Jump to content

Talk:20 July plot

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Past tense

[edit]

@Fratiibug: you are correct, however I wonder if present tense was intended. Note the following sentence giving the contrasting view is present tense. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The included map

[edit]

The map included in the infobox for this article seems a bit out of place to me, with no explanation on why the Wolf's Lair location is shown against the administrative borders of present-day Poland, considering this was undisputed German territory at the time. It looks like it was just copied over from the Wolf's Lair article. Maybe it could be changed to feature the map of Nazi Germany in 1944 instead? Quenched wick (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Quenched wick Usually, those infobox maps are made using a template that takes a GPS location and imposes it on a modern world map using some fancy code. Unfortunately, we don't have maps from every date in history in that template. So if we ever want time period specific maps, someone will actually have to make that image in an image editing software. Though I think a time period specific map could be a good addition, I also think the modern map is helpful, as I don't think most folks could picture where in Europe the wolf's lair was except with regards to a modern reference, i.e., modern Poland. I'm an avid fan of history and even I have to think about modern day borders to get a sense of where things were in history :) But I certainly wouldn't stop you from making a map of its place in 1944 borders. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
interesting, thanks. FalloutInfinity2 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract title

[edit]

The title for this article, '20 July plot', is almost meaningless. i.e. No year, nothing to indicate the purpose or intention of the plot, or who was the subject of the plot. Wikipedia:Article titles states: "The title indicates what the article is about" The current title fails in this respect. '20 July' could refer to any contemporary or historical event on that date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: Do you have a better suggestion? Operation Valkyrie? –CWenger (^ • @) 21:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Operation Valkyrie" by itself would be ambiguous to most readers. Since there were a fair number of plots or attempts to assassinate Hitler, the date should be specific.
How about  Hitler assassination plot of 20 July 1944?
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably support a move to that title. I actually thought '20 July plot' was a common name, but after doing a little research it seems to mostly be a Wikipedia creation. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since this is a straight forward, yet definitive, title, it seems there should be no contentions forthcoming. We should wait a day or so, and if there are no reasonable objections I'll make the move. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly advise you to follow the procedure at WP:RSPM for higher visibility. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2025

[edit]

20 July plot → Hitler assassination plot of 20 July 1944 – Current article title is ambiguous. '20 July' could refer to any number of contemporary or historical events , per Wikipedia:Article titles states: "The title indicates what the article is about" Gwillhickers (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Gwillhickers, your nomination and rationale already indicate your support of this proposal. To indicate a separate bulleted support !vote is unnecessary and might confuse potential closers. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"20 July plot", by itself, is only recognizable to seasoned history students and scholars of WW2. If the average reader has to search through the sources for the meaning of a term, then it's not exactly a common term, like '4th of July' or 'D-Day'. "20 July plot" is far from a widely recognizable term.  WP:COMMONNAME : "Use commonly recognizable names"  . Since there is no widely recognizable name we should use a descriptive name that is clear to all readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sammy D III. Indeed, "common name" to whom?  I've never come across this name. Many average readers, esp young readers, are going to be left wondering. If this is a common name then why don't we see this phrase in any of the source titles in our  Bibliography?  A search for "20 July plot" at archive.org and Google reveals that this phrase by itself only occurs on Wikipedia. In any case, there's no reason why we should not use a definitive name that is clearly self explanatory to all readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, @Chicdat: Can you provide evidence that "20 July plot" is the common name? I only see it used occasionally in scholarly works, but less frequently than "July plot", "Operation Valkyrie plot", etc. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support On that note, German sources lack a widely accepted common name. It's usually just referred to by some variation of "the assassination attempt on Hitler on 20 July 1944" for distinction. The closest thing to a proper name is the "Stauffenberg-Attentat" ("Stauffenberg assassination [attempt]"), but it's not used in any official capacity. A descriptive title with the full date and intention behind the plot would be for the best. Rubintyrann (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom reasoning. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title is not an improvement. "Hitler assassination plot" does not seem like the most natural way to describe this event. "Attempted assassination of ___" is the usual form on Wikipedia and we have an article at Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. —Srnec (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Attempted assassination of ___ on ___" ? "Attempted assassination" vs. "Assassination attempts" is pretty close. Sammy D III (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have a list article of Hitler assassination attempts, but that's all it is -- a list.. Not a dedicated article as is warranted for this subject. The proposed title is a vast improvement over the current title, which doesn't even have a name in it.   Perhaps we simply could substitute 'attempt' for 'plot' in the proposed title, but that's not really necessary as the lede, in the first sentence, makes it clear that Hitler survived the attempt.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that 'plot' has no place in a purely descriptive title. A good descriptive title would be Attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler on 20 July 1944. But a recent book by Winfried Heinemann, published by DeGruyter in 2022, is titled Operation "Valkyrie": A Military History of the 20 July 1944 Plot (a title translated from German). Srnec (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering if "Operation Valkyrie" was Commonname. Instead of a date? Maybe in parenthesis? Sammy D III (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Operation Valkyrie. Srnec (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Propername usually outranks Commonname to me. Note: I had no idea that Valkyrie was a plan already in place, I wonder how many do? Something to address? Sammy D III (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - its commonly called the 20 July Plot GioIzHawt (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This contention has been addressed several times now. -- "20 July plot" is an abstract title that is not widely recognized by the average and young readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Operation Valkyrie" would not be recognized by most average readers, esp young readers, and is not a descriptive title, per Wikipedia:Article titles. If the term "plot" is not adequate then we should go with Hitler assassination attempt of 20 July 1944. Again, the date is necessary as there were a good number of other assassination attempts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Operation Valkyrie" is commonly used in popular culture and I doubt that anyone with any knowledge of Hitler, either real or reality TV show, wouldn't recognize it. It can't be Commonname because it is factually incorrect.
I think @Srnec: made good points and you seem to have missed some of them, like "Hitler" shouldn't be the first word. Sammy D III (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Valkyrie was a "World War II emergency continuity-of-government operations plan" and was not a plan to assassinate Hitler specifically — and no,"Operation Valkyrie" is far from being "popular" and widely recognized by most average readers, for whom this summary article is intended..
  • Why shouldn't the word 'Hitler' be used as the first word? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In US English this would be "July 20". That is how this article was first written. Just a note. Sammy D III (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At some point this article got a {{Use dmy dates}} tag and nobody seems to be disputing that. Makes sense to me since that's what they use in Germany. If "20 July plot" was a common name one would think it would transcend date formats, i.e. even American sources would call it that. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with CWenger. — To reiterate, none of the sources in our Bibliography use the phrase '20 July plot', or 'July 20 Plot'. Nor is any such phrase found as a stand alone phrase in the numerous sources listed at archive.org and Google. Again, "Operation Valkyrie" was an overall emergency plan to install a new government and did not specifically call for the assassination of Hitler. None of these titles will be familiar to the average and young readership. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CWenger, actually your second sentence isn't what ENGVAR and its dates say, it's just common sense and "nobody seems to be disputing that". A side thought, are people here biased to d/m/y? I am, even though it's locally wrong. Edit add: (I'm not pushing MOS, it can always go either way, I'm just saying that it's there). Sammy D III (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammy D III: Agreed, just my personal preference, but seems like a clear choice for an article about Germany and at least tangentially about military history (MOS:MILDATE). Technically policy says to use "the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety", but I've never understood this since it seems difficult to ascertain and somewhat subjective, based on what we consider "post-stub". –CWenger (^ • @) 20:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mildate must do it. I never picked up on "post-stub" and I used to fight for ENGVAR, I just used the creation date. There's always one more trick, isn't there? Have a nice one. Sammy D III (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are numerous article titles that have just as many, or more, words. In just a few minutes I came up with such a selection, which can be viewed in my sandbox. Whether there are no other 20 July plots, the title as it stands does not describe the article and will not be recognized by most of the average readers. - Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't looked into the sources enough to have formed an opinion on the merits of the underlying move, but from my read of the discussion, I'm concerned that the support for this move is based on mistaken premises. It is claimed that the title is ambiguous with "any number of" events, but no one has furnished a single other event that could conceivably be described as the "20 July plot". Additionally, the criterion of WP:RECOGNIZABILITY holds that the title needs to be recognizable to someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area—not to the average layperson. Unless it can be demonstrated that the current title falls short along both of those metrics, I worry that this move would sacrifice WP:CONCISION and lead to undesirable WP:OVERPRECISION. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRITERIA states:
— "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."   (emphasis added)
WP:PRECISION Also maintains that:
— "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. (emphasis added)
It would seem that the current title is about as ambiguous as it can get, while the proposed title unambiguously defines the topic adequately with just enough words to do so.  
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination of Abdullah I of Jordan was an assassination plot that occurred on 20 July 1951. Does that count? Koopinator (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title is not an improvement and is wordy.Pincrete (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposal. If anything, July plot is already sufficient to identify the subject (July Plot currently a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, but should be WP:LOWERCASE), and is used on, out of the existing sources, Britannica (note 4, as title), Encyclopedia of Contemporary German Culture (note 20, in quote) and The Course of German History (bibliography), and the avoidance of overprecision means fewer degrees of freedom to worry about (day before month or month before day, should the year be included, etc.). Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "July plot" is no doubt used in the context of the note or other text it's found in, but never as a stand alone title.  'July plot', by itself, is ambiguous and does not occur in any of the sources as a stand alone title. It will not be recognized by a '"general audience" for whom WP serves.  If 'July plot' or '20 July plot' is listed in 'See also' it will be passed over by and large, esp if listed among other titles, whereas the proposed title will strike interest right off because it describes the subject.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    never as a stand alone title

    Britannica. ↯ ∎
    I even mentioned it in my comment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in a note, which is in context to whatever the note is attached to. Again, 20 July Plot doesn't occur as a stand alone title in our Bibliography, or in any of the Reliable Sources in Google or archive.org. In any case, that title is ambiguous and not in the best interest of a general audience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the title of the Britannica article. Article titles there, as they are here, identify the scope of the title so that no other topic is referred to that title, i.e. unambiguously define the topical scope. Anything more that what is required to fully disambiguate the subject from other possible topics with similar titles is overprecision. They do not need to tell the reader what the topic is if they have never encountered the concept before, that is what the shortdesc and first sentence of the article are for. Also, you will find 2 exact title matches in archive.org for just "July plot" instead of "20 July plot". Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your alternative proposal is now listed under the original. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is plot better than attempt? What happened was more than plotting; a bomb went off in a room that had Hitler in it. 4 people were killed and 20 were injured (including Hitler). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. However, the lede, in the first sentence, makes clear that this was an attempt. If Hitler had actually been killed, the title would read  July 1944 Hitler assassination,  so all things considered, I've no issues with using 'plot', just as the current title and the proposal does. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)..[reply]
Agree on "Adolf". Sammy D III (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— We have to "reinvent the wheel" because presently we have a square wheel, whose title doesn't deliver on describing the subject. Once again: WP:PRECISION: "— titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article. The term 'Hitler' needs be in the title for what should be obvious reasons. So now we have yet another proposal, and a mixed bag of objections, so an administrator may as well come along and close down this fiasco on the basis of no consensus and we are left with a dysfunctional title that the average readers won't recognize. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support Attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler on 20 July 1944 or Attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler in July 1944. There are 48 articles on Wikipedia that start with "Attempted assassination of [Full name of person]". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Blur...  No need to spell out "Adolf Hitler" in full as there are no other Hitler's to speak of, and no need to spell out the entire date in full as no other attempted assassinations ever occurred on anyone named Hitler in July of 1944.Thanks for continuing to simplify matters. Now we have seven proposals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date isn't really needed, but it looks good and might cover a Commonname. Sammy D III (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers (I didn't see you there), I think that you are politicizing the article. It's about a person, not an idea, and should be treated like any other person's name. Sammy D III (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's about an overall issue, i.e. the attempted assassination of Hitler, and the best descriptive name we can come up with, but given the number of proposals, it doesn't seem likely that there's going to be a strong, or any, consensus for anyone one of them. If pointing out this likelihood comes off like "politicizing", I don't know what else I can tell you.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't even know it as the '20 July plot', merely as the 'July plot'. That alone is enough. When I was at school I was in a school play (a published play, although I forget the playwright) under just that title. Wikipedia needs to stop inventing confusing and unfamiliar names just for some bizarre formatting dogma when there's a perfectly good COMMONNAME already there. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you should have reviewed some of the discussions above before referring to your school days. If 'July plot' was near as common as you purport it to be, it would be typically found in the titles of Reliable Sources. It doesn't, at all. Can you name one reliable source where "July Plot", or "20 July Plot" is used as a stand alone title? These past few days I've been asking friends and such -- 'do you remember what happened on July 20, 1944?'. Not one of them had a clue -- and the average reader here at WP won't. WP is the only place in the world where "20 July plot" occurs as a stand alone title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the years immediately following WW2 no doubt many people would have known what happened on July 20, 1944. But here we are, well into the 21st century, and that date has faded into history, along with many other such dates. Today, Sept 11 (911), or October 7 are well recognized dates — but 50+ years from now? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing a suggestion with giving orders. No one gave anyone, certainly not "editors", an order, thank you. You should respond to what is written, i.e that July 20 is not a common title and not found anywhere among Reliable Sources, and that WP is the only place this obtuse title is found as a stand alone title.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The common name is July plot, for which your archive.org search returned one, and dropping the 20 returns a second
The first being: Richardson, Nigel (1986). The July plot. London: Dryad Press. ISBN 9780852196724.
and the second: Manvell, Roger; Fraenkel, Heinrich (1964). The July Plot: The Attempt in 1944 on Hitler's Life and the Men Behind it. Bodley Head.
which does have a subtitle, but books are usually catalogued under the title.
Additionally, the title of a Britannica article is not any less a "standalone title" than the title of any of our articles, considering that it too is an entry in a reference work. Other reference works covering this topic at this title include two from Oxford, the Oxford Dictionary of World History, Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary World History (though their Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase & Fable has it as "July Bomb Plot"), Helicon Hutchinson Encyclopedia (1999 ed., p. 579), H.S. Stuttman Co. Illustrated World War II encyclopedia, McGraw Hill's Encyclopedia of the Third Reich (pp. 184–187), login might be required, ABC-Clio World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, etc.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia apparently has "Rastenburg Assassination Plot" as an alternate title, though the primary is still "July Plot". It is titled "July 20th Plot" in the Scribner Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction (via Encyclopedia.com).
A lot of other reference works title, from many major publishers, their entry for the event, if they have one, as "July plot", or sometimes a variant thereof. I can't say the base form is an absolute majority, but I'm fairly sure it's a significant plurality, and reasonably confident that it is predominate over any other title. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alpha3031 — I stand corrected on WP being 'the only' reference to have July plot by itself, and the examples you've provided in dictionaries and encyclopedias are compelling, however...
  • Richardson, 1986, has a subtitle, July Plot, The (Day That Made History).
  • Britannica's reference has a subtitle "July Plot, German assassination attempt, Rastenburg, East Prussia [1944"]
  • In the Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, July plot is presented in that context, i.e. an 'encyclopedia of the Third Reich', unlike WP, which is a general reference for virtually any subject for a general audience.
  • Webster's title is a compound title i.e. 'July Plot or Rastenburg Assassination Plot '
  • Illustrated World War II encyclopedia is a dedicated encyclopedia for WWII, so here also, 'July plot' is presented in that context.
  • 'World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia' is also a subject specific reference, unlike WP.
Still in all, we are writing for a "general audience", and we should give the average readers a 'descriptive title', per WP:CRITERIA and WP:PRECISION, just for the record. At this point I seriously doubt we will garner a consensus for any of the proposed alternatives. In any case, thanks for your time and effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:20_July_plot&oldid=1295092845"