Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions about Adolf Hitler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Sandbox Versions

I have created three sandbox versions, Talk:Adolf Hitler/Hitler's religious beliefs, Talk:Adolf Hitler/Hitler's religious beliefs version 1, Talk:Adolf Hitler/Hitler's religious beliefs version 2 for us to use in dispute resolution. Drogo Underburrow 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

One comment that applies to all three - they are all way too long. All of these sections are longer than the section on the Holocaust, nearly as long as the section on World War II. DJ Clayworth 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One way of shortening it would be to eliminate some of the quotes. I know Gio will object and I am not enthusiastic about removing quotes from Mein Kampf, but IMHO we don't need to post a quote for every bit, especially since there is a certain overlap between the content. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere! Honestly, I like several quotes from Mein Kampf (though not one every other paragraph). It puts into play Hitler's belief system and way of thinking and directly supports the statements made in the article.
Also, the Adolf Hitler page is on a list for desperate articles needing shortening (see: Wikipedia:Longpages #105)
Could we now discuss the necessary and core information for this article? Like I said above, why not indicate when Hitler picked his nose when someone was watching? I will also say again: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for all the information you ever read or hear. Yes, I will admit that interest in Hitler is greater than that of George Washington, but still doesn't mean all details possible can be made out. Come on, there is an article all about his health!
Reannalyize the information here and see what is actually needed to keep this on the level of what it's supposed to be: an article. I don't care if the core information goes over the suggested limit for an article, if it's needed and for good to everyone passing by. Colonel Marksman 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Marksman, why don't you go to the first sandbox and re-write it to the length you feel is appropriate? Drogo Underburrow 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel, some of the quotes I find useful too, but they need to be integrated in a meaningful way into the text (as IMHO “my” version did) and we don’t need all of them (some of them are quite redundant) Did you have a look at one of my earlier versions? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for your arguement

Ok, below this heading, let's stand off all specific arguements, and state what your doing, why, and state why you oppose such-and-such. This way, we don't dispute on any more arguements but take this to the very reason you keep it up. (Don't involve any actual arguement or anything the article says yet. Just evaluate yourself.)

I'm not argueing for the sake of Wikipedia and the article only anymore. I'm argueing in addition for some peace agreements, teach us all something, and take that to the next level. In my experience, arguing is a defined art and can only be taken anywhere if we listen to each other. Once we know what's going on, maybe we can see who the other is, and fix our outlook on each other.

Until you do so, nothing is going to get settled and all you're going to do is call everything Str says as POV, keep this article locked, Gio still following after Drogo, Str with his objection points sitting there without any good reasons against his, nobody is going to listen to DJ (or any middle man in the future), the article will still stay there painstakingly overdone loaded with tiny details and little about where Hitler's fame actually lies, and most importantly, Hitler's religion will still be under dispute.

Set yourself aside for everyone else. Don't do it for me, for Wikipedia, for the article (although, the latter 2 yes), or for your greatness in the article, do it for yourself and your sanity and goodwill. I'm using up several hours of my time here for you and the article, and I've got a number of things I could be doing. But I'm not going to just "mind my own business", walk off, and leave you to yourselves or sit here without trying to dig out any inner thoughts and help get everyone's point across. (Though as of now, I'm "siding" slightly more with Str and promoting DJ.) Colonel Marksman 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How long to make the section? Just long enough to describe Hitler's religious views adequately, and not a bit longer. I agree that our goal is not to put everything known here.

We have sources. Its our job to put what they say in the article. We are forbidden to screen these sources, and report on the ones we think true, and leave out the rest. Instead we have to fairly represent what they say. So its a waste of time to argue over what is true and false; its not our job to do that. In a historical field like this, its our job to simply report. We are like journalists, not authorities writing an article from our own sense of true and false. Hence objections about what Steigman-Gall says are simply out of line, or what Toland says, are moot. The only question of fact is, did the source say what the editor claims?

Now, we do have limited space, so not every source can be used. Editors are faced with the subjective task of deciding who to omit. The guiding goal must be to attempt to report on what published sources say, so that the article is representative of the literature of the field, and no view is inappropriately left out. Limited space, however, must not become a license for each side to press for only inclusion of material that is favorable to the editor's POV. Editors instead should judge material by asking if the source is a valid source, and does the material communicate the source's (not the editor's) POV or give the facts according to that source.

To borrow (and modify) a phrase from a notoriously hypocitical news organization, our job here is, "We report what the sources say; you decide what it means." Drogo Underburrow 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, the same hypocritical news organaization also uses the slogan, "fair and balanced." heheGiovanni33 23:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have learned from Hitler. He said in Mein Kampf, that when you lie, lie big. People disbelieve small lies, but will swallow big ones. So, if you set out to create a partisan news organization, you lie big, and make it your motto that you are fair and balanced. Hitler also taught, again in Mein Kampf, that the key to successful propaganda was endless repetition. Hence, repeat over and over 'fair and balanced". Drogo Underburrow 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the betrayal of a political bias? God forbid. The pettifogging Drogo snips away at perfectly acceptable contributions, while Gio marches in support, bearing the atheist cross. This article is supposed to recount the events of the life of Adolf Hitler and describe his influence and achievements. It is not a sump for complaints and grudges. And passages from ISBN-published authors are not always worth a quick quote and citation. Stick to facts, and consider the reader.--shtove 23:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pettifogger: One who quibbles over trivia. Are all editors here quibbling over trivia, in your opinion, or just me? Drogo Underburrow 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pettifogger: rascally lawyer. So Drogo is not unique (shock!). Facts are facts; and speculation and cavilling are not suited to WP.--shtove 00:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I am not a lawyer, though I don't mind being called "rascally", it has a certain "Han Solo" connotation to it, being a synonym for "scoundrel". Drogo Underburrow 01:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you from experience that involvement with a rascally lawyer will make your tears drip out like vinegar. Now, what about the facts and their relation to selected sources? Also: Han Solo was a pirate. Tsk tsk.--shtove 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

KK. shtove, let's quit now while we still can.
Now then, that is settled. Now you sound like a man with good purpose, reasons, and now I see what you're getting at (still need Str's word). You are, in fact, a human being with taste (the Han Solo comment was nice!).
I also see that shtove thinks your an athiest trying to pin a bad name on Christians by saying "Yes" to Hitler being pro-Christian. (Str, I think, has the same)

Now with that, I see what you're getting at too. State sources by actually puting them into the article, (avoiding mistakes of our own words destroying the article) but picking only the right ones. I will live with that. So that's agreed upon (better be. I see no reason why not. Makes too much sense anyway)

1. The "Adolf Hitler" page, and all sub-pages must have every paragraph (or almost every) footnoted. Every statement will reflect direct words back from an accepted source. This job (I call what the "source general" does) looks like something Drogo would like. The source general can personally see to it that all sources, adds, and paragraphs are footnoted to reliable sources. Before anyone adds anything, they must ask so in the Talk page, give the footnote, and reason for importance. Then we can all agree on the sources being reliable and allow it to pass into the article.

This will eliminate "vandilism", keep the article free of POV'ing
Slow down the flood of changes and adds to every paragraph/sentence down to a reasonble level. (E.g. not changing 4-2,000 times a day)
Get rid of aynomnous persons inserting their own words by will at any time for no reason at all.
If people don't like their adds/changes being reverted because they didn't discuss changes in the talk page, so be it. We've had too many problems in the past to let that slide again.
As Adolf Hitler looks to be a topic of world-wide and broad interest, it is important the above is done.

2. Keeping reverts on a reasonable level also includes not reverting back to the original page on such a change as: "He had bought more time..." --> "He bought more time...". (Personally, I hate helping/linking/passive verbs anyway. As a writer, they are evil to me, and only used when completely necessary) I would like to propose to be the "revert lawyer" to the defendants who have problems with the revert. I'd like to see to it that everyone's voice is heard, and we come to terms of some agreement. If things get far too out of hand or nasty, I will personally report them, indicate a list of reasons and rules they break, and try to ban/block them for a time. It will be in a court appeal, with Wikipedia as the judge, all of us as a jury, and I as a lawyer.

With this, we avoid tension and unnecessary and disliked relations between Wikipedians.
We don't become absolute rulers (no one man has all the power) and choke out anyone else.
If we find out something wrong, then we can fix it, otherwise, we'd never know.
Anyomnous persons will get their word in this if thought necessary.

3. We need an organizer for the article who keeps everything in line. This person will take the accepted information and put it into a smooth-flowing, nicely done article, including photos. With a proper outline and introductory paragraph, the rest of us can approve and any future changes will fit in nicely. Any takers?

This keeps the article extra clean.
The organizer, being such an organized person, is best fit for the job.
Stray information doesn't abruptly hurt the article in this manner.
Historical facts can be kept in line.

4. Promoter of article. This person (Gio, if you would volunteer, I'd be happy. You do good promoting and supporting so it seems) will overlook all the above at the top of this discussion page. This article was taken down from very many glorious spots. The promoter will help "advertise" and promote the causes of the article and get it back on its good side. People won't be coming into the discussion page and think so badly of it. The promoter will personally see to it that everything done in this article (and any sub-articles created) do good for it. Some people say "Wikipedia is a terrible source for information." Well, I want to say to them, "Look up Adolf Hitler there and tell me that again."

If we keep our heads together, this article will shine.
The article (and those involved with it) will have work promoted, and decrease the amount of tension and arguments (as well as any profanity) towards what we do and why we did it.
The promoter will basically be like a "campaign manager" for the rest of us, wagging a finger saying, "That won't be good for the article and make us look bad."
Hopefully, we can help keep everyone friendly with the promoter.

5. Footnote background checks are extremely important. Someone needs to head the department of reliable sources, (I will call the investigator) over what goes, what stays, and why. Str, I promote you to this job. While Drogo looks into the truthfulness and accuracy of the footnotes (and comparision with their paragraphs actually in the article), the investigator will oversee those sources, who quotes them, why, and determines POV. If two historians say the same thing, but one says it more factual than the other, the investigator points out the need to chug the other. This will require tremendous amounts of background checking and research (not for the information or article itself, mind you, the information already researched). If someone has a suggestion, and footnotes their source, the investigator personally sees to it about the reliablity of these footnotes and sources.

The investigator saves the rest of the Wikipedians a lot of time.
This will point out flaws/points/etc. about the particular source to everyone.
You don't have "Well, so-and-so said this!", "Well yeah, but such-and-such says this!", "On contrary, so-and-so overrules the other two because of such-and-such."
This reinforces that the best historians, books, and other sources hard-hit this article and only make it the best collection (and would pound other poorly constructed articles into shame)
Will help set an example for the importance of good sources.

Overall:

1. No one person has all the power, even in his own department. Each head of each importance will only oversee what is best and present it to everyone else who votes and discusses them.

2. No information will be rejected, promoted, used, or written without discussion.

3. We must agree to at least some form of organization and put our strengths together. (No one man has all the power)

4. No one person will look down upon or look up to any one individual. Every head of each department is equal in heads have their strengths. We will not refer to one another with "weaknesses" unless the individual so states he himself is weak in some area.

5. We agree to be serious when necessary, but not cruel or stone-like. We're all human beings with dignity.

6. Five Wikipedians are better than one. If someone has a complaint about someone doing too much, it will not be true. We all back each other up and have stated our purposes and proper reasons and those complaining can't argue with that. If they have a problem, they can challenge one of the best written articles on the Internet and lose.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we're not making history, we're not changing it, and we probably aren't preserving it, but we sure can do one nasty #### of a job promoting it, and make an impression. Colonel Marksman 04:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So I proposed at least 5 jobs for the article:

Source General (I ask Drogo to take the job)

Keeps footnotes and article accurate
Removes editor POV

Lawyer (I would like to take this job)

Helps defend all sides of a dispute
Keeps absolute peace with Wikipedians and unwanted anymnous users out

Organizer (Any takes?)

Designs and keeps up the infastructure of the article
Keeps the infastructure of the article in place and smooth in future

Promoter (Gio, I ask you to take this job)

Promotes article, workers, and causes
Makes our reasons for doing things look very good and acceptable

Investigator (Str, interested?)

Checks on sources for reliabilty
Removes source's POV

Str, Drogo (mainly), with this, instead of attacking one another with your strengths, mold them please. Colonel Marksman 03:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

AH, ok, I see that POV is wanted? Uh... I must've missed something. POV is opinion. Everyone, yes, is entitled to their opinion, but I'm saying to only keep the facts. If Hitler, however, stated something of his POV (which it looks he did quite often), then quite obviously, it needs to be in the article. I'm referring to those sources are closer to being editorals than articles or good, solid, sources.

And quite obivously, if every editor inserts his POV, but his POV is in conflict with another POV, we've got some major problems. Wikipedia is a place for articles, not editorals either. That's what I'm concerned about. Colonel Marksman 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I created the article Adolf Hitler/temp religious beliefs where everybody can edit now that this article is locked. I do have a suggestion for resolving/mitigating the dispute, that is removing all quotes by Hitler that have not been used in scholarly sources about Hitler's religious beliefs. It is easy to add and use quotes to support a POV, but this will lead to a quote war, as I have already seen (and engaged in) on the article Prem Rawat . What should be done is to confine ourselves to summaries by scholarly sources. (I am not neutral about the subject of Hitler's religious beliefs and I tend to believe what Sebastian Haffner has written about this subject in the book The Meaning of Hitler.) Andries 08:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

An open note to Colonel Marksman: A source's POV is not something that should necessarily be removed. Quite the opposite, it often is the purpose of Wikipedia to report what the source's POV is. For example, Bytwerk has recommended including a source, Michael Burleigh, who has the opinion (the POV) that "Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty". So, in Burleigh's opinion, Hitler was sort of a liar. That's his POV, and it is our job to report it. It's not a fact that Hitler lied about personal views, but it is a fact that Burleigh said that Hitler lied. So, yes we are interested in only giving the facts, but do you see how we report a source's POV here in a factual way? Reporting what a source said, is stating a fact, the source really did say it, regardless of whether what he said was true or false, fact or opinion. Therefore, Str1977 has no job under your proposed distribution of duties, as rejecting a source's POV is not something we should do for the sake of keeping out his POV. Drogo Underburrow 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

“A source's POV is not something that should necessarily be removed. Quite the opposite, it often is the purpose of Wikipedia to report what the source's POV is.” – no, not necessarily. But our job here is to write an encyclopedia article and not a collection of views. Look into any encyclopedia and see how it works.

As for the Colonel’s scheme of distributing duties – I don’t think it feasible. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin invaded in common

...and triggered a major war in Europe by invading Poland.

should be:

and triggered a major war in Europe by invading Poland together with Stalin.

Hilter was a war criminal, Stalin was as well, they acted conjointly when invading Poland. Hitlers order to attack Poland is intrinsically tied to Stalins synchronistically attack of Poland. Thanx for ur attention Foreigner

I do not agree. The sentence could be "and triggered a major war in Europe by invading Poland after Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact". The pact enabled Hitler to follow his long-cherished wishes of a Greater Germany. Andries 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was a long-cherished wish of a Greater Germany as well as Stalin had a long-cherished wish of a Greater Soviet Union. Nevertheless your suggested mentioning of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would be an aditional improvement illustrating why Hitler and Stalin dared to attack Poland in common. The pact enabled both Stalin and Hitler to attack Poland. Foreigner

All of these statements are an oversimplification. You could write a whole book or maybe two about the causes of the War. A whole lot of circumstances came together to cause it. Then there was the phoney war...another trigger could have been the invasion of France? or Holland? or Belgium? or Norway... who knows...? Wallie 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, for the basic timing, it's a fact that Germany invaded Poland on 1 September; war was declared (by Britain and France) two days later - the 'beginning' of WW2 by most accounts; and Russia moved not 'synchronistically' but two weeks after that.Bengalski 23:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right Bengalsk. Without the conjointly preparing of World War 2 the Soviet Troups would never have moved. But its correct, it was a planned and synchronisticall movement in delay. Foreigner 10:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, you are right about oversimplification but the start of World War II is quite clearly defined by scholars. And it was triggered (which, BTW, was once upon a time a compromise placed into the text instead of “started WWII) by Hitler’s Germany – Soviet Russia’s role certainly was important, even vital but a) it was Hitler’s war (and Stalin took part of the spoils), b) this is the Hitler article and not the Stalin article, c) the original WWII constallation was Germany vs. UK and France. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Policy

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I thought I found some interesting things in here:

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. .....

Reasoning behind NPOV

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves (emphasis mine), thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions (emphasis mine). Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing. .....

Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy -- just an essay: Writing for the enemy is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can. The intent is to satisfy the adherents and advocates of that POV that you understand their claims and arguments.

It's a great way to end an argument in real life, and it can often halt an edit war in an instant.

Note that writing for the enemy does not necessarily mean one believes the opposite of the "enemy" POV. The writer may be unsure what position he wants to take, or simply have no opinion on the matter. What matters is that you try to "walk a mile in their shoes" instead of judging them.

Writing for the enemy contributes to the NPOV of Wikipedia. Wikipedians often must learn to sacrifice their own viewpoints to the greater good.

This is where I come from.

Wikipedia:Describing points of view -- A quick, interesting and necessary read. Colonel Marksman 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a British Encyclopedia of 1935 that I picked up cheaply at an auction. It says in it that Hitler was there was initially some problems with Mr. Hitler, but that he is now developing into a responsible and capable leader. Also the Encyclopedia did mention Concentration Camps for Jews in Germany. The problem that this poses is that it impossible to be NPOV in an Encyclopedia. Wallie 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the purpose of the Encyclopedia and its editors. Wikipedia has a totally different rationale compared to the EB of 1935, which naturally had a POV. Agathoclea 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Every source has a POV. Nothing remarkable there. But EB - whatever the vintage - is a reputable source: so, by Drogo's criterion, the EB statement ought not to be kept out (only it will have to be prefaced by, "according to..."). Treating WP as a cut-and-paste compendium, with minimal editing, will only add up to the sum of prejudice, not knowledge. WP editors must be allowed to sift fact from speculation and (to some degree) from opinion.--Shtove 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Shtove, you either you do not understand the NPOV policy, or you are refusing to support it. I think it is the latter. NPOV does not allow editors to decide what is fact and what is speculation, and allow only the "facts" as they see them to be in articles, censoring out the views of sources they do not agree with. Drogo Underburrow 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mixing terms. Facts is facts, as the fella said, and opinions is opinions. Speculation is neither fact nor opinion, and any view that takes speculation as its basis is inadmissible. If there's any objection, then it should be dropped without debate. Plus I think I'm correct in my assessment of the EB example above - if not, please explain it to me like I'm a six year old.--Shtove 10:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait, wait! Drogo, would please QUIT being so hostile? Geez, its the attitude we don't like of you! You can get banned for that.
Now then, I have to agree with Shtove, but to a degree, I have to agree with you as well. Point being:

1. The editors are the ones who create/organize these pages, not the sources. Therefore, the editors choose the information put into the articles.

NPOV (neutral point of view) does not allow editors to decide what is fact and what is speculation, and allow only the "facts' as they see them to be in the articles, censoring out the views of sources they do not agree with.

2. Um.... yeah. NPOV IS is about exactly that. You're missing the point in being incredibly judgemental of everyone here. You think when we take something out of a source, we are automatically censoring it because we don't personally believe in it. You're wrong. We censor it out because there's something to personally believe in it in the first place. Neutral Point of View, mind you.

3. NPOV is about taking out the POV, or more commonly as called: balancing it. What? You saying its ok for me to post a sources say-so that Blacks are the reason the USA is going down the toilet? You're statement is saying that I can do that without breaking any policy and all you can do about it is cite sources that counter that line of thinking for a balanced NPOV. I'm sorry, but if you agree to that, then obviously something is wrong. Colonel Marksman 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me put in my two sense. I just put this on my watchlist yesterday because the article needs work. You need to look at NPOV as BALANCING VERIFIABLE RELIABLE SOURCES. I will call it BVRS because NPOV is greatly mistaken even by veteran wikipedians. Since everything in based primarily on Verifiable and Reliable Sources, you first get a list of them on a particular point. If the reliable sources are in conflict THEN you balance. If you have two equally reliable sources that are opposed, the final wording can either be neutral, or give both sources explicit mention. If an article contains only positive information for a biography, that is perfectly fine, as long as it is verifiable. NPOV does NOT mean attempting to neutralize the positive by saying negative things just for the sake of neutralizing. But if someone can find equally reliable and verifiable sources with a negative, then it must be balanced proportionately with what that source says. Proportionately is the more debatable part. Anyway, this article does need work, especially in the religion section. For one thing it is verifiable that Hitler was a systematic liar (big lie technique), so quoting Hitler himself to prove something is a contradiction, especially in dealing with his public speeches. What he actually did by policy is the guide on what he truly believed, and also what associates testified to privately. Hitler was into the occult. He hated Christianity. He was trying to create a new "positive Chrisitianity" which was merely a form of secular humanism. He was a liar and very politically manipulative. He knew there were many Protestants and Catholics in his country, and he tried to appeal to their interest in religion. Remember, Judas was also a Christian. His, and Hitler's, action violated Christianity. Eventually I am going to help with this article, but don't have time right now. --Diligens 11:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from substantive matters, there has been a meandering argument over NPOV and OR in the above sections. I tried to open up the NPOV argument here. The latest on the OR is here. Anon - --Shtove 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was a Catholic

If you try to use what Hitler did, and didn't do, to determine his religious beliefs, then you have to conclude that he was always a Catholic. Not only did he never leave the Church, unlike some other top Nazis who did formally announce that they were no longer Catholics, but he supported the Church and the Catholic clergy except when it opposed him politically. For example, told by his photographer Heinrich Hoffman that the Party, via Bormann (who hated Catholicism), had ordered the removal of cruxifixes from schools, Hitler was shocked and ordered them put back. When asked by Hoffman, who was Protestant, for advise on the education of his son, Hitler told him to send his son to a certain Catholic school run by nuns. You can find event after event in Hitler's life where he supported the Catholic church, coming into conflict with it only when it chose to attack him politically. So do not assume that actions are the key to religious beliefs. Drogo Underburrow 16:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, Drogo. Hitler did not „support the Church and the Catholic clergy“, he was not „shocked“ at the removal of the crucifixes (ordered by Gauleiter Wagener, not Bormann) but worried that this would cause too much discontent in the Catholic population – discontent he had no use for because of the war. Judging from your comments, Drogo, I have to classify you as someone who claims to have read Kershaw. Go and read the book and who will read the same thing. What you are actually doing is spreading the old “Führermythos” of “If only the Führer knew …”, by which the populace laid the blame for anything at the door of the small Hitlers. We know quite well that Hitler dispised the Church and the Catholic religion. You talked about what he did or did not do? He, for instance, didn’t attend Church or received any of sacraments or did other Catholic stuff. But you say “you have to conclude that he was always a Catholic” – you must live in a parallel world.

However, I also have to contradict Dillegens. Hitler was not into the occult. Some of his paladins were and he sometimes ridiculed that. Hitler was much more down to earth in his beliefs – he was neither an atheist, neither a Catholic, neither an occultist. But prejudices die hard. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not one of the Precepts of the Church to order crucifixes to be put into schools. Nor is it one of the Precepts of the Church to advise Protestant friends to send their children to a convent school (where the education may well have been better than the alternative schools). However, it is the FIRST Precept of the Church to attend Mass every Sunday and every Holy Day of Obligation, unless prevented by something like illness or great distance. There's also the obligation to confess sins and receive Communion at least once a year. So I'm afraid your argument that what Hitler did and didn't do leads to the conclusion that he was always a Catholic does not stand up to reason. AnnH ♫ 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's father never went to church, but that didn't stop him from participating in public Church events like festivals where he proudly strutted in his uniform. Publically, he was an upstanding citizen and a good Catholic in the eyes of his community. The implication that being a Catholic requires obedience to all church teachings to go to Mass, etc. is not how the world operated then, or now. Hitler stated publically that he was a Catholic and always would be one. He had good relations with the Pope. He was fond of visiting churches, although he was not fond of attending Mass nor receiving sacraments. Hitler, like his father, like his mother, like his entire family, was a Catholic. He was not an atheist; he clearly believed in God, and in fact felt that God kept him alive when by all rights he should have been killed in the First World War, like most of the soldiers in his original unit where, and protected him again when people tried to assassinate him, but only killed those around him. Despite rumors about who his paternal grandfather was, Hitler was not a Jew; he was not an agnostic; he was not a Protestant despite his personal preferences for Protestant beliefs over Catholic ones; he was not a Hindu; not a Buddhist; not a pagan like Himmler later was; Hitler was a Catholic. Catholicism is a big tent, and it encompasses many types of people. It is not limited to people who obey its rules. If that were the case, there would be a lot fewer than 1.1 billion Catholics in the world. Drogo Underburrow 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You use strange criteria to determine an individual's catholicity/catholicness. Their liceity is so...so elusive. Here's a question: what makes one a catholic? I doubt the usefulness of the description, except when it denotes one's obedience and submission to curia and magisterium. Hitler? Nope.--Shtove 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A catholic bastism is enough to make you a Catholic. However it's a very optimistic opinion to believe it's enough to make someone act according to catholic faith :-) Ericd 20:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why we (meaning all the editors of this page) long ago introduced the term "practicing Catholic" - a pC is one who has been baptized into the Church and lives according to the faith. With all good will (or in case of others, bad will) there is no way that Hitler fits into that in any way. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Baptism "makes" one christian. There's something more to the argument going on here, in which the label is applied as if it were indelible, like ethnicity. Come to think of it, some maintain Hitler was a jew.--Shtove 20:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not always necessary to be a church member, or go to church, to participate in church events. Nobody disputes that Hitler claimed to a Catholic in public. However it should be stated that he did not practice, which is what the argument was about the last time I was here. Drogo on the other hand, seems to have gone full circle. having failed last time to convince people that Hitler was a Catholic he thinks that by restating exactly what he said months ago we will suddenly forget all the intervening arguments and agree with him. There is no point whatsoever in listing all the religions you can think of and then saying that because Hitler was not any one of them he must have been a Catholic. It is perfectly possible that he believed in some bizarre religion from his own imagination. Given his apparent conviction that Jesus was not a Jew and that the Aryans were specially created by God that is far from improbable. DJ Clayworth 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not in Adolf's brain... Aside of being the worse murderer in history, he was among the greatest liars... Ericd 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was Stalin, or Mao - one of whom was a catholic, being a member of the orthodox church (non-practising sect).--Shtove 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mao or Stalin where what ? Catholic, liars or murderers ? (I vote for second and third, while I don't even want to know if they were sincere communists or marxist.) Seriously (Well trying to be. If it wasn't such a bloody story, is it a kind of joke ?) I am Catholic for the Catholic church because my parents decided it was good for me without my consent. What are you trying to suggest ? Ericd 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That Stalin was even bloodier than Hitler (although the Stalin article is quite backward in dealing with this assertion), and that the orthodox church claims to be catholic (like the anglican church, minus the diffidence). Don't know much about Mao.--Shtove 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Being baptized a Catholic as a baby makes someone a Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic church. Once a person is baptized, they remain a Catholic forever. Personal belief has nothing to do with status as a Catholic. Later, one receives the sacrament of confirmation, where the bond of baptism is strengthened. Hitler was confirmed, although one witness tells the story that he was very balky about it, doing it under protest. Nevertheless he was confirmed, and that is all that counts.

Age and personal religious belief are not necessary to be confirmed; a two year-old can be confirmed, though typically custom has confirmation happen when a person is a young teen. A balky teen who scoffs at the idea of becoming confirmed, can be confirmed, as Hitler's case testifies.

The Church indeed "requires" its members to attend church, but it imposes no penalty on those who ignore the requirement.

Hitler, baptized as an infant, was in the eyes of the Catholic Church a Catholic, and he said himself he was, though obviously people are free to not believe him. Each person has their own private definitions as to what it means to be a Catholic, and they should not waste space here on them, as personal opinions of editors is not important. If, on the other hand, someone has academic sources to quote on this matter, then by all means share them. Drogo Underburrow 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're about to get dragged through the catechism bushes for that assertion. What about citing a source that states that Hitler was considered a member of the Church of Rome by the Church of Rome itself? Wouldn't that solve all your problems?--Shtove 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to repeat that, as we have already done that. The issue is "practising Catholic". Or, to use more theological terms: apostate. Now, the nature of practising the faith is that you can be a practising Catholic all your life, but if you stop you cease to be one. The same in the other direction: you can be an atheist all your life, but if you come to the Catholic faith and start to life by it you have become one. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"but if you stop you cease to be one". If you stop practising the faith then you cease to be a practising catholic; but do you also cease to be a catholic? I think the term catholic is so complicating. Doesn't use of the terms christian and church of Rome cover the experience of the faithful? Or is the subtlety beyond me?--Shtove 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That depends on which "language" you are talking: colloquially you can say that you are no longer Catholic if you cease to practice, certainly if you leave the Church; on the other hand, theologically speaking, you cannot cease to be a Catholic whether you stop practising, leave the Church, become a Muslim etc. - you will be either a schismatic, a heretic, an apostate, simply an unrepentant sinner or a non-practising Catholic. As a middle-ground I'd say that someone who leaves the Church is no longer a Catholic in every-day language. Now, for our case that is irrelevant since Hitler didn't formally leave the Church (a thought springs to mind: how commong was leaving the church without converting to something else before the introduction of the Church tax?), hence we have for a long time used "practicing Catholic" - that Drogo above tries to blur the issue again and return to primeval times is another mattter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't solve anything because the question is non-existent... As of today France hasn't denied French nationality to Zacharias Moussaoui as well as Lee Harvey Oswald remains an US citizen, itdoesn't implies any support or approval ? Ericd 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In catholic faith everybody will be reconized as a true follower of the Catholic Faith if he reconize the real God at the time of his /her dead (BTW this works well in most flavours of Islam too...). This mean that you have to be a quick ass at the right time, as you will probably have no other opportunity... Ericd 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler didn't even succeed in this, ending his life with a double murder. After having murdered millions that was only consistent in the end. PS. You not only have to be quick, you also have to be honest. Voltaire was quick and I hope he was honest. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire was neither quick nor honest he was under pressure by a bunch of clerks, that were young alive and well quicker asses than him... he didn't deny much as he was mostly a Deist. What he confessed in this world is mostly a question for those who are living in this material world :-), the real question is what will you/say think etc... when you'll cross the border and get a personal examination of your case by God ? Ericd 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, as you may guess I'm not a very convicted Christian, but the desire of Hitler to see whole Germany following is own anhiliation doesn't seem especially Christian to me (no smiley, there is nothing to smile about). Ericd 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all right. I didn't know any details about it (the Voltaire issue) and hadn't yet cared to learn about them. Anyway, it is His call and not mine. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not get the entire discussion. But i can assure you that to that going to church regularly was a social norm in this area to the time Hitler did grow up. Even singing in the church chor is in no way any reason to assume that someone really believed catholic. Edit, just read this Hitlers religious believe part, and its a joke. Abolutly irrelevant quotation war. Just remove it entirely.

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs

I've froked this (disputed and too large) section from article by creating new one. Now you can delete or short this section and unprotect the page. --Haham hanuka 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the section was completely 'froked' long ago. ;-) DJ Clayworth 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's defroked.--Shtove 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering how editors to the Adolf Hitler article love to link every word, I'm surprised defroked hasn't been wiki-linked yet. Drogo Underburrow 22:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Defroked ? Sorry I don't understand. It sounds like a "faux-ami" to me. Ericd 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid, Hanuka, that your effort is premature. I thought about creating such a “Main article” as well, since there were concerns about the sections length. But we first have to solve the dispute, then we can move the content over there and shorten the section here. There’s no point in exporting an edit war. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with this section is that Steigmann-Gall's article is the only secondary source cited. Either have balance between different points of view or just leave it to primary sources, without interpretation. ---Zathras 2 June 2006 13:08, 2 June 2006 User:216.144.203.153

That's not true, Zathras. I have referenced Michael Rissmann's unfortunately untranslated but nontheless state-of-the-art study, endorsed by Ian Kershaw, we had Ian Kershaw's Hitler biography, Drogo has used Bradley Smith. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Practicing Catholic"

Editors that insist that the article state that Hitler was not a "practicing Catholic" have yet to produce any source which uses that specific phrase. It is use of the phrase that I and other editors object to. Insistance on including this phrase is a way of making the article lessen the connection between Hitler and his official and self-professed faith, and hence biases the article. It is a way of saying that Hitler was not really a Catholic, of telling the readers what to think instead of letting the readers come to their own conclusions based on factual reporting of Hitler's words and behavior. By all means, if you have a source that says that Hitler never went to church, then include that source in the article, as the article currently does when it quotes a witness who says he never saw Hitler go to church in Vienna. But please, no unsourced blanket statements that Hitler was not a "practicing Catholic", nor using analysis of a source to put words into that source's mouth, like Str1977 does with his German source. Drogo Underburrow 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, stop to spread falsehoods. You know very well that the sources have been provided to the satisfaction of WP policy. It is your extreme interpretation of policy that is not satisfied. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources where not properly provided. You give a German text as a source, but nowhere do you translate the text to state that "Hitler was not a practicing Catholic" or otherwise show that it was said. As we have seen in the case of your reporting what Kershaw supposedly said, you grossly exaggerate what sources say when it suits you. Drogo Underburrow 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, where does it state, word for word, that Hitler's mother was a "devout catholic"? You inserted that phrase a way back without citation, and when challenged could only come up with a source that stated she was devoted to the church. On that basis, I accept the phrase (cheesy as it is) because it's necessarily inferred from the sourced statement; by the same token you ought to accept the description that Hitler "was not a practising catholic" by way of inference from the cited sources. Simple, heh?--Shtove 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The source literally said "devoted Catholic" and that exactly is what I put into the article. Notice I changed it from "devout" to "devoted" precisely to head off editors who would try and turn this issue around and argue simply to attack and not for constructive reasons. Drogo Underburrow 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. "Devoted to the faith and teachings" (fn.6) still doesn't cut it according to your own criterion.--Shtove 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this methodology. We can not use either "devout Catholic" or "Non-practicing" Catholic since both are interpretations, unless a source describes the person that way. This is true for when something is not clear to everyone and when there is dispute. In the case of conflict the way to resolve it to to stick to what the sources actually report.Giovanni33 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing your demands with the ones of WP policy. I satisfied the latter, the former is a probably a bottomless pit. Rissmann wrote to the effect. Anyway, it was you who misrepresented Kershaw by claiming a (anyway irrelevant) silence ... and not only Kershaw: there were also other, unnamed historians that have somehow completely disappeared. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Going sometimes to church makes you a "practicing Catholic" ? Well I've being several time in a Calvinist Temple and twice in a Mosquee. Ericd 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just going but going in what context? If you go to a Calvinist Temple to pray, were rasied as a Calvinist, and continued to profess your adherence to the Calvinist faith, I think your visiting the Calvinist temple would mean a lot more than your visiting a Mosque. Given this context and other evidence, there is room for debate and different interpretations about the nature and extent of Mr. Hitler's religious belief and practices.Giovanni33 01:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The source literally said "devoted Catholic" and that exactly is what I put into the article. Notice I changed it from "devout" to "devoted" precisely to head off editors who would try and turn this issue around and argue simply to attack and not for constructive reasons. Drogo Underburrow 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it rightly belongs in the article, attributing the source. Its only fair to ask the other side to abide by the same standards. This should not be controversial. Its editors wanting to insert their own opinions (calling reputable sources views as "nonsense" when they don't agree with it), that is the cause of this needless edit conflict.Giovanni33 01:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The source did not literally say "devoted Catholic" - see fn.6. You boys will have to huddle up and think of another strategy.--Shtove 01:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was typing my response to Drogo, and I see that Giovanni and Shtove have both added to the page while I was typing, leading to an edit conflict. Here's what I had typed:

No, Drogo, it's not "exactly what [you] put into the article." You didn't say "devoted Catholic"; you said "completely devoted to the faith and teachings of Catholicism". That's not the same thing at all; that suggests orthodoxy rather than piety. I know of a few Catholics who strongly believe the teachings of the Church (contraception, abortion, women's ordination, Real Presence, Confession instituted by Christ, etc.) but do not go to daily Mass, and only say the Rosay occasionally. "Devout" or "devoted" Catholic implies daily (or almost daily) Mass, frequent rosaries, etc. And by the way, you still haven't explained how this is in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:V, or even with your earlier instruction to "state what sources say, not what is." AnnH ♫ 01:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the article says:

According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father, though nominally a Catholic, was a freethinker, while his mother was a devoted Catholic

Yes, I did put "devoted Catholic" as you can plainly see. Drogo Underburrow 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what your source says - see fn.6.--Shtove 10:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I said the same thing, I just left out the extra words to avoid a copyright violation. Drogo Underburrow 11:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing the meaning is not the best way of avoiding a copyright violation (assuming that it would be a copyright violation to use two fairly common words that frequently collocate). As I said, being "devoted to the teachings" does not make you a devoted Catholic, as it doesn't necessarily imply religious fervour. And here you said that she was a "devout" Catholic, with no "X says she was a devout Catholic". That goes against your own instruction to other editors to State What Sources Say, Not What Is. And you're still declining to explain this, which I wouldn't even bother about, except that you have constantly applied different rules for your own side, and taken the position that your edits are conforming to policy and that those of your opponents are not, and that if anyone disagrees with your interpretation of policy, that person either is in bad faith or is unfamiliar with policy. You really need to address these issues, Drogo. AnnH ♫ 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying "his mother was a devoted Catholic" is simply a shorter form of saying "completely devoted to the faith and teachings of Catholicism". But I have no objection to using the longer phrase if you prefer it. Drogo Underburrow 12:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the consistent Gio33 has retired, so Drogo won't have to suffer criticism for what is OR in Gio's (and, from time to time, Drogo's) eyes. Given the terms of the source, I think "devout/devoted catholic" is acceptable - but by the same token Drogo ought to stop resisting the description "non-practising catholic". And that daft speculation based on Goebbel's report is still in the article. AnnH's criticism on Drogo's equivocation is spot on.--Shtove 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Shtove, turn around is fair play. Drogo, stick to your rules or adjust your rules to thje consensus about what WP policies mean. Note also, that I never object to "devout" or any other of your suggestions because it didn't say so word for word in a book. My objections were based on doubts about the accuracy of these characterisations on thius rather obsucure detail (hence our difficulties in properly relating Klara's religious stance). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it with Str1977 and Drogo! Hatred.. :O
Anyhoo, I fail to find any mention of the fact (correct me if I'm wrong about no-one mentioning it) that actually, the Nazis had tried to set up their own, pagan-style religion, with Hitler as head of the religion (almost as God of that religion). Very few people followed the religion, due to the fact that Germany was such a Catholic country. Furthermore, one of the main reasons why the Nazis were opposed to Christianity was because of the fact the Christianity preaches a message of tolerance and forgiving, whereas Hitler glorified physical strength, the ridding the Reich of 'undesirables' (i.e. Jews, the mentally and physically handicapped etc) and those who opposed the Reich (e.g. Communists), and Racial Supremacy - Aryanism, whereas Christianity preaches that all are equal in the eyes of God.
July 1933, Hitler made a Concordat with Pope Pius XI, promising freedoms of worship and education to Catholics living in Germany, and the Pope would in turn stay out of Nazi politics. In 1937, however, Pope Pius made his 'With Burning Anxiety' speech, declaring his disillusionment with the Nazi Party.
There were such people as the 'German Christians' - a group of Protestants who supported the Nazi party, but they were relatively few.
The religion that the Nazis attempted to set up was called the 'Faith Movement'. This was based on the adulation of Hitler, and was meant to satisfy people's need for a religion and wipe out Christianity. It never caught on.
Throughout Hitler's rule as Fuhrer of Germany, Protestant and Catholic priests were constantly harrassed. The Nazis interfered with Christian schools, and Christian youth groups - wanting children instead to be a part of the Hitler Youth. The Ministry of Churches was set up in 1935 by the Nazis, led by Hans Kerrl. They abolished Church Schools, instead telling children to be a part of the Hitler Youth. Many members of the 'Pastors' Emergency League' (an organisation for German clergy who opposed the Nazis) were sent to concentration camps or arrested, and their church (the 'Confessional Church') was banned. It is also thought by some that Hitler at one point denounced Christianity as a product of the Jews (which, strictly, it is, seeing as Jesus Himself was a Jew). Hitler calling Christianity a product of the Jews shows he must have hated the religion, since he loathed the Jews so much.
I think that overall, it is fairly safe to assume that Hitler was not Christian, and did not like Christianity. Throughout his time as Fuhrer, he constantly harrassed churches and the clergy, and sent many members of the clergy to concentration camps. --LeFrog 10:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Frog,

I mostly agree with what you wrote. However, the thing with the Nazi pagan religion is not that easy. Various Nazi leaders had various religious/ideological views that sometimes conflicted with each other, some were esoteric of various sorts, some neo-pagan of various sorts, some completely agnostic (Heydrich), some adhered to a very empty liberal Christianity (which basically has only the name in common) or "positive Christianity". Anti-Christian and even more so anti-Catholic sentiments were wide-spread. Some leaders advocated fierce head-on campaigns against the churches, while others opted for a method of slow corruption. Hitler was more down to earth than many of his paladins, putting political necessities before implementation of religious programmes. However it is clear from his biography that he had no love lost for any sort of meaningful Christianity, least of all for Catholicism.

As for the Drogo-Str-hatred: I don't hate him but I must confess that his behaviour of (selectively) enforcing extreme, ridiculous and original interpretations of WP rules very much annoys me. And not only me. (Le Boche) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lol well good luck resolving that. When is the page going to be unlocked for editing?? --LeFrog 14:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this discussion finally seems to be stopping, are we going to go with the fork at Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs or stay with the version here? DJ Clayworth 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

the fork is not a good idea - apart of being a playground while this article is protected. I am sure a few other people have choosen not to chalange some of your recent edits there as they see that fork going down the deletion route eventually anyway.

People have other interrests as well and probably enjoy the time of the article protection :-) Agathoclea 21:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, fork is not a good idea.Giovanni33 01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A fork (or 'froke') will probably result in a separate article. Bring it on!--Shtove 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the objectors have stopped replying I think we should go with the accurate and NPOV version (the one Drogo and Gio tried to suppress). We can move a longer version to the fork and strip it down here to essentials. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the objectors have stopped replying I think we should go with the accurate and NPOV version (the one Str and his fellow Catholic comrad in arms, AnnH tried to suppress).Giovanni33 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you've done - clever. Gio, you left the "devout/devoted catholic" bit of this section without a final word (Drogo's OR from his fn.6 source) - what about it? And welcome back from your well-earned retirement.--Shtove 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would only call Hitler's mother as devout, however the source doesn't say that so I'm fine with leaving that out. Instead we should resport what the source does say, which is that she "was completely devoted to the faith and teachings of Catholicism." So a devoted Catholic is accurate, and there are no sources that dispute such an assertion from this qualified source.Giovanni33 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. And there are no sources that dispute the assertion that Hitler was not a practising catholic.--Shtove 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no sources that make the claim that he was a "non-practicing" Catholic, either. If you had at least one source say that, it would be acceptable just that the source regarding his mother being devoted to the faith and teachings of Catholicism. Otherwise, we'd be guilty of interpretation and thus OR. This may not be true for things which are not disputed, which are not open to different interpretations, and not of a complex matter (otherwise we could not write much period). That would be an extreme. However, the question of Hitler's religious belief, the extent to which he adhered to a religious dogma and the meaning of his actual practice to that faith is a complext question. Since there is dispute about the term 'non-practicing" Catholic, we should stick to what sources actually say on the matter. I certainly have no objection to say he was non practicing in some ways, as that is clear. We can say what we know, for example, about the specific ways in which he was non-practicing, i.e. did not attend church or mass reguarly, etc. If we list the facts as we know them based on what the sources say then we can have the reader draw their own conclusion as to what that means regarding Hitler's practice and adherence to the religion, no?Giovanni33 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay to note that he didn't attend mass, take the sacraments etc. but not then to say, "therefore he was not a practising catholic"? I think we agree on the acceptability of inference in editing, but we're going to remain at odds on what makes an inference necessary and therefore acceptable. Your argument hinges on the existence of a dispute, rather than on excluding the term by showing that it doesn't follow from the sources - the reasoning is circular: the fact of your objection to the term is trumping a logical piece of editing. I see no difference in principle between this example and the "devout/devoted catholic" example.--Shtove 12:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the argument hinging on the exitence of a dispute is one and the same with a disagreement that the facts follow with an inference to the term 'non-practing Catholic." That term is sufficiently complex given that the term is employed under different criteria given that there are different degrees that one can practice a religion. To some saying that one is "a non-practicing Catholic' suggests an absolute and begs the meaning of the term itself: if one is non-practicing, then in what meaninful sense is one still a Catholic? For to be a member of a religious faith, its a question of some kind of practice, even if it is only to profess its belief and belief in the faith, etc. Non-practicing Catholic is not a term that makes a great deal of sense, besides it not being clear that the term logically follows form the facts. Its this inference that seems to border on OR that is in dispute. The difference with this and calling Hitler's mother a devoted is that the latter is supported by a reputable source. If we have the same for the "non-practicing" then I have no objection. Otherwise, there inference is not straight forward enough to make the claim as the voice of Wikipedia. Lets just report that facts (facts that you think means he is a non-practicing Catholic), and let the reader decide what that means. Surely that is even better than merely a label, the meaning of which is problematic at best.Giovanni33 18:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it really over? There should be some closing ceremony, by a disinterested admin, to prevent a recrudescence: let future proposals by objectors be submitted to screening criteria. But what criteria? Difficult - maybe that's anti-WP. Anyway, I agree in principle.--Shtove 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Str1977's moving text around on the page

What will it take for Str1977 to stop his abominable practice of moving other editor's text around on the page? Do you see what he has done this time? We now have duplicate text, and other errors on this page. Put it back the way it was, if you can even figure it out now, Str1977. And don't do that again. Drogo Underburrow

I see you removed the duplicate material, but didn't correct other errors you created. I suppose we'll just leave them. Now don't do that again, and stop vandalizing the page by removing a section header. That header was created to start a new thread, other editors responded to that thread. Then hours later, STR1977 deletes the header. For one thing, this changes the meaning of what I wrote, as it puts my original comment in a section I did not write it for. Drogo Underburrow 00:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, would you be so kind and stop telling others what to do? Especially when your doing so creates another edit conflict. Also, don't put a header above a comment by another editor replying to a post above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You removed the header from an entire section that was there for hours before you arrived on the scene, I created the section, and then others replied, now you deleted it. This is vandalism simply because you don't like the header. Too bad, you don't get to erase something that was there for awhile and others replied for hours with no problem., now you are putting all their replies in a new section. Drogo Underburrow 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The post was there before you created a new section. Think before posting next time. Now, stop wasting my time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The text before that header was on the subject of NPOV. I then created a new section, to deal with the statement that "Hitler was a Catholic". The new section was started by my opening statement, to which other editors replied. This is an entirely new thread, and I do not appreciate your coming along after the fact, and deleting the section, thus moving the entire thread back into the section on NPOV. This also changes the impact of my opening statement, which stated the new section, and makes it into a reply to the thread you merged it in. You say don't tell other editors what to do. Well, if you keep your hands off of other people's edits, then they won't tell you what to do. Drogo Underburrow 00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

IF you want to play the enforcer, Drogo, then do it evenly. Other editors have moved sections around during the last two days without you shouting around, so keept it to yourself now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "playing the enforcer", I asking you to keep your hands off of MY edits. Drogo Underburrow 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And I am asking you to stop wasting MY time or talk page space. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't your talk page. Don't treat it like it is by editing section headers that other people make. Don't move other editor's comments around. Don't insert your comments out of chronological order disrupting the previous conversation, and changing the meaning of what other people said by making your comments before theirs. Drogo Underburrow 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, keep calm. It is very possible that Str1977 didn't mean it was his talk page, I didn't read it the same way you did Drogo. Take a deep breath... getting stressed with each other won't get this page unprotected. :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Deskana, you are exactly right, I wrote "MY time" and not (*) "MY talk page". Sorry about the ambiguity but it shows who assumes what. This whole section is ridiculous as I was already removing the double-posts and was only prevented by a repeated edit conflict caused by the first comment here. I didn't revert Drogo's header after I figured out his rationale but he keeps on shouting, making unwarranted claims ("moving comments around"), telling me (whithout authority) where I cannot post, while he doesn't enforce his rule against other editors moving sections around, or against editors who do not sign etc. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To Drogo: this isn't YOUR article either. I've suggested to you before Drogo that when someone changes or edits your information doesn't make it wrong. You seem to have problems with people changing anything you've written.
To Str1977: Ah, forget it. Drogo, learn something from him. Listen, if an Administrator is going to side with him, I'd stop and re-evaluate myself. Colonel Marksman 15:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitlers Scientists

Hitlers war was a very well fought war up until the last few months, or the last year. His scientists were amazing, which was one of the problems. Hitler and his people spent too much time devoloping new weaponry, instead of producing the models in which they already had. If Hitler had not spent so much on this, and mass produced his earlier tanks, I'm afraid he could have won. - 142.68.105.155

This is abolute bullshit. You seem to be totaly unaware of far Germany was behind economically compared to the USA + 2 Front war etc etc. It was basically Germany and Japan vs the world. XXX

Most historical analysis suggests that the Germans lost the war when their blitz on Moscow failed. That was in the earliest stages of the war! XXX

Why is this article still fully protected?

--Haham hanuka 07:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved". From {{protected}} --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

dispute has been resolved, just remove the "Hitler's religious beliefs" section (which became an article: Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs) from here. --Haham hanuka 15:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can point me to the resolution, please do so cause I'd like to know. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio33

I see this user retired from WP at 3.04 am today. Cerebral cortex blown? Hitler talk can harm your health.--Shtove 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that the user might not be in the same timezone than you? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was just a wiki-break. I liked the sound of being retired, which I hope to do soon (in real life), so I can devote my full time to wikipedia. Right now I only am able to devote a small amount of my free time. Just think how good this place would be with having me editing here 4 times as much? hehehGiovanni33 12:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes!--Shtove 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)