Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

More on Hitler and Christianity

OK, here's another attempt to clarify the matter. First, the site "nobeliefs" is not a particularly good site. It is not "scholarly" because it has lots of quotations and pictures. In many cases, those its are presented stripped of context. Givanni33's comment above to the contrary, the site hardly represents scholarly consensus on the matter. I speak with some experience on the matter, having published rather widely on the Nazis. That being said, there is good scholarly literature on the topic of the relationship of Nazism. Hitler, and Christianity. An excellent example is Richard Steigmann-Gall, "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). A good review of that book is available here: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=55161057430311 So I suggest that rather than arguing about a dubious site, the link on the topic be to the review above, which will lead those interested to a good treatment of the subject. Bytwerk 02:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I favor this book review to be added but do not favor removal of this site, which is not dubious at all, and almost strictly provides Hitler's own words, from his many speeches and writings. They are not taken out of context so as to be misleading. The site offers vaulable information in a comprehensive and overall way for those interested in the subject. The book is good for a more detailed look at the issue, but requires the purchase of the book. The site gives more information and is free. Giovanni33 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, they are taken out of context, and they are misleading. I challenge you to name a reputable historian who would make the case as strongly as that site does. I'm not disputing Christian influences on Nazism. However, to print a picture of Hitler against the background of a church, for example, and claim that that is evidence of Hitler's Christianity is simply silly. Hitler claimed he was in favor of peace hundreds of times. I do not think many would argue that those statements should outweigh his actions. In the same way, most Germans were at least nominally Christian. For Hitler to attack Christianity too vehemently would have been bad politics. Bytwerk 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So since you personally disagree with the views expressed on the nobeliefs site, and think that the arguments on it are misleading, that means you get to decide for everybody, censoring the site? No wikipedia reader gets to see it, cause Bytwerk has decided what is right and wrong. Drogo Underburrow 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The mistake you are making is that ths doesnt have to be an even handed treatement of the subject in the way an article does. It can make the case in stronger terms, it can push a POV, as long as that POV is accurately described. That is why the site is good becaues it does the best job of pushing for this POV. Here is another site that is also good: http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/p/NaziChristian.htm If you are making the claim that the quotes are taken out of context, you have the burden to show exactly how, and which quote is taken out of context and misleading. I dispute that claim. Your POV, as stated above, is a POV, and I disagree with it. The case is made against your POV that Hitler was just pretending to be a Christian because to do otherwise would be bad politics on this site, and the evidence it provides makes a strong case, I think, for this possition. The use of the Chuch picture is not its argument or evidence per se, only one that fits in the the theme, although it is an accurate picture and does say something that so many Nazi State activities wrapped itself around Christian symbols. The evidence for its claims, though, on based on the totality of the evidence prestented, not simply one picture. When you consider the whole picture (all the evidence) its not misleading at all. Giovanni33 02:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A bad case does not improve because it is made strongly. I repeat my challenge above: Find a reputable historian who agrees with the case the site makes. And I gave an example of something on the site taken out of context -- the picture of Hitler in Nuremberg against the backdrop of a church. Bytwerk 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You have not established that this site does a bad job presenting this particular POV, only that you don't agree with it. But you have failed to support your claim. You only protest the pictures of Hitler with the Church but you don't say how or why that is out of context or misleading. I don't think its misleading at all. That is a Nazi propaganda poster that says "God is with us." That was a common slogan of the Nazis, and the same can be seen on the Nazi uniforms, on the belt buckles. The photo, btw, can be found at the US Holocaust Museum and is of Hitler rallying his Nazi supporters in front of the Church of our Lady in Nuremberg, circa 1928, photographed by Heinrich Hoffmann. If anything the photo is misleading because it doesn't show all that. But it is not misleading to show that Hitler's affinity with the Church. Infact, even Nazi's cointed had engravings of Catholic Churches. The one I'm thinking of depicted the Pottsdam Catholic Church that was stamped on Nazi Coins, that looks almost identical to this photo. To accurately show the depictions Hitler's regime used in connection to religion, photos included, is precisely in context. So, I don't know what your argument is.

As far as citing a historian that advances the argument, this is not necessary for the argument, but not hard to do. Notable Hitler biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion clearly: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god..." Also, Guenter Lewy, author of "The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany" comes to mind, and quotes Hitler as saying that he "... regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of our national life." Lastly, there is historian John Cornwell (writer), in Hitler's Pope. But, all this is besides the point. I can find plenty of websites that all echo this particular POV, so it's a POV that is real and widespread, and warrents a link here, esp. one like this one that pulls together almost all the known quotes and references that supports it, along with a scholarly discussion of sources--the best on the web.Giovanni33 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for a picture of that Church nazi coin, and guess where I found it? The site you want to take down. They have two sectiosn full of photos. This page shows the Church and State fushion. Nazi Germany can be said to have been a Christian State infact, by this evidence: http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm This proves that the one picture is not taken out of context but is part of the larger and consistent context of the State placing itself in the context of the Church due to its own religious affiliations and bent. Giovanni33 06:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

While I have not read the book you cited, I did read the review you linked to. That review would be inappropriate for the Hitler page to link to, as its not about Hitler, but about religion and the Nazi party in general. The "nobelief"'s site is still the best site I have seen for making the case that Hitler was influenced by Christianity. No professor of history has taken the time to construct a scholarly rigorous webpage on this topic. Does that mean we should not present the viewpoint at all? That is the practical effect of you are saying. If we do not link to the "nobeliefs" site, flawed as it may be, it means that the viewpoint in question will not have any advocate at all, which is precisely what the partisan Catholic advocates here want. This site is the best there is on promoting its view. I'm asking all editors to fight censorship and replace this site each time its deleted. Drogo Underburrow 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just been looking at this linked site. It has many, many problems with neutrality. For a start it seems to try to take as proof of Hitler's Christianity any form of quote in which in religious connotated word appears. Here is an example: "Thus my faith grew that my beautiful dream for the future would become reality after all, even though this might require long years.". Anybody of any religious (or non-religious) belief could make that quote, or most of the quotes on the same page. The fact that they try to use this as evidence makes me doubt even more the quality and sincerity of this site's research. DJ Clayworth 17:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, let’s take a look at two of the sources Giovanni33 cites. We’ll start with John Cornwell’s “Hitler’s Pope.” Gionvanni33 cites a passage in which Cornwell quote Hitler. Now let’s quote Cornwell: “Hitler, in fact, had two views on the churches — public and private. In February of 1933 he was to declare in the Reichstag that the churches were to be an integral part of German national life. Privately, the following month, he vowed to completely ‘eradicate” Christianity from Germany. ‘You are either a Christian or a German,” he said. “You cannot be both.’” (pp. 105-106). Or how about Toland? Giovanni33 cites one passage in which Toland claims he was “a member of the church in good standing.” It doesn’t say Hitler believed in it, or was in any way motivated by Christianity — which, in fact, Hitler’s private statements clearly refute. So what is being done here is to put a touching confidence in Hitler’s public statements. He wouldn’t have lied, would he? There isn’t anything else in Toland I can think of to support the point,. I don’t have a copy of Levy handy, but again Giovanni33 doesn’t cite Levy, rather Levy’s quotation of one of Hitler’s public statements. So I repeat my request: please provide an argument from a reputable historian who agrees with the case made on the web site in question. It hasn’t been done so far. In fact, the Cornwell book strongly supports the opposite point.

Meanwhile, the picture I cite has Hitler standing with a church as a backdrop. Let us assume for the sake of argument I had a picture of Giovanni33 standing in front of a mosque. It rather doubt that he would take that as evidence that he should begin attending Friday prayers.

Quite simply, no one with scholarly standing is likely to look at the site in question and say: “This is a good site that builds a well-supported argument.” Bytwerk 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture of Hitler posing in front of the Church is what it is---an attempt by Hitler and his regime to use symbols of Christianity, to merge itself with the Christian Church (infact the Nazi party was founded in a Church--the reason why the Chuch is stamped on the Nazi coin mentioned earlier), so this is valid as one part of the many pieces that all fit together to paint a picture. If that picture is convincing or not is another question but the picture is, as reported, not misleading. Its historical and accurate. What you are doing is removing the picture from the context and that is why your analogy fails. I'm not Hitler. But, If I were, and I brought my army pose in front of the Church on purpose and used the slogan "God is with us!" that would be fair evidence, to make of what you will. You act almost as if it was just by happenstance that someone happened to take a picture of Hitler standing in front a Church, and by that reason alone, drew a conclusion of his religion. Nonsense. This is not what the site does, nor what anyone argues. That would indeed be silly. What the site does is compiles a lot of evidence, and presents it for the reader to make up their own mind. The evidence is the totality, which helps to inform the reader of the very real role of Christanity in the Nazi state, and of Hitler's use of it. Let the evidence be seen. That is all I ask. You want to censor the evidence, but even your arguments that it's misleading does not stand. You simply disagre with the conclusion. But that is not reason to impose your POV by silencing this POV.

About other scholars, how about historian Konrad Heiden? He write: "It was at this time [1922] that [Hitler] began to believe in his own God-given mission. It was no accident that—in his own words—he 'learned from the Bible with boundless love how our Lord and Savior seized his whip,' and marched on Jerusalem. Was not he himself armed with a heavy crocodile whip, marching through the streets of his beloved Munich, which he sometimes called the 'Mecca' of National Socialism? A short time previous, it is true, he had admitted in a chastened mood to his friend Georg Schott: 'All of us are nothing but little Saint Johns. I am waiting for a Christ.' But the period of modesty was drawing to a close. Were not all the signs by which Heaven customarily announces its prophets being fulfilled in him? The fanatical faith of the disciples, the rejoicing of the masses, the hostility or contempt of those in high places—and now wasn't he going through a sort of Golgotha? His Golgotha, to be sure, was nothing more impressive than the month in prison which he wished so fervently to avoid; but before going in, he took leave of his people with the words: 'Two thousand years ago the mob of Jerusalem dragged a man to execution in just this way.'Der Fuehrer, p. 280] And, "A metaphysical line runs through [Mein Kampf], not always easy to find amid all the vulgar vilification and barren, long-winded meditations; here a man seeks for God and discovers himself. This is exactly what happened to Soloviev's Antichrist; he too, like Hitler, had written in his thirty-third year, a book in which he claimed to be the Savior. [Der Fuehrer, p. 281].Giovanni33 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this could go on forever, but Giovanni33 still has not provided a single reputable scholar who makes the argument of the site in question. Instead, he his doing exactly what that dubious site does: provide a variety of out-of context (or downright wrong – e.g. his Cornwell example, where the book he cites supports the opposite point). Yes, the Nazis did use the symbols of Christianity. In fact, I’ve written a book that makes exactly that point. But then, Giovanni33 claims that the party wanted to merge with the church. There is no evidence for that at all, the very opposite. The Nazis were assuming Christian symbols not to merge with the church, but to supplant it. As one Nazi writer claimed, Christianity had taken over the symbols of old religions and filling them with new content. Gradually, pagans became Christians, the writer argued. There is a large literature on the Nazi use of Christian symbols, but the scholarly argument is not that the Nazis were trying to merge with the church, but rather replace it with their own political religion.

By the way, how about supporting the claim that the Nazi party was founded in a church? That’s simply not true.

But let’s look at Heiden. Heiden picks up on the religious language Hitler used. No doubt about it, Hitler used a lot. But Heiden never says that Hitler believed any of it. In fact, he quotes Hitler as calling Munich the “Mecca” of the movement. Is Hitler now Islamic? And Heiden is citing Hitler’s public statements, which no one denies. Heiden, by the way, is a valuable contemporary account, but he wasn’t a scholar, nor did he have access to the vast amount of material that since has come to light on Hitler. So let me repeat the challenge. How about looking at, say the best biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw’s two-volume effort, and trying to find some evidence there?

And finally, Giovanni33’s charge is that those who don’t like the dubious site are trying to censor it. Simply untrue. If he can find a site that makes the argument that upholds reasonable scholarly standards, I’ll happily support it. But if one of my students were to support a paper using that site, the student would not do well. I’m interested in the quality of sources on Wikipedia, since lots of students use it. I’d like to see them find good and reliable sources on Wikipedia, not weak ones. Bytwerk 11:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You miss the relevant issue at hand here Bytwerk. This issue is not if and what notable Hitler historians make a case as strong as the site does in its POV and argument that Hitler was a Christian. Establishing this is not a requirement for the external links section, which is why I said it was irrelevant in the beginning. I'm sure if I do enough digging I can find a scholarly treatment that has the same POV among established scholarship, even if it treats the subject matter in a more nuanced and less vulgar (and less strong) manner--however this would not be a website I could link to for the external links section. This section presents POV's and provides information. It need not be up the the same standards that we'd expect in a formal academic treatment. But, it is relevant and informative, and compiles the best I've seen the evidence for this POV. The real issue and the strength of the link is the evidence it provides and information it gives---not just that it uses this to construct its POV argument in stronger terms that we may find in scholarly treatments of the subject. Therefore, for you to focus on this issue and then claim that I have not met it, misses the point, and does not support your argument for its removal. Your stronger point that this site presents evidence out of context or in a misleading manner is more to the point but you have failed to establish that. You have only made the claim about the picture and I have defended the manner it is used as not misleading at all, esp. when you take it in context with the rest of the evidence the site presents. I'd like to see you focus your arguments on convincing me that the evidence that is presented is misleading. One can look at the evidence objectively and come to different conclusion than the one which the website argues for. I find the evidence presented rather good to find it all in one place, hence the strength of the site. It even has a scholarly discussion of the other quotes often used by Christians to support the other POV. Based on all the arguments I've seen thus far, I'm convinced that the real objections to this site are not with the quality of information it provides but rather that you don't agree with its conclusions. But that is not reason to suppress it. I would not oppose other links that argue for another POV. That is the value of the external links section. As a fellow educator myself, I'd like for my students to use this site, along with many sites and many sources and come up with their own assessment given a preponderance of the evidence and being exposed to many different POV's.Giovanni33 05:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don’t think so. A point of view does not gain merit simply for being a point of view. Some reasonable connection to the facts is important. For example, let’s say that I came across a statement by Timothy Garton Ash, a good historian, that no one ever spoke more eloquently of peace than Adolf Hitler. Now I went to Hitler’s speeches, and found dozens of fervent statements in favor of peace. I gathered all these together in a web site called “Hitler Wanted Peace,” and argue that only the nasty British drove him into war. This is, by the way, the argument the Nazis themselves made, and some neo-Nazis today repeat it. Would you argue that this site should be linked to, since it makes the best case for the POV? That is exactly what Nobeliefs does. It claims that the way to determine Hitler’s religious faith is to believe his public statements. You’ve given up finding a reputable scholar who agrees with that line, and say it’s irrelevant. No, it isn’t. I will leave it to the rest of the group to determine whether a picture of Hitler standing outside a church is good evidence for Hitler’s Christianity.

Meanwhile, how about the evidence I asked for regarding your statement that the Nazi party was founded in a church?

There are decent books on the subject. I’ve recommended, and someone is pursuing, Steigmann-Gall’s “The Holy Reich.” This book makes Hitler out to be more sympathetic to Christianity than I would, but it takes all of the evidence into account. Here’s an example of his conclusions:

”The contradictions and inconsistencies found in ‘Table Talk’ on many issues makes it impossible to know Hitler’s mind. Nevertheless, certain tendencies in his thought are discernible. Even though he never converted to paganism, Hitler nonetheless became increasingly opposed to Christian institutions and, on the face of it, to the Christian religion as well. However, the process was not as clear as historical analysis generally suggests. In fact, Hitler’s professed hatred of Christianity was shot through with ambiguity and contradiction. Even as he accused Christianity of being Jewish and Bolshevik, at all times he carefully protected the Jew Jesus from his attacks. According to Hitler, Christ’s ‘original message’ could still be detached from what was later called Christianity. In other words, Hitler continued his long-held belief that the unfettered ideas of Christ were different from the ideas of the churches.”

Note what that summary statement does. It doesn’t claim Hitler was a Christian. It doesn’t claim he was a pagan. It notes that he was influenced by Christianity, but doesn’t claim to know Hitler’s mind. That is why I suggested the link to John Conway’s review of the book. Like me, Conway thinks S-G goes a bit too far in his claims, but recognizes that a good argument has been made.

As a PS to those curious about this brouhaha…. I’m a college professor. I find that students often go to Wikipedia for information. I want them to find good information, and reputable links, which does not mean links that I agree with, but rather links that will help people understand the topic. S-G’s book will do that. Nobeliefs won’t. It should go. Bytwerk 14:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I'm surprised you seem to keep missing the central issue. The passage of the book you cite is a scholarly account in a nuetral NPOV manner that would be fit for inclusion in an article on the subject. It states the known facts and doesn't draw its own clear conclusions. But, that doesn't preclude others from doing so and creating an argument. That is what this POV site does. And, that is perfectly fine for what it is. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I agree that there should be some reasonable connection to the facts is important. I think this does does this. It presents many facts and there is quite a reaonable connection between the evidence it presentgs and its POV. You keep distoring the value of the evidence by pointing out a single picture, as if that were the bulk of the evidence. It's not. Its not even just what Hitler says, either. Its many things: Its what he does, including the creation of a Christian Church himself "The Protestant Reich Church." Its what he writes. Its his own personal history, how he was raised. It's the symbols he uses while in power, too, and the way he uses them and and professes his brand of Christianity in the service of his right-wing politics, fascism--a merger of Chruch and State, the encouragement of his own army to attend church, use of priests and holy water on soldiers before battles, religious instruction in public schools, etc. So, no, its not just a picture. You would do better to focus your argument on how the evidence (all of it) does not have a reasonable connection to its argument. What you can't do is simply say you disagree with the interpretation of the evidence and therefore not allow the evidence to be seen, or the argument to be made, even if its not a mainstream POV. This is esp. true for a POV for which there is lots of evidence that directly informs such a viewpoint and argument, and is presented and informative.

Your analogy about the neo-fascist argument that Nazi's wanted peace is does not work because peace or not peaceful is easily seen by the actions, alone. Imperialists always talk about peace but its their actions that clearly show otherwise. This is not the case with religious belief. It's not so simple or clear cut because its a matter of professing belief. We can't look into anyone's mind to see what they really believe. And, we can we look at Hitler's actions and make a clear cut case that his actions were "un-Christian," and therefore he was not a true Christian, even if he claimed to be one because the nature of the belief system is complicated and contradictory. See, that depends on how you define "true Christian". The medieval Catholics did a lot of Hitler-like things, and more; does this mean they weren't "true Christians" either? Are gas chambers worse than hacking a "witch"'s breasts off, violating her with heated metal instruments, and then tearing her limbs out of their sockets on the rack!? Most peopledefine a Christian as one who believes that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. Others define it far more narrowly, so that they can exclude people like Hitler and Mengele. This is a POV. If we are to use a narrow definition, then it would also remove most self-professed "Christians" throughout history. You see how your analogy doensn't work. Those who are in favor of peace don't make war their primary means of conducting forien policy. Those who are Chrisitans can and have done virtually everything under the sun and its questionable who is Christian and who isn't, hence the debates--not clear cut, esp. if you are a Christian reformer, such as Luther. Hitler saw himself as the savior of Christianity, a reformer of it, to purge its "Jewishness." This is not unlike what other Christians refromers did in rebelling against certain aspects of the traditional teachings. Yet, they are still Christians.

Also, this is a signifiant POV with much debate over this very question. This does does a good job at presenting a discussion of varous sources (including the one you mention "Table Talk." I find that very informative and imortant. Here are some other sites that I don't think are as good or scholarly as the one I support: http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm and http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/HitlersFaith.html. This one is actually pretty good, but not as comprehensive and its prime focus is not only on Hitler as the nobeliefs site is: http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/Hitler.shtml and http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.shtml I suggest you review all the evidence presented, and treat your own critque of this site in a scholarly manner yourself, or else you are guilty of doing exactly what you accuse this site of doing for its POV.

To answer your question bout the Nazi party being founded in a Chuch, perhaps that is the wrong choic of words. What I mean and was refering to was the massive celebration when Hitler took power in 1933 which was held in the Potsdam Garrison Church (and included religious services, and ceremony). Its this Catholic Church and event that is commenorated on the Nazi coin.Giovanni33 04:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Giovanni33's approach to the evidence mirrors that of Nobeliefs. The Garisonkirche in Potsdam was Protestant, not Catholic. It was a state ceremony, not a religious one. In fact, it was originally planned for the Reichstag building, which, however, had had a fire.... The ceremony was held in the Garisonkirche as a second choice because it was resting place of Prussian kings (Friedrich the Great was buried there).

As I've said before, and even provided a good source, there is debate on the relationship of Christianity and Hitler. However, no one who has any credibility on the matter thinks that the way to determine Hitler's faith is to consider only his public statements. To list sources even worse than a bad one is not very convincing. Bytwerk 12:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant for the needs of the public, not just for college students. If you are on a campaign to rid Wikipedia of non-scholarly links, I implore you to stop. According to the guideline page, external sites which should be linked to are not bound by standards that apply to Wikipedia, such as NPOV, no original research, et cetera, nor are they held to the standard of having no factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, if they are a notable proponent of a POV. This site is a notable proponent of the POV that Hitler was either a Christian, or at least strongly influenced by Christianity. Several editors have agreed that this site is the best they have seen at making its case. This POV is an entirely reasonable one, is not in the category of "space aliens in the White House", and expressed in different semantics, is held by academics, including Bytwerk, who wrote here in talk, "I'm not disputing Christian influences on Nazism." Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines state that one should be conservative in deleting material. Deleting the only link for a POV, one which addresses a POV not adequately addressed in the article, is not being conservative. It is censorship. Notice that Bytwerk's main objection to this site is that he doesn't like the fact that this site doesn't adhere to standards he would set for students in his class. He is trying to impose his own standards on Wikipedia in conflict with the standards set on the guidelines page. The guidelines page endorses the use of sites like www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm when no better alternative exists. Drogo Underburrow 16:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Present the evidence

Fellow Wikipedians: Once again we seem to be falling into the trap of trying to reach a conclusion instead of presenting the evidence. In other words, we are fighting over whether we should write "Hitler was a Christian" or "Hitler was not a Christian", when what we should be doing is presenting the incontrovertible facts and allowing the user to make up their mind. We have a certain number of facts (Hitler was brought up Catholic, proclaimed his Christianity in later life but didn't practise Catholicism). Let's just use those. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Spot on.--shtove 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let the reader decide. And keep the link to the nobeliefs site, so the reader can decide on that evidence, too. Drogo Underburrow 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, as well. We should stick to stating the established historical facts, ie. that Hitler was baptized a Roman Catholic and confirmed (at age 15), never formally or publicly left the Catholic Church, and continued to profess his Christianity and Catholicism his whole life. However, in later in life stopped attending mass, and was in this way at least not a practicing Catholic. I think the text as it stands now gives a good job as presenting the facts. The link should be allowed so readers can look at the argument and evidence for themselves. Giovanni33 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the site. The site is horrible, and we must be able to find a better one that says the same thing. It presents wildly unsubstantiated allegations. Some of the evidence it uses to 'support' its view of Hitler's Christianity are about the equivalent of saying that George W Bush is a communist because he once drank vodka! DJ Clayworth 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a better one to replace it with, one that makes the same argument, then replacing it would be great. What I object to strongly is replacing it with nothing, or with something that doesn't do a better job of making the SAME argument. The real issue here, in my opinion, is that people opposed to this site, oppose it for what it says, not how it says it. I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that people are objecting to the quality of the site. If that was their concern, they would find a better site, not simply delete this one. I suspect that someone will now replace it with a site that makes an entirely different argument, and claim its the same one. I see no evidence of good faith in this dispute. I see Christians who don't like the message looking for reasons to oppose this site. Drogo Underburrow 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If there was a better site that presented the same arguments I would be happy to make a link to it. However since this is the best site we've found that makes the case, doesn't it call the whole of its case into question? I can find a whole lot of lousy sites claiming that aliens have taken over the White House, but I don't include them in the White House article because 'they are the best sites we have that talk about the theory'. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way I would have no problem with linking to the book review that User:Bytwerk cites above. DJ Clayworth 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I do; the review doesn't mention Hitler. But I ordered the book, and plan on putting what it says about Hitler, into the Hitler article; and I expect User:Bytwerk to back me up if other editors try to remove what the book says. Drogo Underburrow 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. So you have no idea what the book actually says, haven't read it, have no idea what sources are used, but you are so convinced of the book's veracity you have already made up your mind what it says and how you will use it to push your POV in this article? Did I just read that right?Michael Dorosh 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are laboring under several misconceptions. The book is an academic one, so it counts as a legitimate source for the Hitler article. The author is a historian writing in his field. Another notable historian, in the same specialty, reviewed the book, and found it scholarly. NPOV is about reporting what secondary sources say. This is a valid secondary source. NPOV is not about deciding what is true and false, and putting the truth in the article. That is not being NPOV, that is being POV, just the opposite. So wether the book is true or not, is not for us to judge. It belongs in Wikipedia because its the view of a scholar in the field. I don't need to have any idea beforehand what the book says about Hitler, and I don't. Whatever it says, I'm putting in, cause that is the NPOV way. I'm adding it as the views of this scholar, not as truth being asserted. This is how the entire Hitler article should be. The idea that NPOV is optional, or not about presenting all views without saying who is right and wrong, is mistaken. As to pushing my POV in the article, that is exactly something I don't want to do. Drogo Underburrow 19:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Mother's faith

Str77 removed Adolf's mother was a devout Catholic and raised her children in the faith. from the article, adding an edit note "(let's focus on him and not on others (also, "devout" is overused anyway))" XXX

First of all, lets avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over content. Instead, place such comments, if required, here on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.

As to the objection itself, you deleted the material because it is about Hitler's mother?? In the childhood section of a biographical article? That is absurd. Besides which, the sentence is there in reference to Hitler. Explaining that his mother was a devout Catholic, gives the reader a sense for what sort of household Hitler was raised in. Drogo Underburrow 18:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it first of all because it removed the passage about AH's uprbringing not being special (which it wasn't) and secondly because a note about Hitler's mother was the replacement - this article is not about Hitler's mother and because "devout" was used again - arguably the most overused word in the English language. Klara was more of a believer than her husband/uncle but let's not make her into a saint - she was just as Catholic as the other women of her twon. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's mother's faith is relevant to his childhood, but has no bearing on his adulthood. In this case, the word "devout" is a cliché in the true sense - in an imaginary world where every professing protestant must be "zealous", every purtian "stern". They may be appropriate epithets in given cases, but a faithful catholic who practises her religion should not ipso facto be described as devout.--shtove 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Klara was very devout. It needs to be said. Klara was not "just as Catholic" as other women; she was particularly devoted to the Church. Hitler's upbringing was not just like everyone else's. Hitler was raised by a particularly devout mother. Drogo Underburrow 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 POV pushing edits are clear when we look at the double standard of his excuses for removing info and adding it. He removed information on Hitler's mother, relating directly to how Hitler was raised, because it he says we should focus only on Hitler. Yet, in his edits, he is inserting a claim about Hitler's society/his region, a disclaimer that being raised a Catholic was common (which Im not so sure since most were Protestant (33% Catholic). The point being: notice that when it comes to adding information about other things, not directly about Hitler himself, its ok as long as it serves his POV. Yet, when the other side wants to add something that is even more relevant, more connected to Hitler, its removed by him under the pretext that we should instead "focus on Hitler only." POV pushing as clear as it gets. Kecik 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is going to be accused of sexism. We have a lot of material about Hitler's father, and nothing about his mother. I try to say one sentence about his mother, and it gets deleted. According to the article, the only thing worth mentioning about Klara is that she gave birth. When Hitler's early religious training is mentioned, the passive voice is used so that the reader has no idea which of his parents was religious. Drogo Underburrow 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it reflects a patriarchal bias, which is consistent with an outlook professed by other editors. I think it should be remedied by giving equal weight to the mother as the article does his father. Kecik makes an interesting observation about the rationale used by Str1977 for suppression of certain information which seems not to be consistently applied depending on what POV it serves. Giovanni33 05:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, do you have any reference for Klara's alleged devoutness? Note, I do not in principle object to her faith being mentioned (and in this way my edit summary was misleading) but it should not be included at the expense of other info.

Kecik, before you start accusing others please get your facts right, at least the most basic ones: the German Reich had 33% Catholics, but we are talking about either the Innviertel or Upper Austria in general - numbers here were quite different.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: We don't have anything in there about Alois' religiosity either. I don't know how Catholic he was but from what I gathered the difference between Klara and Alois is strictly the distribution prevalent at the time, which put the church, children and the kitchen (in German called "the three K's" into the responsibility of the wife, whereas the husband deals with other things. But again, if Klara's special devoutness can be proven I don't object to including it. If it however was just standard, there's no point in including it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read all the books listed in the reference section of the main article about Klara. I recall that they said that she was very devout; not just going to church, but a strong believer. I don't happen to have them on me right now, so I can't give you page references. I do have one book on me right now, which says the same thing, so I'll give that as a reference. Hitler's father, on the other hand was not only not devout, he was a Catholic in name only. The books tell anecdotes of how he scoffed at religion; he was a freethinker. You cannot simply assume what Hitler's parents thought, saying they were Catholic because most people of the area were.Drogo Underburrow 13:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, Drogo, then we could include this information in a passage about his parents: his father balahahaha, his mother balalahaha. Any proposal? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On Including All POV's

Bytwerk wrote on this page:

For example, let’s say that I came across a statement by Timothy Garton Ash, a good historian, that no one ever spoke more eloquently of peace than Adolf Hitler. Now I went to Hitler’s speeches, and found dozens of fervent statements in favor of peace. I gathered all these together in a web site called “Hitler Wanted Peace,” and argue that only the nasty British drove him into war. This is, by the way, the argument the Nazis themselves made, and some neo-Nazis today repeat it. Would you argue that this site should be linked to, since it makes the best case for the POV?

The answer is yes, I would. Why? First of all, you are an academic, which lends weight to you as an advocate of the POV. Secondly, you are publishing your view, so it is now sourced material on the topic. Thirdly, the view is not yours alone, but that of the Nazis, a large group, and today's Neo-Nazi's, also a large group. So, we have a site, the best of its class, written by an academic, making a POV not adequately addressed in the article, and representative of the views held by a large group of people? You bet I'd support that link, absolutely. Would it make a difference that the POV is utterly false? No. Wikipedia takes a neutral stance on matters of what is true and false. Read Wikipedia:NPOV, please. Drogo Underburrow 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Except Garton Ash is contrasting Hitler's words with his deeds, and concludes that Hitler hardly favored peace. His point is the contrast between words and deeds. So if you'd support that link, I guess I don't know what you wouldn't support. If we have take into account the neo-Nazi point of view on everything in the Hitler article, we're going to have a very curious article. And I'm startled to read that you think that an uttery false POV is a good thing to link to. I don't think Wikipedia takes a neutral stand on truth. For example, I see people vandalizing the article all the time, and for some reason, other editors think that false information doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Bytwerk 17:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer of course is no. The website is made by an unknown person with no credentials. The fact that it references a reputable historian (possibly taking him out of context) is irrelevant. If we have a clear attribution of the website to someone who is known as a reliable scholar that's a different story. DJ Clayworth 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The fictional site is by Bytwerk, a published and reputable scholar. Drogo Underburrow 18:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Back it up, then. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. The example we are using is fictional. Professor Bytwerk made up a hypothetical case where he creates a website based on misleading information. Drogo Underburrow 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, hold on here. I proposed a fictitious example, but probably didn't give enough detail. Timothy Garton Ash is a scholar of stature. In one of his books, he says that no one spoke more eloquently of peace than Hitler, but his point is that Hitler's words were wholy inconsistent with his actions. I then said OK, what if someone believed that Hitler really did mean what he said about peace in public, and put up a web site with lots of quotations from Hitler's public speeches. I suggested that would be a poor website, not something Wikipedia folk would want to link to. Drogo Underburrow apparently assumed Garton Ash really believed that (apologies to both Garton Ash and Drogo). Any way, 1) Garton Ash is speaking only of Hitler's words, not his deed. 2) I hope one would agree that a web site that listed only Hitler's public statements, but entirely ignored his private statements, and his actions, would be a bad site. Now, would D-U still support it with that clarificatin? Bytwerk 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't misunderstand you. I knew that in the fictional example you had a false view of or were purposely misrepresenting Ash's work. It doesn't matter. You would know this if you understood the NPOV policy. If I may take the liberty here - (I've always wanted to do this)- Professor, do your homework; read the assigned reading before coming to the seminar. Study the Wikipedia:NPOV page; there's going to be a test.

That little bit of attempted, and hopefully not lame (and certainly no disparagement intended) humor aside, let me in a nutshell talk about NPOV here.

Wikipedia does not give false information, it always gives the facts. It does this in a specific way. Jimmy Wales wrote:

[W]rite about what people believe, rather than what is so. ... What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.'

So, the Hitler article should say "Professor X says that Hitler wanted war. Professor Bytwerk disagrees, saying he wanted peace." The article then leaves it at that, taking an neutral stance, coming to no conclusion as to which of the professors is correct.

Its not our job to determine which POV is false, and it wouldn't matter if we even had no clue, being ignorant morons. In fact it would help to write an unbiased article if we were clueless about the truth. All that is supposed to be in a Wikipedia article is the facts that Professor X thinks xyz, and Professor Bytwerk thinks abc.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if one side is God, and the other is ignorant hooligans whose arguments are laughable. Wikipedia is about reporting the sides of disputes, not judging them. If there are two sides, its our job to report them both, and to stay completely neutral. That means we write as if we had no clue who is right and wrong. Do do otherwise, is choosing sides. All this is non-negotiable, its the fundamental rule on Wikipedia.

Please read Wikipedia:NPOV. -- Drogo Underburrow 19:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read it. And I don't think it supports putting in every POV that has a defender. Shall we put in links to those who believe that Nazis invented flying saucers? That Hitler was the best friend the Jews ever had? That Hitler invaded Austria to get the "Spear of Destiny"? That Hitler escaped in a submarine in 1945? In fact, an encylopedia article does need to take a stand on what is true or false, or the article will run on forever and leave the reader hopelessly confused. Asking everyone to write as if they had no clue as to what was right or wrong — well, does anyone else think that is the Wikipedia policy? Bytwerk 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that policy as well, and I agree with Bytwerk. Drogo, I think you shouldn't assume that people who interpret NPOV and External Links differently from the way you do either haven't read the policy or guideline or are in bad faith. Isn't it even possible that your interpretation could be wrong? AnnH ♫ 19:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I read the policy and I agree with Drogo. I think the policy is clear enough to correctly assume either someone has not read it or undertands it, or is acting in bad faith. We shoudl assume good faith and therefore the former, as Drogo, did. Apparently he was mistaken on the point and things are as they appear. Giovanni33 06:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it supports putting in every POV that has a defender. NPOV only requires giving significant sides. If enough people believe that Nazis invented flying saucers, then its our job to report their arguments. But how Bytwerk can say, "an encylopedia article does need to take a stand on what is true or false" shows that while you may have read the NPOV page, you either do not understand it, or you simply do not support it, as NPOV specifically requires that Wikipedia articles NOT take sides on any issue where there is a significant dispute. As for Musical Linguist's comment, this isn't a case of different interpretations. You ignore my arguments when I quote from the policy pages, where it states that bias is not necessarily a prohibiting factor in choosing external links, and keep saying "biased website" when deleting it. Drogo Underburrow 19:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, from D-U's point of view, one web site seems to make a claim significant. There are more than that on any of the issues I raised above. So I assume he'll support adding links to discussions of Hitler's saucers? The point I've repeatedly made is that the Nobeliefs approach is not significant, since no one else I know of, and no one else its supporters is able to cite, seems to think its argument is any good. Bytwerk 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't stick your words in my mouth, no, I don't believe that one website makes a POV significant. Lets not mix topics here. I'll argue that the nobeliefs site is offering a significant viewpoint in that section, not here. Drogo Underburrow 21:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)