I still feel the exact reference should be there because the interview has some historical importance. Presumably, the exact reference is in one of the biographies (if it isn't, don't bother). Pichpich (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • In the same spirit, the references for Speer's books give the year of publication for the English translations but publishing years of the German originals should be given either in the article or in the references (or both). Pichpich (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC) (Nevermind, fixed it myself)
      • Um, if you think so. The cite is Gespräch mit Albert Speer über Adolf Hitler und das Dritte Reich. In: „Der Spiegel“, Nr. 46 (1966), Hamburg, S. 48 - 62, 7 November 1966. Or, Interview with Albert Speer about Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, "Der Spiegel", No. 46 (1966), pp. 48-62, Nov. 7, 1966. I'll add that ITTR was originally published in German in 1969 and Spandauer Tagebücher in 1975.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, I see you got the German editions added. I've taken care of the Spiegel interview (and it is just that, an interview, Q&A printed verbatim).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: I peer-reviewed this article and felt then that it was close to FA standard, though I recommended further copyediting to sort out a few prose issues. The peer review was closed after just five days and the article brought here, I believe a little prematurely. However, since it has been here the copyediting has been tackled enthusiastically, and other improvements have been introduced, so I see no reason for withholding support, as in my view the article meets the criteria as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support: Being a fan of tight, organized writing, rather than the overly detailed, I feel the editor has done an excellent job of distilling the essence of the topic from the source material. The writing style is clear and a pleasure to read. This article could have easily become bogged down in a wealth of detail. The editor has carefully maintained a neutral point of view. I have seen him resist using words suggested by others in order to maintain this neutrality. I have confidence that he is committed to an accurate presentation. I commend him for this accomplishment. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Suport after changes. Oppose for now.

• Is there a reason we're using American style dates in a German article?
• Any reason we're linking to "London" "England", etc?
• "Speer began his architectural studies at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, as the hyperinflation crisis of 1923 limited his parents' income." I don't get the connection, is the place he studied less than stellar reputation wise?

Maybe we could say "Speer began his ... , not his first choice of schools, as..." since it's obvious that he wanted to go elsewhere? This makes it a bit clearer, I think. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Another editor seems to have played with the language. See what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Do we not have any third-party thoughts on whether Speer was apolitical in his youth or not? I know you have qualified it as "Speer said..." but it would be nice to know if there was a memoir/statement by one of his students/friends/associates for this information also.

Ugh, I can't say I'm that happy about this, but it's not ya'll's fault, since the secondary sources don't seem to cover it. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Speer inspired considerable loyalty in his students/underlings, from what I can see, with Wolters only doing what he did after Speer basically acted like a jerk to him, repeatedly. My guess is that anyone who could contradict him kept his mouth shut, and it is too late now, no Speer student pre 1930 could be much under a hundred now, so I'm not expecting any revelations. But Speer wrote this in an era when there were plenty of people still alive and active who would have known him then. If there are lies in ItTR, and there may be, I'd think they were where the only people who could contradict him subsquently took suicide capsuls or went to the gallows.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• First architect section, by the time Speer became a member of hte Reichstag, wasn't this mainly a powerless post?

I don't have the books with me, but when I get home I can put in an explanatory note on this from Evans' The Third Reich in Power. Striking this so it doesn't hold the article back. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• might link "pogrom"
• Nuremberg trial - point, not all the nuremberg defendants were arraigned on all four counts. The article as currently written states "Speer, like all his fellow defendants, was indicted on four counts: first, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace, second, planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace, third, war crimes, and lastly, crimes against humanity." which is incorrect. see our article on the trial for who was charged with what.

Again, the books are at home if you want something that backs this up, but your solution works until I get home. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to insert that info. In the case of the Reichstag, I'd make it very brief, perhaps a parenthetical, because Speer's status as a Reichstag member is not a big part of the article. The only other mention I can find of it is in the indictment against Speer, it is mentioned. Typical prosecution laundry list mentality, though, because as we know, Speer's status as a Reichstag member and ten pfennigs got him a cup of coffee.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to support after some of the above is dealt with. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

MOS wars :-) It seems MoS changed again on date formatting. See User talk:Tony1#Albert Speer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding dates, as Sandy indicated, the MoS limits itself on dates to how it must appear for English speaking countries. For nonEnglish speaking countries, it is editor's discretion, as long as you are consistent. Sandy checked this out with Tony, and that's how it is.

Regarding Speer and his studies at Karlsruhe, that is basically what he says in Inside the Third Reich. He does not go into details on the point.

Regarding the apolitical question, Speer is the source when it comes to Speer's life before 1931. All the biographers rely exclusively (other than for points that can be drawn from public records, birth, marriage) on Speer's works for that. I was a bit troubled by that, so sprinkled in a "Speer said" every now and then, but it is what it is. I do not see any reason to doubt him on that point, Speer focused exclusively on the tasks at hand, that is clear throughout his career, and he no doubt focused like a laser on his job with Tessenow. The most likely candidate to contradict him would have been Wolters, and even though Wolters had justifiable grudges as their friendship broke up (unhappily beyond the scope of summary style, as it is a story in itself), he limited himself to showing Schmidt the Chronicle and leaving it to the Bundesarchiv.

London, England delinked, pogrom linked. I think we refrain from linking obvious places like Paris and Berlin.

That is what the source said on Nuremberg, but it is not an essential point, obviously, so I've deleted the phrasing. Speer was indicted on all four counts, and the trials article agrees.

Reichstag. I've made that change. The source doesn't address the powers of the Reichstag, merely saying that Speer was entitled to take his place beside Todt on the government benches. So I've linked to Enabling Act of 1933, by which the Reichstag effectively surrendered its powers to the Cabinet, which rarely/never met, with Hitler exercising its power.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.