On Where can I find all Hitler speeches in original German?

it was proposed that this would be a duplicate of Where can I find a reliable archive of Hitler's speeches?

To this duplicate proposal of "Does this answer your question?" I commented below the more recent one:

Interesting, since the proposed dupe might be technically 'a similar question', but it surely does not have very good, or for this: even a valid answer to this particular Q ('dupe'-A: 'here is one English book'…). On other SEs I have seen the practice of marking the older Q as 'the dupe', if the newer Q gets the better answers. (Technical & grammar, logic issues of the resulting banner notice aside…)

The linked and supposed duplicate clearly does not 'answer' the question posed now. The question posed is for speeches in 'original German' and was answered rather comprehensively for multiple venues assessed for their quality — whereas the supposed dupe got only a low-effort stub of an answer for one dubious English source found by the answer writer.

(Even more concerning is the quality of the supposed duplicate's answer: so low an effort went into it that the very low effort's description makes up most of its text. And there was zero source quality evaluation: the one file found by random internet search turns out to be an unreliable neo-nazi collection, advertising on its last page a neo-nazi site, with the linked on a History:SE PDF file signed off by its editor as: "Made by Propagandaleiter"! Without any warning or evaluation of that 'source'. While the source material sought by either question is by its very nature nazi-related, this kind of sloppiness is quite off-smelling. That goes as well towards those recommending that answer instead of the newer one.)

To compare other site's established policy for marking which post as what in questions about duplicates, one example from a mod on a different SE site:

When both questions have been asked more than a year before now, I’m less likely to close in the direction linking to the oldest question and more in favor of closing in the best direction - favoring the question with the best phrasing, best answer or answer diversity and tie going to the shortest, clearest phrasing of the question at hand.

In this case, we’re closing towards a canonical question so that is even more correct in my eyes regardless of typical or general case.

As I see it here, we're closing a question as 'duplicate' now despite the supposed dupe not having a valid answer to the 'new' —and different— question, and we close towards a far inferior target.

As for the process and supposed 'community decisions' resulting in the present closed state: we also see a review queue process that resulted in 'the community decision' with three votes in favour to 'Leave Open'. That answers to the newer question are indeed more helpful is what the automated system says: The newer question also is currently listed with a top spot on "Most Helpful" on the site-tools 'day' tab.


  1. This is not a real duplicate, certainly not an 'exact duplicate'. Thus it should be reopened.

  2. Even if it were any form of duplicate, since it seems SE policy requires to merge/close towards answers, better answers, and thus towards the newer question. Thus it should be reopened and perhaps (see 1.: 'no real duplicate') the other question marked as a dupe.

Taking into account the above arguments: This decision should be reversed, this is not a real duplicate, and if it is still judged as duplicate, then it should be closed towards the better answers?

1 Answer 1


This was closed by user vote, all 5 of which appear to have thought it a duplicate (if I'm reading the timeline correctly).

I'm not going to unilaterally override the votes of 5 users because I hold a different opinion, however, I do have to concede that I hold a different opinion. The "in German" changes the complexion of the question considerably. It could still be considered a "dup" if all the answers to the old question answered this one as well, but that's apparently not the case either.

Again, I'm not going to swoop in my big mod hammer, but it does seem wrong to me. I would ask that while we're getting this issue sorted out, nobody merge the "dup"s. A mistaken close vote is easily untangled. A mistaken merge ... not so much. Among other evils, its a hostile act against innocent answers that are no longer on-topic for the new question text (speaking from sad experience on other sites here).

  • To be clear: What I'm asking is either a mod participation (via final vote as normal user (as has been the case for CVs already) or even the hammer (hammer in this case mainly because of hostile user participation from the 1st dupe voter also downvoting the answer just out of spite…) or (and clearly preferred) some further attention from 'the community', which was split so far over the process here (3 Leave Open vs 5 DupeDVs). Commented Sep 19, 2022 at 13:23
  • @LаngLаngС - I might be willing to be 5th vote, if it came to that (assuming I could get over the personal hurdle of such a vote also possibly helping Hitler). However, we have enough users now that its very rare that I manage to catch a question sitting on 4 votes.
    – T.E.D. Mod
    Commented Sep 19, 2022 at 13:45
  • Re: "helping Hitler". I know that you probably meant mainly 'Helping a so tagged Q'. Otherwise the irony would perhaps be killing me. The censorship that's part of the motivation which brought this new mainQ here in the first place, is 'helping the nazi-cause' already more than enough IRL & on the net. And then, leaving this mainQ dupe-closed would have helped actual neo-nazi content, with links to those sites, that the dupe voters very practically endorsed further, on the other Q's answer. Commented Sep 19, 2022 at 19:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .