Jump to content

Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Legacy

I believe that Hitler's mustache should at least be mentioned because it was once a perfectly acceptable form of facial hair that has subsequently been tainted by the connotations associated with Hitler. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sockr44e (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This information appeared in the article at one time, but it was removed around the time of our GA review, primarily due to space limitations, but also due to a lack of mention by serious historians. -- Dianna (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hitler's mustache is very important. 24.146.223.32 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
See toothbrush moustache for a full and frank discussion of this important issue. Paul B (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

psychosomatic blindness

Wasn't the "second bout of blindness" referenced in Kershaw 1999, p. 102 actually a psychosomatic blindness rather than the result of mustard gas? I remember reading as such but I don't have a source at hand. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't actually know for sure; that's why the article doesn't list a cause. Also it says "by his own account" because we don't have anything but his own word that this event occurred. -- Dianna (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"He was at the centre of the founding of Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust." This seems unclear.

The sentence, as written, states that Hitler founded Nazism, that he founded WWII, and that he founded the Holocaust. Perhaps would a better sentence would be: "He was at the centre of World War II, the Holocaust, and the founding of Nazism." Outside of time is... I don't really know. (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

How about "He was at the centre of launching Naziism, World War II and the Holocaust." Rjensen (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
"at the centre of launching" seems pretty clumsy. (Hohum @) 20:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree—"launching" is not the correct verb here. The need to compress information in the interest of space can create some ambiguity, but I do not think that many readers would misinterpret the sentence as suggested by the original poster. Rearranging the order is not helping much because it breaks up the chronology. One alternative way could be to recast this to "His political views and activities gave rise to Nazism and resulted in World War II and the Holocaust." Malljaja (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
How about "He was instrumental in starting World War II, the Holocaust, and Nazism." (Hohum @) 02:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "instrumental" truly captures Hitler's role and intentions—your proposed alternative phrase suggests that he was an agent on behalf of someone else, which one can dispute, and "starting" also sounds not right here. "He is most commonly associated with Nazism, World War II, and the Holocaust," is another possibility—I believe this or a similar sentence was used before the current one. As I mentioned before, I do not agree that the current sentence contains a lot of ambiguity—I think most readers will intuitively understand that only "Nazism" can take "founding of." Malljaja (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Hitler is commonly associated with the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust" was the previous wording. I would be in favour of switching it back to that; it's better than what's there now. -- Dianna (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hitler was "commonly associated" has two fatal problems 1) so were other top Nazis, so we miss Hitler's centrality; b) "commonly associated" is not what we mean. It suggests that scholars have a different viewpoint than the common man, when in fact this is the scholarly consensus we are reporting. Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not view these as fatal problems. The statement is focusing on Hitler, and "commonly associated" also refers to the consensus among scholarly researchers, not only the "common man." A possible compromise could be, "Hitler is commonly seen as the central figure in the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust." Malljaja (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
How about "Hitler was the central figure in the rise of fascism in Europe, World War II, and the Holocaust" ? -- Dianna (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
no--Mussolini was the central figure in the rise of fascism. I would go with "Hitler was the central figure in the coming of Naziism, World War II, and the Holocaust. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Rjensen's suggestion looks good to me. (Hohum @) 16:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say,"Hitler was the central figure in the rise of Nazism, the beginning of World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust." Kierzek (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this wording is the way to go! Malljaja (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was at the center of the beginning, middle and end of WW2 in Europe (the Allies focused on him and his Berlin). so say: "Hitler was at the center of Nazi Germany, WW2 in Europe, and the Holocaust." Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Hitler was so, Rjensen; I was focusing more on 1939, as to World War II, when I wrote the above; your wording is better. Kierzek (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That opening paragraph needs to be tighter. Like all "effective" dictators he was unfortunately in the right place at the right time to be the catalyst. Perhaps words such as "focus" or "figurehead" could be introduced. "Centre" sounds tame and not very scholarly. In good faith. AMM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.111.39 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Naturalization of Adolf Hitler

There is an article in the German Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einb%C3%BCrgerung_Adolf_Hitlers

Should there not be a section stating his failed attempts and eventually becoming a German citizen in 1932. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.71.186 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Is it true that Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Peace in 1939? 89.201.227.106 (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

the nomination, by a Swedish MP, was withdrawn in Feb 1939 by the nominator. I doubt it is notable enough to include here. 64.32.184.218 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
That's my feeling too. There were no Nobel prizes awarded from 1939 to 1945. -- Dianna (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It would be a note more fitting for the Nobel Prize article page. Kierzek (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry

In the ancestry bit it should be noted that Jews were barred from Graz until 1856 after Alois's birth.

Are the DNA results worth adding in or not that he "may have been" related to Africans and Jews?--82.37.71.186 (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no DNA results pointing to Hitler's descent from Africans or Jews. There were erroneous newspaper accounts some time ago. Have a look at the archives of the Talk page, it's been discussed and dismissed.--79.232.73.31 (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20050321091219/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FQP/is_n4406_v127/ai_21238666

is a dead link:

Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt.

I would have attempted to edit this myself, but the citation box is very complicated and I cannot see how to edit it correctly. Please edit. Thanks.

JoshuSasori (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I was unable to access it either, and decided to remove it. None of the primary biographers mention this peripheral material, and it's not crucial to leave it in. -- Dianna (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Another user has put it back; he found an alternative link (though it's behind a paywall) and points out that the material also exists in print format. Thanks, Hohum -- Dianna (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The main Hitler article seems quite unreliable, ignoring the most interesting sources available which does not necessarily mean professional historians repeating themselves. The best sources are always, and even if partially unreliable sometimes, as for every form of writing, contemporary sources. Major errors in the Hitler article are concern possibly Hitler's family origins, his Iron Cross, his mustard gas blindness for a start. There is no mention of Dr Forster, who treated Hitler by hypnotism at the end of WWI for blindness due to hysteria (not mustard gas). The Iron Cross Ist Class was awarded to combattants. Hitler was a non-combattant, a runnner or courrier for Staff HeadQuarters. Hitler received his from Ludendorff after the war. There is no mention, or even apparent interest, in the Dolfuss file with its information on Hitler's missing grandfather.§[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paillet (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific about what details are missing or incorrect in the entry and what the sources are you consider outdated. Also, note that an "interesting" source may not always be a reliable one—history is often quite prosaic. Malljaja (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Small Style changes

I am creating this heading because I would like to report a small instance of bad style, and suspect that future readers may also wish to report such things.

My particular note is that the quote linked with reference 239:

Poland never will rise again in the form of the Versailles treaty. That is guaranteed not only by Germany, but also ... Russia.—Adolf Hitler, public speech in Danzig at the end of September 1939[239]

is not called out as a quotation, but only displayed in line with text. This is different from the quote at the head of the "Removing Remaining Limits" section, and it would make sense for the two to be treated identically. 128.2.218.146 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Green tickY Fixed. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Back and forth images

The images jump back and forth back and forth.

Does anyone think that, if we just used a single gallery, the page would be improved?

Or is this done on purpose, so that the positioning of the images on the article page create the swastika shape of the Nazi Party? --Carrot Lord (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style calls for images to be placed close to related sections of the article; images regarding the subject's youth are in that section, images about WWII are in those sections of the article, and so on. The left-and-right alternation is optional; see WP:IMAGELOCATION. -- Dianna (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's suicide

Is it worth noting that many people believe that Hitler used cyanide to kill himself? 96.235.221.90 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is no. In fact we've made a conscious decision not to include speculation in this article, as that's not what people are coming here to find, and we are pressed for space. -- Dianna (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Diannaa is correct on this and it is important to keep the byte size of the article down, as well. Kierzek (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandwiching text

A GA review was mentioned about this article by an IP at the help desk yesterday (not sure why there) - Don't worry it was outright apposed for many reasons not lest being an odd POV. That said one point raised was valid in that there are images that are sandwiching text between two pictures that face each other - pls see MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Not a big deal just need to move some around.Moxy (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should move or remove these four:
Sounds good. Kierzek (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and unilaterally made changes to the layout a few days ago. Any further input would be welcome. -- Dianna (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Itemising deaths in the lead

Editors are adding excess detail to the lead. In my opinion the 50 million figure and the 6 million Jews figure are notable enough but if we add Slavs then everyone will chip in their people and we will have listing again. We should stick to the total figure and (just, because it has a certain notoriety) the 6 million Jews figure. The place for further detail is in an analysis of the victims of the war, not in this article and particularly not in the lead. Britmax (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right about the danger, though it is certainly true that the overwhelming majority of non-Jews who were murdered were Slavs, so i have some sympathy for the editor who wanted to note that fact. As for "non-Aryan", the Nazis codified Slavs as "Aryan" (the area outside the Warsaw ghetto was called the "Aryan district"). The use of "non-Aryan" in the lede is simply erroneous. It's a result of a common confusion between Nordicism and Aryan identity. The former claims that the "Nordic race" is the highest form of "Aryan humanity". Slavs were typically identified as members of the Alpine race. The only "non-Aryans" who were killed in large numbers in the war were East Asians, who were not direct victims of Hitler, and indeed many were his allies. The non-Aryan phrase seems to have been introduced by someone during an edit war over the lede in mid December over an attempt to delete that whole sentence. Paul B (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The way the lede is worded at this present time is how it should remain. There is some later mention as to the number of "deaths" in the sections on The Holocaust and Legacy herein. Any further "analysis", I agree, can be linked to other articles. Kierzek (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I've rephrased the sentence in question, using the phrasing of the sentence before the dispute over the the number of war dead (which, aside from the attempted removal of the whole sentence, had been the only item of contention and undergone productive revision). Malljaja (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That change leaves unclear whether the six million are part of the fifty million or added on. Britmax (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable “testimonies” of Günsche and Linge in the Holocaust section

We currently have Vad Yashem as a reference for the following claim:

“In recorded interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers, made public over fifty years later, Hitler's valet, Heinz Linge, and his adjutant, Otto Günsche, stated that Hitler had a direct interest in the development of gas chambers.” [1]

Yet in a Yad Vashem publication Ian Kershaw has written of the unreliability of these “testimonies” of Günsche and Linge concerning Hitler's alleged interest in such “development”.

Kershaw has written: “The passages in question make no mention of Jews and convey the impression that the victims of gassing were Soviet citizens. The text, whose provenance and intended recipient — Stalin — make it problematical in a number of respects, goes on…to claim that gas chambers were first established, on Hitler’s personal order, at Charkov, though, in fact, no gas chambers were erected on the occupied territory of the Soviet Union.” ('Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution', by Ian Kershaw. International Institute for Holocaust Research, Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 2008. Pg. 115, Footnote 66).

Can we agree to delete this "unreliable" info? Linge does not include this information in his own biography published after his release from Soviet captivity, some of which he based upon his testimony in Soviet captivity. He presumably expunged from his own memoir all false info that he gave to his Soviet interogators. So in the interests of the Wiki pillar of "all articles striving for verifiable accuracy", I suggest deleting this unreliable and false inference to Linge and Günsche for information that Linge himslef DID NOT confirm, and which Prof. Kershaw admits is demonstrably false in its detail.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion of the sentence in question. Kershaw's quote is careful in arguing that the quote is unreliable; it does not say that it is incorrect. Therefore, it maybe appropriate to briefly include Kershaw's cautionary view on Linge's and Günsche's testimony. However, in light of some of the earlier drawn-out discussions you instigated, it would be helpful if you, briefly, explained whether you have identified the Kershaw quote after careful study of the sourced material and possibly additional sources, or whether you found it while doing quote mining on Google or Google books. Thank you. Malljaja (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I have given the reference for Kershaw's comment. You can check and confirm these by searching on the net (e.g. within the Amazon facility for this book), if you doubt the citation and do not possess the book or have no access to a library. If you want to include discredited information given under soviet interrogation that Linge himself later did NOT confirm, then yes we can add also Kershaw's qualification of it. But why include a reference (though correctly sourced) that uses verfiably FALSE info in the first place? What about my point of the Wiki Pillar of "all articles striving for verifiable accuracy"? Finally, as for the qoute mining accusation, it seems to me is an irrelevance that also demonstrates bad faith. So please do not be so arrogant and insulting. Instead just check my cited sources if you feel the need. I, nor any other editor, need answer such demeaning and pointless accusations. The relevant concern need only be whether additions to the article are from verifiable reliable sources. And anyway, just for example, if you used some logic, it obviously would not be possible for me to safely claim Linge does not include it in his memoir if I had not actually read Linge's memoir.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I also have read Linge's memoir and he doesn't mention it but that is not the best argument as he may have chosen not to include that by personal choice given his past relationship with Hitler. With that said, books which quote/cite the Soviet "interrogations" (which included torture) of Linge and Günsche should be looked on as suspect as to certain statements unless cross-checked and mentioned in non-bias sources. I have never read the Yad Vashem work, so I can't comment on his source. I do believe there is enough cited sentences in the Holocaust section to convict Hitler and thereby remove the Vashem and Kershaw points if that becomes the consensus. Or some further ce can be done on the matter and the points left in. I await input from other regular editors herein as to thoughts. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we need to prove that Hitler approved of or took an interest in any specific method of extermination. It would be typical of his administrative style to leave the practicalities to his subordinates. One alternative would be to take out the current statements sourced to Günsche and Linge and put in some material from this report by Peter Longerich. There's plenty of information in this set that shows the Jews were exterminated on Hitler's orders. For example, section 18, point 18.10; section 19, point 19.5; section 15, throughout. If there's support for this idea, I can propose a new wording and add the new citations. -- Dianna (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Diannaa, I broadly agree with your view and I think using material from the Emory University archive could be a way forward. Perhaps the editor who had inserted the original Günsche/Linge statement could also weigh in (if he/she is following this). If no one is coming forward, addition of new wording may be in order. Malljaja (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Diannaa, I also generally agree with your thoughts, as long as the addition is short; as I said above, there is already enough there in the section to show Hitler's overall involvement in the subject matter and we want to keep the bytes down. Kierzek (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
This material and its associated notes would be removed:

In recorded interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers, made public over fifty years later, Hitler's valet, Heinz Linge, and his adjutant, Otto Günsche, stated that Hitler had a direct interest in the development of gas chambers.[308]. But these “testimonies” of Günsche and Linge concerning Hitler's alleged interest in such “development” have been deemed unreliable as they contain “problematical” factual inaccuracies. [309].

We could replace it with something in this vein, worked into the previous sentence:

Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has yet surfaced,[305] his public speeches, orders he gave to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials such as Goebbels all demonstrate that he had authorised the extermination of European Jewry.(Longerich, § 15 and 17) He approved the Einsatzgruppen—killing squads that followed the German army through Poland, the Baltic, and the Soviet Union[306]—and he was well informed about their activities.[307]

-- Dianna (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your suggested replacement looks good. I have only a few minor editorial suggestions for changes:

Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced,[305] his public speeches, orders to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials all demonstrate that he had initiated and authorised the extermination of European Jewry.(Longerich, § 15 and 17) He approved the Einsatzgruppen—killing squads that had followed the invading German army through Eastern Europe [306]—and he was well informed about their activities.[307]

From my readings of Kershaw and Speer I think it's fair to say that he had not only authorised but also initiated the killings, but not knowing the sources these numbers refer to, I'd leave it to you to judge whether this wording would be consistent with the source. Many thanks Malljaja (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's accurate to say "initiated", as Hitler was espousing these ideas from the time he wrote Mein Kampf. There's nothing in Longerich's material that contradicts the statement that Hitler was the initiator. The Longerich material can be accessed at http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/pl1 -- Dianna (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It sounds good, although I think "endorsed and authorised the extermination of European Jewry" would be better. Certainly Hitler had the ultimate responsibility and plenty of blood on his hands (to say the least) but he was not the only initiator. Kierzek (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I think "endorsed" sounds too passive and as though someone else had come up with the whole action plan. (Although I'm aware that Himmler was charged with the practical implementation of this plan, Hitler's long-standing agitation against the Jewish people certainly laid the ideological groundwork.) So if "initiated," as Kierzek notes, too strongly suggests that Hitler was the sole initiator, the phrase "that he had authorised the extermination" may be fine. Malljaja (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
C'mon people. We all know that it is NOT enough to opine "from my readings ...I think it's fair to say...", etc., etc. All editors have to provide reliable secondary sources for anything and everything added to wiki articles. We appear to have a problem here if predominant editors feel it is acceptable to just discuss what they "think it's accurate to say..." and then to add wording and sentences to the article according to their own agreed personal opinions. So, can someone please provide a source for "initiated," or "endorsed and authorised the extermination of European Jewry". :-o --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The source I propose using is the material by Peter Longerich available at http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/pl1. The specific sections I propose using as footnotes were section 15 and section 17. -- Dianna (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Diannaa, that is fine. Mystichumwipe, you should know enough that we are not pulling the comments above out of thin air and would have added the cites into the article once the wording was agreed to herein. As for my comments above, they are based on the following:
"Hitler's racial views were an explicit driving force behind much...Nazi policy..."(p. 137); "...Hitler was the undoubted centre of authority in the Third Reich and it is inconceivable that the Final Solution could...be implemented without his fiat and approval". (p. 138). McNab, Chris (2011). Hitler's Masterplan. Kierzek (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa, I too concur with the sources you suggested.

I see no value in getting bogged down yet again in contrived discussions (over word choice on a talk page no less) or rehash old topics, so I refrain from further comment—more productive endeavours await. Malljaja (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of removing the material that Günsche and Linge told the Soviets and the material that was added to rebut it. If people still want to go ahead with adding some of the above from Longerich, we can deal with that as a separate issue. I am still not satisfied with the wording. How about this:

Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced,[305] his public speeches, orders to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials demonstrate that he conceived and authorised the extermination of European Jewry.(Longerich, § 15 and 17) He approved the Einsatzgruppen—killing squads that had followed the invading German army through Eastern Europe [306]—and he was well informed about their activities.[307]

I have to go take my mother to an appointment and will probably make this amendment when I get back after lunch. -- Dianna (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Shirer's 1960 book as a reliable source?

William Shire's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (p.967) is being cited for the following sentence: "Approximately thirty concentration camps and extermination camps were used for this purpose [eliminating the jews]..." Am I alone in finding this a vague, misleading and problematical sentence and the use of Shirer as a source for it, questionable? The cited source actually claims: "All the thirty odd principal Nazi concentration camps were death camps..." which seems to me, clearly misleading and inaccurate. Any others here agree?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have re-worded this using Evans 2008. -- Dianna (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation for "systematic murder of eleven million..." in the intro?

Apologies to those who feel we have already discussed this BUT... this sentence: "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and in the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II."

Q1. What is the source for the eleven million systematically murdered? I am assuming this is a composite of six miilion jews plus another five million. Is it? (If so see The Eichmann trial by Deborah Lipstadt. Pgs. 8, 9 and 10. Also The holocaust in American life by Prof. Peter Novick. Pg.225).

Q2. And what is the source for saying ALL these eleven million were "systematically murdered"? Didn't many hundreds of thousands/millions die of unintended hunger and disease as is often the case in concentration camps (e.g as happened in the US civil war camps, the UK/Boer war camps, and British Raj concentration camps)? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there no-one willing to engage in a good faith discussion about this question?
Is there are a problem with the sources provided (above) showing that the figures given in the sentence are disputed? If not should we not therefore correct this or mention the dispute?
If anyone has an opinion I would appreciate it.To avoid edit-warring, I will not be editing the disputed sentence, but perhaps I should take this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard?
And, I have since the last discussion found what seems to me to be a very reliable, non-fringe, secondary source that makes the exact same argument that I attempted to make about the inaccuracy (and un-neutrality?) of attributing responsibility to Hitler's policies for all these 50 million deaths: “It sufficed for the purposes of the Nuremberg trial to assume that the outbreak of war, and all its exertions, were purely due to Hitler’s aggression. But that is too simple and shallow an explanation. The last thing that Hitler wanted to produce was another great war.“
--Sir Basil Lidell Hart, 'History of the Second World War', Pg 6. Published by Konecky & Konecky; 1st edition (May 18, 2007). ISBN-10: 156852627X. ISBN-13: 978-1568526270.
Do other editors not agree that this contradicts what we have in the lead, that it was purely Hitler and his policies that are responsible for all these deaths?

--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I personally have already participated in extensive discussions that are now at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53#breakdown of 40 million deaths mentioned in Legacy section? and Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53#Deaths atributable to Hitler. It's inaccurate for you to say that no one wants to talk about this; we have already talked about it; you are the only person interested in talking about this any more. To the best of my knowledge, the other editors are satisfied with the lead in its present state. I think it's time for you to let this issue go, and realise that consensus is against you this time. -- Dianna (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to answer. But my questions above went unanswered by you. I realise this has been discussed before, but Wiki is NOT a STATIC medium and I have RECENTLY provided another source that disputes the lead sentence. It was this I was referring to concerning no one wanting to discuss. Could you possibly answer my questions regarding that source's reliablility, please. Also STFX1046190 recently made the same point I made earlier when editing the page here recently but his edit was reverted. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2013
Last attempt at seeking an answer here: what is the source for the figures listed of people "systematically murdered"?
"All material in Wikipedia, ...including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Bearing this in mind, will anybody who wants to keep the sentence as it is, please address this genuine question. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Material in the lead does not have to have citations unless it is a direct quotation. Since you have specifically requested them to be added I have added them now. These are the same sources that were discussed extensively in archive 53.

  • Yad Vashem - 5.1 million to 5.95 million Jews
  • Holocaust Memorial Museum - six million Jews, 200,000 Roma, 200,000 mentally and physically handicapped, 2-3 million Soviet prisoners of war, an unspecified number of Polish civilians, Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals
  • Hancock - between 500,000 and 1,500,000 Roma
  • Rummel -
    • Genocide: 16,315,000
    • Slavs: 10,547,000
    • Jews: 5,291,000
    • Gypsies: 258,000
    • Homosexuals: 220,000
    • Total Nazi Democide (genocide plus other killings, eg. 3 million prisoners of war): 20,946,000 (democide means everybody but the soldiers killed in battle)
  • Kershaw - " the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead and millions more grieving their lost ones"

It was Hitler's aim and intention to start a war of aggression in the East to gain living space for the Germanic people, so for your quoted source to say "The last thing that Hitler wanted to produce was another great war" is disingenuous. Perhaps Hitler did not expect the war to be a "great" war but surely he was not surprised that war was the result when he himself pursued a war of aggression. -- Dianna (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Basil Liddell Hart does not have the world's greatest reputation for accuracy, but of course he is only saying that Hitler wanted to grab territory without provoking a massive war - which he would have a good chance of losing. That's not a particularly controversial statement. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Never start a land war in Asia": words to live by. Perhaps if he had not attacked the Soviet Union they could have consolidated and held what they had taken to that point. -- Dianna (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In my view, this discussion has been going on far too long, kept alive only by one individual who is unable or unwilling to accept consensus on this issue. I do not believe that these citations need to be/should be in the lead because their inclusion is inconsistent with the rest of the lead, and they are provided in the relevant sections where they properly belong. Malljaja (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Interestingly the section on Basil's dubious claims [2] has been mysteriously deleted. Paul B (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Please can people limit their replies to answering the clear and very specific questions. Otherwise perhaps it is time we need to go to some kind of arbitration. I did not ask for the source to be included in the article, but merely WHAT is the source! The key words I am asking about, concern "systematically murdered":
Q1. What is the source for the eleven million systematically murdered? I am assuming this is a composite of six miilion jews plus another five million. Is it? (If so see The Eichmann trial by Deborah Lipstadt. Pgs. 8, 9 and 10. Also The holocaust in American life by Prof. Peter Novick. Pg.225).
Q2. And what is the source for saying ALL these eleven million were "systematically murdered"? Didn't many hundreds of thousands/millions die of unintended hunger and disease as is often the case in concentration camps (e.g as happened in the US civil war camps, the UK/Boer war camps, and British Raj concentration camps)? Does anyone have a source for saying all these numbers were "systematically murdered".
People are replying with personal opinions. But... what ever we personally think about it, we as editors HAVE to have a source, we can't invent our own wording as people are doing here (e.g. "directly and indirectly"). WE can only summarise verifable reliable 2ndary sources. C'mon. This is basic core wiki protocol. Verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The sources for the eleven million are the citations already provided to you. You are the only person arguing that these sources are inadequate; I think you need to realise that consensus has gone against you this time and move on to more productive activities. I know that is what I am going to be doing. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I specifically asked for the source for "systematically murdered" in relation to the eleven million figure. This has NOT been supplied, as far as I can see. None of the sources provided say ALL these deaths were the result of "systematic murder". And I have provided sources that contradict this. I have therefore requested dispute resolution help, [3] as I suspect that what is happening here is unintentional or unconscious synthesis.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. While my opinion here may not be shared by other volunteers, I can't help but think that this has been way over thought. A demand has been made for a specific source to claim "systematic murder", but I find this a bit odd as it seems to be unquestionable fact that these were indeed murder and that they were "systematic", by the placement of a system in which to commit the murders. I ask the OP who has made the DR/N filing to reply here to why they feel this is not unquestionable fact. Also, please not that it is within policy and guidelines to use simple math to add up the sources for the figure and would not appear to constitute OR. Thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs)
The numbers at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53#breakdown of 40 million deaths mentioned in Legacy section? are well sourced and very chilling. I was doing some research yesterday for a different article and one source points out that Hitler expected 30 million Russians to starve to death the first winter after the German invasion, and that is how they would get their Lebensraum (Longerich [2012], The Holocaust, page 181). People starved to death in the camps; that does not mean they were not systematically murdered, as their deaths were planned and intentional, whether they were starved or shot or gassed. Are we expected to analyse each death and say that a death counts because the person was gassed but Anne Frank does not count because she died of typhus? The numbers listed in this article have been checked and re-checked by myself and other editors who specialise in Nazi Germany and we believe that they're reasonable estimates based on reliable sources. Thank you very much for your interest in helping solve this problem. -- Dianna (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I am copying this response over to the dispute resolution page. -- Dianna (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This really has been discussed at length by an assortment of regular and knowledgeable editors weighing in on the subject over time. Cites have been given in the discussion and through consensus, the final sentences have been placed into the article. As Kershaw simplify states (e.g.): Hitler made it clear he believed the Jews brought on the war so they should be "the first to feel the consequences". p. 694; thereafter, with the surrender on 9 May 1945, "Hitler's war was over." p. 963; "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead..." p. 969. "Hitler: A Biography" (2008). Kierzek (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Note: I am copying this response over to the dispute resolution page. Kierzek (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it has already been discussed. So I do understand the frustration and the complaint: "we've done this". I really do. And yet ...still no-one has supplied what I have been asking for and which wiki policy requires as a basic compulsory requirement. ALSO, I repeatedly see personal opinion (presented as fact) being given as a reply. BASIC and CORE WIKI POLICY is that articles are about verifiability NOT truth. So instead of repeating over and over what we as individual editors personally feel is 'true', it would finish the discussion once and for all if editors would provide a verifiable source that EXPLICITLY states exactly what the disputed sentence claims. If editors could do this, the conversation would be over. If editors still can't do that simple thing - and after so much discussion, - then I respectfully suggest that this is proof that the sentence is the result of unveriable synthesis.
And then there is the as yet uncontested fact that I have provided reliable, verifiable sources that contradict the sentence; sources which have been consistently ignored. Could someone kindly address this aspect of the "we've already done this" discussion? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Note: I am aalso copying this response over to the dispute resolution page.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This conversation never got anywhere here. And now also with a volunteer helper editors are still refusing to engage in good faith dialogue at DR. As editors are refusing to provide verfiable sources (as here: [4]), have refused to respond to cited quotes, and have refused to abide by DR policy of only discussing content, they therefore can not fairly complain if the sentence is now deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy that ALL material must be verfiable, with cited sources and not the result of synthesis.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Good faith has taken place overall and many cites given. The point I believe is we are dealing, in the end, with facts mixed with opinions and estimates; those by experts and otherwise; and therefore consensus must be obtained and majority opinions followed. I believe an agreeable lede summary sentence can be agreed upon. Several have been put forth; see the DR page. Kierzek (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
"Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue and should be brought to the administrator's noticeboard. ...refusing to discuss can be problematic and is discouraged by Wikipedia's editing policy."
I post this [5] again here, as I still feel it needs to be asked and I STILL really would welcome any response to my points and quoted sources. Although I welcomed Diannaa's return to the discussion with sources, I would like to remind that this isn't just a question of numbers, but of what what exactltly are the numbers counting. I.e. its about possible synthesis and the verifiability of what is being claimed in the disputed sentence. As Britmax wrote in a previous discussion: [6]"This is an article on Adolf Hitler, it is not titled 'an analysis of the statistics of victims of World War Two'." Therefore to move the conversation forward we need to concentrate also on what are the listed figures actually counting?. Diannaa's arithmetic, demonstrates that the sentence previously was unsourced, unverified, and apparently inaccurate, as alleged. And with this arithemetic, the question STILL remains unanswered: what is the source for saying that ALL these 11.8 to 12.6 million deaths were the result of Hitler's racist and/or supremacist policies? and "systematic murder"?
I again request responses to some/any of my points. For example a.) the sources demonstrating Churchill's indirect and direct responsibility for some of the percentage of war dead from starvation. b.) The contradicting sources demonstrating that the numbers of dead were not ONLY the direct or indirect result of Hitler's policies but were also due to pre-existing internecine political and racial conflicts, e.g. Yugoslavia, Croatia, Greece, etc. c.) we are already saying Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.
My feeling still remains that this sentence is driven by a motive as was expressed here: "all 50 million are not attributed just to Hitler's policies but certainly millions are directly and in-directly, he should not be let off the hook for that". The wording "let of the hook" seems an odd and inappropriate motivation and criteria for a neutral, factual encyclopedia. And "directly or indirectly" seems to me to be stating the obvious and would clearly ALSO apply to ALL the key players, incl. Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Mussoline, etc. Do editors feel we should have such a statement in the lead of the wiki pages of the other main authors of the war? If not why not?
BIGGER QUESTION: What is the motive behind this synthesis sentence? Is it to convey the facts neutrally? or are are we trying to tell the reader something?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is not supposed to continue on the talk page while the question is at dispute resolution. Discussion should take place at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. -- Dianna (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Its encouraged, if there are issues that can not be discussed there.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

So, would YOU be prepared to answer some of the above questions. E.g. Do YOU feel we should have such statements linking them as main participants to a war that caused over 50 miilion deaths, in the lead of the wiki pages of the other main authors of the war? If not why not? What do you think of the Longerich and Lipstadt commenst on the currently used 11 million figure? What do you think of my q on the figures in relation to Churchill's illegal, democidal starvation policy as acknowledged by Rummel, etc.

  • Systematic murder is a bit strong. We don't typically use the term (which is a legal one with a specific definition) to describe deaths in war, even those which are agreed to be war crimes, genocides or massacres. I can't think of another single example where this is done. --John (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
John, the sentence in question is currently being revised, and you are welcome to weigh in with your opinion here. Malljaja (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, it looks like real progress is being made there. --John (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have amended the wording in the lead; three of the four contributors who participated at WP:DRN agreed to this new wording. I will add a link to the discussion once it archives. -- Dianna (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is a link to the archived DRN discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. -- Dianna (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Gypsy death figures

Currently the article contains the following sentence:

Between 1939 and 1945, the Schutzstaffel (SS), assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, was responsible for the deaths of eleven to fourteen million people, including about six million Jews, representing two-thirds of the Jewish population in Europe,[2][3] and between 500,000 and 1,500,000 Romani people.[4]

(Reference [4] is to Hancock, the same Hancock quoted a few lines up on this page as having given these figures.) However, the other reliable sources quoted above give much lower figures, namely as low as 200,000. I believe the article needs to reflect this. All estimates by reliable sources must be included. 89.204.138.215 (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done this problem has now been fixed. Thanks for the good observation. -- Dianna (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hitler and German nationalism in Austria

It is important to note that many other Austrian Germans also felt the same, not just Hitler.

Another important thing to note is that many Austrians wanted the Anschluss before 1938, especially in 1918 "German Austria".--English Patriot Man (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they did, but that would be appropriate content to discuss at the Anschluss page. This is about Hitler, not widespread views at the time. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a bit in the childhood and education section mentioning he began to develop German nationalist ideas from a young age, it is important to note he wasn't the only Austrian German to feel so, so I added "Like many Austrian Germans", this makes perfect sense and is relevant, the same as later in the article it mentions his influences by Georg Schönerer.--English Patriot Man (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed part of your addition. We don't need to say Austro-German border, as both countries are already mentioned in the very same sentence, so it's already amply clear what border we are talking about. And I have removed the extra citation; multiple citations are not needed for facts that are not likely to b challenged, and the same material appears in Evans 2003 on the pages already cited. -- Dianna (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Given the topic of this recent edit and the phrasing used by its contributor, I cannot help but wonder whether English Patriot Man is a previously blocked user. Malljaja (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
For an English patriot he spends a remarkably amount of energy editing material on one of his nations's historical enemies! I guess it must be that fabled dedication to 'fair play' we hear so much about. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people don't know that Bavaria is part of Germany. Austria also borders other countries.

I can't see it anywhere in the Evans 2003 book, I looked.

Anything that doesn't go your way you automatically refute, rather stupid.--English Patriot Man (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people don't know that Paris is part of France. So what? We can't write as though the readers are completely ignorant. Paul B (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But on the top of the Paris page it states it is part of France.

Hitler's birthplace historically was Bavarian, it was on the Austro-German border when he was born "Austro-German border with Bavaria, Germany." makes perfect sense.--English Patriot Man (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"But on the top of the Paris page it states it is part of France." Of course it does. What kind of idiotic comment is that? All pages on cities identify the country they are part of. That does not mean that everytime London is mentioned with have to explain which country it is in. Context, context, context. "Austro-German border with Bavaria, Germany" makes sense, it's just horrendously bad writing. Paul B (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler was born on 20 April 1889 at the Gasthof zum Pommer, an inn located at Salzburger Vorstadt 15, Braunau am Inn, Austria-Hungary, a town on the Austro-German border with Bavaria, Germany" The insertion of "Austro-German" in this sentence just produces confusion and redundancy, not clarity. One says "An Austrian town on the border with Germany" or "An Austrian town on Austro-German border", but not both - "An Austrian town on the Austro-German border with Germany". That's just as pointless as saying "a cheese and tomato sandwich containing tomato and cheese". Paul B (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

But I was the one who put "a town on the border" and Germany after Bavaria, so it now reads Bavaria, Germany. before it was just Bavaria.

Also the way it is now is fine "Adolf Hitler was born on 20 April 1889 at the Gasthof zum Pommer, an inn located at Salzburger Vorstadt 15, Braunau am Inn, Austria-Hungary, a town on the border with Bavaria, Germany."

I was banned before for editing stuff many don't like and labeled "anti-Semitic" for example saying Karl Marx was a Jew not an ethnic German, which is nothing but the truth.--English Patriot Man (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You were banned before? And what usernames did you edit under? -- Dianna (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant, the point is I was the one who added Germany after Bavaria which makes perfect sense and "a town on the border", nobody else did and it's perfectly correct.--English Patriot Man (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well congratulations. The sentence made perfect sense before that too. Paul B (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
EPM, you were not only banned for inserting antisemitic content, but also for extensive sockpuppetry. And here you are again, unreformed and unrepentant (apparently to initiate another cycle of blocking). Malljaja (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I've raised the issue of EPM being a banned editor at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Redundant infoboxes

There are two "infoboxes" at the foot of the article, one is "Time Persons of the Year" and the other "Time Man of the Year". The first one is longer and probably should be removed.89.204.138.215 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Dianna (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"doubt" --> dismiss

I believe the current article wording -- "Historians therefore doubt the claim that Alois's father was Jewish" -- is not quite accurate. Kershaw and others do take Frank's innuendo seriously enough to warrant a close look, but as far as I can tell all recent scholarship finds nothing of substance to support it. Therefore, in my opinion "dismiss" is to be preferred to "doubt".89.204.130.51 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

yes "dismiss" is the best term. "doubt" leaves the wrong impression -- eg the 20% side of a 80-20% debate Rjensen (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
 Done. Thanks for catching this. Malljaja (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The article won't work

Every time I attempt to read this article, a long string of symbols show up. Is there a problem with Wikipedia or my computer? --24.145.65.56 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it works fine on my computer, so my guess is your computer, or a temporary error. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it's working now. --24.145.65.56 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition to health section

A small addition has been made to the Health section. Problem: The source is David Irving. I was under the impression that Irving is not considered a reliable source, so am posting here for discussion and further comment as to whether this addition is okay or not. -- Dianna (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Irving is a big red flag; I know he has been discussed before; if it can't be found, then either a posting for comment for the Military History section members or the RS checking page should be considered. Kierzek (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that including Irving is problematic given that his views are highly controversial in the field and beyond. This is only a small addition, but allowing Irving as a source could therefore compromise the entry. I suggest removing this addition or else finding an alternative source for it. Malljaja (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There's eleven mentions of Irving in the archives of the Reliable Sources noticeboard, all stating that he is guilty of fabrication and falsification of sources. In the Talk:Adolf Hitler archives, there's nine mentions, all negative, but nothing so damning as what is in the RSN archive. Link to search results. I agree with Malljaja that using Irving for even basic information is inappropriate. -- Dianna (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a very thorough way of assessing Irving's credentials and should quickly placate anyone who doesn't know his background and who might be wondering why Irving should not be used as a source. Malljaja (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have taken it out. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The diagnosis of coronary sclerosis comes from Theodor Morell's diaries... you know, Hitler's personal physician.... You're telling me Hitler's own doctor isn't a reliable source? I wasn't aware of Irving's background so I added a Richard J. Evans as a new source. I don't see what difference it made anyway because the book is based entirely on Morell's personal notes.Thismightbezach (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If the source is a book about Morell's diaries, written by David Irving, we can't use it. David Irving has been ostracized as falsifying his sources, and is not considered a reliable source on this wiki. It's in Evans 2008 on page 508 though, and Evans does not list Irving in his bibliography. -- Dianna (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
In case you want a second source, It's also in Kershaw 2008 on page 640.Thismightbezach (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I saw that, but Kershaw lists Irving as a source in his bibliography. To be honest Evans lists Kershaw as a source, so the information in Evans might have come from Irving via Kershaw. That's why we have to be incredibly careful what we put here on Wikipedia, too; even false info starts to take on a life of its own if it's repeated often enough. - Dianna (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

High quality Color photos of Hitler in massive rallies in Berlin 1939

I received an email from a relative that contained a pdf of newly discovered and released photos of Hitler and Nazi Germany, about 50 of them. Most of them needed restoring and/or enhancing, which I spent many hours doing.

The pdf is about 5 megabytes. I've uploaded to one of my wordpress.com blogs, but I've also posted the individual images in one of my Photobucket.com galleries as well as one at Flickr.com
http://americansod.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/nazi_germany_1939-40.pdf

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/arnash/library/StarLight_Galleries/Hitler_Nazi_Germany_in_color

also combined them into two posters, -one large and one smaller.

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/arnash/media/StarLight_Galleries/Hitler_Nazi_Germany_in_color/Hitlerposter2-ss_zps5f29ad49.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/arnash/media/StarLight_Galleries/Hitler_Nazi_Germany_in_color/Hitlerposter2_zpsa30bda7c.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/arnash/media/StarLight_Galleries/Hitler_Nazi_Germany_in_color/Hitlerposter-ss_zps994550c9.jpg.html?sort=3&o=3

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/arnash/media/StarLight_Galleries/Hitler_Nazi_Germany_in_color/Hitlerposter_zpsb104bf54.jpg.html?sort=3&o=4

SLIDESHOW at Flickr [use F11 key for full screen viewing] http://www.flickr.com//photos/arnash/show/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/arnash/8621255060/in/set-72157633169902250/lightbox/ POSTERS: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8246/8621393084_e49c88995e_m.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8121/8621393650_87039e684a_m.jpg

To obtain a zip file holding all of the photos contact me at arnash1@gmail.com

It is unknown to me if anyone can lawfully claim copyright to these images. They were said to have been found after the photographer (or inheritor) passed away, and then sent to the parent company of the former Life magazine. Presumably it's been 74 years since they were taken, and it would seem that they would not have been so publicly disseminated via email if they were strictly held as copyright material.

Adrien Nash Jedsmith1 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
These images are watermarked as being the property of the copyright holder, LIFE Magazine. None of them are free for us to use. -- Dianna (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

sentence in religious views

The following sentence included in the Religion section is a non sequitur:

He spoke of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating, "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

The attributed Hitler quote does not address antisemitism. Can the original editor produce an extended quote to justify the comment "he spoke of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism", so that we can either fix the sentence as currently written (or otherwise delete the sentence as unsubstantiated)? Ozhistory (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. It looks to me like the conclusion drawn is that of the editor who added the passage and not that of a historian or other reliable source, so I took it out. -- Dianna (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Please restore. The quote is from H's 1922 speech in the "Bürgerbräu" cellar. (Google book link)
In the passage from which the quote is taken, he is claiming that because he is a Christian, he has a duty to fight the Jews, who are plundering his poor people today, just as Jesus did 2000 years before. Insane talk, but he was entirely serious... and many followed him and cheered him on.--89.204.130.211 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't access that source; Google says I am over my limit for that book or it is not available in my area. I am disinclined to restore it for another reason: it's preferable to use secondary sources over primary sources. -- Dianna (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's education by Nietzsche

An editor has deleted sourced material about the origin of Hitler's theories of racial superiority and the Will to Power. Hitler imbibed it first from "boiled down" Nietzsche in pamphlets, and later while imprisoned (what Hitler called his "university at state expense") he drank directly from that poisoned spring. That is what made Hitler who he was. It is the foundation on which Mein Kampf was built. It is the end Hitler's speeches and his political takeover served. It is WHY the Third Reich happened. If anything the ubiquitious Nietzchian ideas that made HItler who he was, merits its own major section. I have included it in the Beer Hall putcsch section only for chronological reasons. If that editor wishes to discuss how to give Hitler's "incubation" (to use the author Joachim Fest's formulation of the topic) its own section--in answer to the "too long" objection--I am happy to do so. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

PS--*sigh* now two editors have deleted that footnoted sentence. Well, they both have a long record of constructive edits so I will defer to their judgment. Still, I would be grateful for some discussion of why this page says nothing of where Hitler's ideology came from. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 13:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, *heavy sigh with droopy shoulders and sad expression* - the influences on Hitler were many and complex. There is really no need to isolate Nietzsche. It's arguable whether or not Nietzsche actually had "racial" ideas at all (I'd argue that he did, but they were not central to him; however there is much scholarly discussion of this). What is not in dispute is that you don't have to look very far to find clear-cut racial theories from Hans Günther's books, Madison Grant's, Baur/Fisher/Lenz's book Human Heredity and a host of other sources he is known to have read. There is also Gustaf Kossinna and his Aryan-Nordic model of German history. Yes, these ideas were ubiquitous, but their sources are many and complex. They can be traced back beyond Nietszche to Herder and Fichte, but only become fully integrated with racialised theories of German nationhood in the early 20th century. In other words we could write a whole book on this. In fact, I think many people have! This is an overview article. There are many articles on Aryanism, Nietzscheanism, Nordicism, German nationalism etc. We can't have them all here. Paul B (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I just saw that Paul beat me to it, and I see that his and my comments have some overlap. First off, I do not disagree with the notion that Nietzsche influenced Hitler's thinking and actions. But so did Wagner, and probably many others who are not explicitly mentioned in the article—its length has to be kept under control to keep at it GA and possibly promote it to FA. I do not see the straight line you're drawing between Nietzsche and the Third Reich. Ian Kershaw, a noted Hitler biographer, does not make this point, nor does Albert Speer who knew Hitler well. In my opinion, if you do want to include this material, which you source to Fest (who, however, has been criticised for some of his work on Hitler and his views are a little dated), it will need to be drastically shortened (to one or two sentences) and its style adjusted to the rest of the entry. Perhaps some other contributors can weigh in on this as well. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
When I was working on Rudolf Hess it struck me how both Hess and Hitler were influenced by the ideas of Karl Haushofer, who was Hess's geopolitics prof at university. So I have to agree with Mr Barlow and Malljaja that Nietzsche is only one of several influences on Hitler's thoughts on race. We really don't have space to cover the topic in detail in this article, so to focus solely on the influence of Nietzsche would give a distorted picture; there must have been multiple influences.

We have to watch the size of the article and try to even cut it further (to 10,000 words) as many people nowadays are viewing Wikipedia on their mobile devices. This means our articles have to be kept within the size guidelines or people won't be able to load them on their mobile device or from a slow/dial-up connection. -- Dianna (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all, especially to Paul B for his educated perspective. So the consensus is, there are too many words. ("Too many notes," said the King to Mozart.) Rather than explaining Hitler's drive, the ruthless Will to Power, and his objective--the purified Aryan race; rather trace the sources of that (and Paul B.has I think a good handle on the complexities of the enterprise but it is not impossible) we will keep sentences about his distinctive lower Bavarian dialect, singing lessons, church choir, and so forth. I wonder about maybe a separate Wikipedia page on Totalitarian Ideology that might explore what Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and later Pol Pot had in common . . . but that risks the charge of OR. Right now I have an important appointment with a glass of beer.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 20:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Although I think that summarising Hitler's objective as the "purified Aryan race" grossly oversimplifies his complex political manoeuvers and aims, I agree with you that Hitler's motivation for his actions gets relatively short shrift in the entry. This is something that probably should be addressed. However, in my opinion, keeping the content and tone of this entry prosaic and sourced to the most authoritative scholars is essential to assuring its stability. Malljaja (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
There are other off-shoot articles on Hitler where said details could be added, in context and with cites, if so desired. Kierzek (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal wealth

It is common for dictators to collect lots of personal wealth. Long ago I read that in spite of all his other faults, Hitler lacked this particular one. Later I read that some historian had actually studied this, and found that the opposite was true (reportedly, among other things newspapers had to publish all his speeches, and they had to pay Hitler for the 'right' to do so). I think that the article could be improved by an addition about this subject; by now someone must know which way it was.

130.234.6.147 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree, that would be an interesting section. There´s a little about Hitlers money here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, there was a documentary about it in 2002 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

birth date

at the beginning of the article it says 21 april, but it really was 20 april, as it also can be seen on other wikipedia pages (such as births section on april 20 article and even this article mentions 20 april 1945 as his 56th birthday)78.0.198.116 (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone changed it to an incorrect date. This has now been corrected. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparent fear of heights

Hitler had acrophobia, or fear of heights.[2] I don't know where would be the best place to include it within the article, perhaps if there were a mention of the Kehlsteinhaus?Hoops gza (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hoops gza. None of the principal biographers mentions a fear of heights, so I am concerned your sourcing is inadequate to add this information. Fictionalised TV shows are not considered to be WP:RS. -- Dianna (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Dianna; its not WP:RS. Kierzek (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry

The section is very vague about Alois Hitler's father. Does anyone claim that Georg Hitler is the real father? Given the circumstances, this seems unlikely. He appears to be a stepfather, whom Alois claimed as his biological father long after the event. So surely the section should say Alois Hitler's father is unknown. As it stands, the only concrete theory is that of Hans Frank. Sure, these ancestry theories are largely an attempt to denigrate Adolf Hilter - using racism! - but we need to address the issue and present the facts. The linguistically bizarre theory of the Czech origin of the Hitler family (echoed by General Paulus who called Hitler a "Bohemian corporal") is rather irrelevant if Adolf Hitler was not a Hitler by descent.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We can only follow the sources. Please feel free to hit the library and report back ;) -- Dianna (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Real one

Yes! this is the real Hitler! But not the photos taken in the 21st century. Jiawhein (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Pardon? Paul B (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Cold War

Would it be possible to change this text in the article: "emerged the Cold War, a global confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.[343]" to "emerged the Cold War, a global confrontation between communist Soviet bloc countries and capitalist NATO.[343]" or something like that? I.e., the Cold War was not just between the USSR and the US.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:0:FFF:0:5EFE:A78:EC75 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done A good suggestion -- Dianna (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2013

Caption of the sixth photograph down from the top of the article, was changed sometime after 6/1/13. remove Hitler (lying down) with his army comrades of the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 (c. 1914–1918) replace with Hitler (far right, seated) with his army comrades of the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 (c. 1914–1918) --Rogwrenda (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Rogwrenda (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Fat&Happy (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Worlds Most Evil Person

I'm trying to keep personal feelings aside here, but why is there no mention in the header of how he is considered one of the worlds most evil people and/or hated person in the world, at least in modern times. I understand it would be hard to measure, how do you measure the worlds most hated man? But, my entire life, I have heard nothing except how evil this man was, how hated he was by the rest of the world, and how he is up there among the worlds most evil people in history. Why no mention of any of this in the heading? There has to be sources out there that have conducted legitimate surveys or something to use as a source.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In the lead it does state: "His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." Then, the points of the ruin, deaths, power and "evil" are also made in a NPOV way in the article and noted especially in the "Legacy section" therein with cited quotes. Kierzek (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, but I still have to agree with the point that something should be mentioned in the header about this, even if it is just a simple sentence. For instance, if you go to Tom Landry's or Vince Lombardi's Wiki page, they are regarded as two of the best football coaches in history by many, so it says this, it gives a reader a clearer picture at the start. So I think it relates that so many unanimously agree Hitler was one of the most evil and hated men in history, so I think making a small point like that early in the article gives perspective for a reader. What you pointed out that is already in the header states evil deeds he has done, which to someone with common sense would lead you to believe he was an evil person, but don't you have to spell things out in these articles? Make it perfectly clear? No implying or guesswork? But if you all don't think it is necessary then let it be I guess, I just think it is an important fact to make note of.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We can only include things that appear in the sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no objective measurement of evil. What does it mean to be "more evil" than someone else? What even is "evil"? Is a person who kills ten people automatically ten times more evil than a person who kills one? I know some men who consider their mothers-in-law are evil, but they've broken no laws. Sure, most people would agree Hitler was evil, but comparisons are unuseful and essentially meaningless. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 02:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Well that's the beauty of Wikipedia, new sources can be added if they are reliable and have some validity to them. And yes, people consider their mother-in-laws evil and so on, but their is a big difference here. I'll put it this way, and I'll keep it in terms of just this country, if you were to poll every (adult) American to name three of what they personally believe have been the most evil and hated people in the world, I would say the odds are extremely high that about 98% of the people polled would have Hitler on this list. Okay this is obviously speculation since such a poll has not been run, and I am aware Wikipedia does not place things in their articles based on this, but, the good news is there are many books on the subject. "The Most Evil Men and Women In History" by Miranda Twiss and "The Worlds Most Evil People" by Rodney Castleden just to name two, and guess who made the cover. I could continue all night with more books of authors that have consistently named him as one of the most evil and hated men in history. And in addition to all the books declaring this, if you do a simple search of "most evil men in history", every single one I pulled up had him in the top 3. So there is a difference between what "Jack of Oz" has stated and this. It's a matter of information. If I knew nothing about Hitler and just read the header to see if I was interested in reading the rest of the article, I would want to know what he is considered in terms of history.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
'World's most evil person' is subjective. Certainly Hitler was responsible for terrible atrocities and the greatest lost of life in human history, but the dimensions of it alone does not make him more or less evil than, for example, some of the Roman leaders 2,000 years ago when the world's population was significantly smaller than it is today, or the the atrocities committed by some more modern dictators. For encyclopedic purposes, I think therefore, that the evil is adequately addressed in the legacy section, and that's where it should be, without prejudice to any additional claims of 'most evil person' being mentioned there and correctly referenced to their sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you know how many "subjective" things I can point out in this article? Look at the first line in the Legacy section:
"Hitler's suicide was likened by contemporaries to a "spell" being broken".
Where did they get this from? How did they measure this? Did they ask every German if it felt like they woke up from a dream? Now look at the third sentence:
"Ian Kershaw argues that most civilians and military personnel were too busy adjusting to the collapse of the country or fleeing from the fighting to take any interest'."
What makes Ian so right? How could he know that? Did he poll every German? You catch my drift here? So if Ian can argue that most civilians and military personal were to busy for this, then I think it is more then acceptable and reliable when you have countless other historians and basically, well, everybody else in the world saying, "Hitler, Hitler was one of the worst". I am not talking about adding some huge paragraph to the header, just a simple line stating how he is regarded by many to be one of the worst, at the very least one of the worst of "modern times".Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
In mentioning that Kershaw claim, you have helped to clarify the issue. Kershaw is a highly regarded historian who is quoted many times in the article, with accurate sourcing of his remarks to his writings. If he had also said that Hitler was the world's most evil man, we might include that, but it seems he didn't say it. To just add the claim about Hitler's evilness without attributing it to someone of note on this subject would be breaking our rules. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, Zdawg, here's another book for you to read: Exorcising Hitler: The Occupation and Denazification of Germany Taylor, 2011. I've read it. See also [7]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Kershaw may be a highly regarded historian, but that isn't the point. The two sentences I pointed out could also be interpreted as highly subjective. How could he possibly know these things? Did they poll all Germans in May, 1945? So to me it sounds like a comment that he made under an assumption after talking to a tiny percentage of the population. I question why you all are fighting this. Are you trying to say that Hitler is not considered by many to be one of the most evil and hated men in history? I talked about this with many today at the University I work for here in Maryland, and do you know the first name every single person said? But regardless, as I pointed out earlier, their are many books written about the most evil men in history, all of which include him right near the top. Are none of these authors a good enough source? Kershaw is the only accepted source for Hitler stuff in the world? A few link I have placed below state this, including the World War II Database. Another link is to a documentary that has aired on The Discovery Channel backing this. You say "evilness" is subjective, yet he is continually among the top names when the topic is debated. Why would you omit facts? Why would you not tell the whole story? Everybody hates Hitler, deal with it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

http://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=95 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/most-evil-men-in-history/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A2654778

We have dealt with it, and are dealing with it, by writing an objective, dispassionate and accurate article about him, and not getting side-tracked by whatever our personal feelings are. One of the lessons of the Hitlers of the world is that others can rise above his satanic doings and not be controlled by hate. Wikipedia is run by consensus, and so far you seem to be the one out of step. Deal with that. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Zdawg, Jack of Oz is correct. The fact is that the article was combed over when it was put up for and passed to GA. Our own opinions don't matter; we have to give a WP:NPOV presentation from a WP:consensus of the editors and go by the WP:RS sources, such as Kershaw, who is very highly regarded on this subject. Kierzek (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not a fact I just made up and pulled out of nowhere , but fine, leave it out then. Don't make mention of the fact that Hitler is considered by many (not just me) to be one of the most hated men in history and as well considered to be one of the most evil. I mean it's not like when you Google "worlds most evil people" that Hitlers name pops up anywhere. But hey, this is Wikipedia, it isn't like Wikipedia is into telling the story of someone or anything. I had no idea Kershaw was the only historian whose opinion was worth enough to use in a Wikipedia article. It's not like there's a lot of people or historians out there that know anything about Hitler, I'm sure it is just Kershaw. Now excuse me while I troll Wikipedia erasing lines on peoples pages that begin with "they are considered by many to be", there's no place for stuff like that on Wikipedia, it's all subjective. There is no way to measure that someone is considered by many to be this or that, even though I seem to see lines like that frequently on this site. But okay, you all win, Hitler is not hated by a lot of people, so why mention it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, at one point in the 1970's Richard Nixon was more hated by Americans than Hitler. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't mean Hitler wasn't still hated by most people. I never said he was "the" worlds most hated men, I said he is considered to be "one of the" most hated men.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
And again, I am not putting my "personal" feelings in this with wanting to add this statement, this is something I have heard my entire life in books, school, TV and by talking to people about it. You state, "by writing an accurate article about him". I had no idea that it was not accurate that most people hate Hitler. So I guess most people liked the guy.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You're hoping to add something that you feel is common knowledge to a Good Article. If you've got some reliable sources by well-known historians for your addition, please present them here on this talk page for discussion. We're not about to add unsourced or poorly sourced material to a GA, especially a vital article that is getting 600,000 hits a month, and typically gets over a million views a month in April and May, when high school kids are learning about the subject for the first time. Making sarcastic remarks won't get any changes implemented either, so sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Zdawg1029, Are you trying to say that Hitler is not considered by many to be one of the most evil and hated men in history? This is a Straw man argument. No one is suggesting that. Kershaw is one of hundreds who have written on the subject. I think I have read almost every book on the subject in English, French and German I could lay my hands on, watched every fact-based movie and documentary. Furthermore, I spent the first almost 20 years of my formative adult life in (relatively) post war Germany, 3 of them in Belsen (Bergen) so my findings may be very similar to those of Kershaw and many others - but I didn't write the books, so I don't publish my WP:OR in the article which I have never edited except to correct one typo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Vegetarian

"At social events he sometimes gave graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make his dinner guests shun meat." This sentence directly contradicts the source cited (Wilson, 1998) [it should actually be 1996 but whatever) which instead states, "For a start, his distaste for meat knew no pity of animals. At mealtimes he often boasted - in graphic detail - of a slaughterhouse he had visited in …" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.82.123 (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The full quote says, "For a start, his distaste for meat knew no pity of animals. At mealtimes he often boasted - in graphic detail - of a slaughterhouse he had visited in Ukraine. It amused him to spoil carnivorous guests' appetites. As they put their forks down in disgust, he would harangue them for hypocrisy. "That shows how cowardly people are," he would say. "They can't face doing certain horrible things themselves, but they enjoy the benefits without a pang of conscience."" So that backs up the statement that he told these slaughterhouse stories in an effort to put people off eating meat. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
In any case this is quotation from Bee Wilson, a food writer, not an expert on Hitler. To me it illustrates a kind of desperate desire to insist on Hitler's stereotypical "evil" nature by denying the actual evidence before the writer. There is some context on this in the current Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism article. Paul B (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea that it was just a stereotype that Hitler was evil. I'm sure he was actually a really nice guy.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's a stereotype. He didn't go round like a villain in a bad Hollywwod movie, rubbing his hands and thinking of what Evil Thing he could do next. We don't have to pretend he was never a "nice guy". There's quite a lot of evidence of his "niceness" in certain contexts. If he were "evil" like some medieval representation of someone possessed by the devil, it would make him non-human. It's far worse to think that an otherwise quite normal human being could consciously decide to do what he did. It takes away his moral responsiblity to present him as a cartoon bad-guy. In that rerspect it's fundamentally childish. Paul B (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

5.5 million Jews or 6 million Jews?

Adolf Hitler article:

Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause of the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.

Holocaust article:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt")[2] also known as Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory.

RaphaelQS (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi RaphaelQS. The wording of this sentence is the result of dispute resolution in March 2013. Here is a link: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. In a nutshell, sources vary as to the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and this was the wording decided upon during the dispute resolution process. Sample sources for this number include Evans (2008) page 318 (between 5.5 and 6 million); Goldhagen, Map page 411, shows between 5.6 and 5.9 million; and Rummel. 'Death by Government', Pg 10, Table1.5 (5.2 million). Our article on The Holocaust cannot be considered authoritative at this point as it needs a lot of work. User:Khazar2 is hoping to bring it up to GA standards later this year and he is interested in collaborators so please ping him if you are interested in working on that project. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Why dont we simply say "between 5.5 and 6 million" in both articles?Moxy (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Raul Hillberg (The Destruction of the European Jews) gave an estimated total death toll of 5.1 million Jews,
R. J. Rummel ('Death by Government', Pg 10, Table 1.5) gave an estimated total death toll of 5.2 million,
Reitlinger ('The Final Solution') gave an estimated total death toll of 4.2 to 4.5 million,
So we could argue that if we want to be verifiably accurate using ALL these reputable sources then we should have a sentence that says: "between 4.2 to 5.29 million"--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Dianna is correct. We have been through all this (as shown linked by her above) and consensus was reached; therefore, there is no reason to change the estimate as stated in this article. Kierzek (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This may cause a problem at the GA review if different figures are all over the place. The links indicated to me that a wider number was in order.Moxy (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Mystichumwipe found sources that go as low as 4.2 million, but the majority of recent scholarship gives a figure of between 5.5 and 6 million. So as a result of the dispute resolution already linked, the wording presently in the article was used as an approximation. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Moxy, it is the Holocaust article which is in need of work and if you are interested, I would encourage you to have at it. And copy edits with cites could and should be transferred over from this article where needed. Other related GA articles which may aid you and others for copy edits and cites for Holocaust would be: Einsatzgruppen, Heydrich and Himmler. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I dont think my point is understood - Why are we not saying in the lead the range (the lead is what this section is about). We should say the range as seen in the article in the lead as we should in other articles so everything matches. Be it what ever numbers you guys think is best. Its clear by the links all are referring to that a range was the outcome ....not one number.Moxy (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. The lead says "at least 5.5 million" and the body says "between 5.5 and 6 million" and you think the lead should say "between 5.5 and 6 million". Did you read this dispute resolution? There's also this talk page discussion. I think (while not ideal) the wording in the lead is okay as the article is stable and we are able to move on and invest our valuable time in other editing tasks. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Should be taking the time to solve the confusion editors/readers raise. Not sure why people here seem to be all up in arms about a clarification talk - dont have time to tlak about dont. Moxy (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I have edited the intro and the holocaust sections so that they are now consistent with each other and reflect accurately the most recent scholarly research. They also now are in accord with the wiki article on the holocaust which at present states "The Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, writes that there is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed. ...Early calculations range from about 4.2 to 4.5 million in The Final Solution (1953) by Gerald Reitlinger (arguing against higher Russian estimates), and 5.1 million from Raul Hilberg, to 5.95 million from Jacob Lestschinsky. Yisrael Gutman and Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust estimate 5.59–5.86 million. A study led by Wolfgang Benz of the Technical University of Berlin suggests 5.29–6.2 million." It doesn't include Rummel's more recent research figures published in 1997 of an estimated maximum TOTAL of 5.291 million.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on Dianna's and Kierzek's comments above I don't think there is any consensus for these changes. Given that this is a GA article, I think any controversial changes must be first discussed on the talkpage. Consequently, I have reverted pending further discussion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what exactly about the figures or the wording you would like to discuss?
As I see it, if the reliable source of Rummel's more recent research has a figure which contradicts the wording of this article then we MUST change the article accordingly.
If the Holocaust article - which goes into this in more detail - ALSO has information that this article contradicts then again we must change the incorrect wording in one of these articles.
I have already made these points before and no-one yet has refuted either the figures or THE RELIABILITY OF THE SOURCES. If you can refute the changes on any grounds according to wiki policy please do so. Until then, in the interests of adhering to factual accuracy, please may I request editors leave the changes as they are UNLESS you disagree that they are NOW in accordance with the actual sources and the Holocaust article. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The verifiable reputable sources of Reitlinger, Hilberg, Benz and Rummel are ALL contradicted by the previous wording that said "...at least 5.5 million". Does anybody genuinley disagree with this simple statement of fact and logic? Yad Vashem acknowledges that ALL these figures are approximations. Dianna has ALSO JUST admitted above that these figures are an approximation. The article should not misinform people of this fact with inaccurate wording that contradicts the actual reputable sources. So I don't really see what there is to discuss --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

to Kierzek: why have you deleted the 3 "citation needed"? Those are problematic points

  • "When the offensive failed, Hitler realised that Germany was going to lose the war". This sentence is contradicting the later statement ( of 4 months later): "Hitler then launched a tirade against the treachery and incompetence of his commanders, culminating in his declaration—for the first time—that the war was lost". Thus the "citation needed" (for the 1st sentence) is justified.
  • "Arms minister Albert Speer was entrusted with executing this scorched earth plan{{Citation needed|reason=It was the Gauleiters job. This note is justified since Speer said he had to convince the Gauleiters not to act according to the scorched earth policy.
  • Hitler typically did not give written orders{{Citation needed|reason=Hitler used to sign important decisions. e.g. Speer describes that Hitler signed his written proposal, otherwise his verbal agreements with Hitler were worthless. Ykantor (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
For the first point, I think the sentence "When the offensive failed, Hitler realised that Germany was going to lose the war" can and should be removed. I don't have Jstor access so I can't check one of the citations listed, but it is out of character for Hitler and it does not appear in Bullock, the other citation for these sentences.

Second point: Speer was given this order directly by Hitler, according to both Bullock (the cited source) and Speer's autobiography. Sereny (1995) states that Hitler gave Speer total control over implementation of the scorched earth policy (pages 497–498). I will add this citation to the article.

The article says "Hitler typically did not give written orders; instead he communicated them verbally, or had them conveyed through his close associate, Martin Bormann." This is sourced to Kerhsaw, page 377. Note the use of the word "typically"; this is used to indicate that this was not a hard-and-fast rule. For example Sereny makes it plain on pp 497–498 that Speer asked for and got a signed document giving him total control over the implementation of the scorched earth order. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • "When the offensive failed, Hitler realised that Germany was going to lose the war". yes, it seems to be a mistake.
  • "Arms minister Albert Speer was entrusted with executing this scorched earth plan. I might be wrong here. Anyway:
  1. a teletype message came from the Chief of Transportation. Dated March 29, 1945, it read: "Aim is creation of a transportation wasteland in abandoned territory (Speer,INSIDE THE THIRD REICH, p.453)
  2. At the same day of Hitler signing Speer's decree: As usual, Hitlers actions were double-edged. That same evening he had ordered the commanders in chief "to intensify to the most fanatical level the struggle against the enemy who is now in movement. The nature of this struggle permits no consideration for the population to be taken."(Speer,INSIDE THE THIRD REICH, p.457).
  3. In the book it is mentioned few times that Gauleiters have received the decree, but not from Speer.
  4. It is interesting that at 18.3.1945 Hitler turned to Keitel and told him to compose an order to the Commander in Chief and the Gauleiters: The entire population of the threatened areas was to be forcibly evacuated. (Speer,INSIDE THE THIRD REICH, p.438)
  • "Hitler typically did not give written orders . In my opinion the term "typically" is slightly misleading since he used to sign documents (prepared by Borman) or Speer: as long as Hitler signed all the decrees that I presented to him for signature (Speer,INSIDE THE THIRD REICH, p.207)  ;In the winter of 1942, during the STALINGRAD crisis, bormann, keitel, and Lammers decided to close their own ring around Hitler more tightly. Henceforth, all orders to be signed by the Chief of State had to be cleared through these three men(Speer,INSIDE THE THIRD REICH, p.251) Ykantor (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I have vision problems and when you bold some of the text and have some in all-caps, I find it quite impossible to read, so sorry. So are you saying the material sourced to Kershaw that Hitler gave many verbal orders should come out because Speer said something different? -- Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Perhaps we could re-word it to say "Hitler gave many orders verbally, or had them conveyed through his close associate, Martin Bormann." -- Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I will not reply to the original query above as it is now basically moot; as to "new" wording, I would suggest: "Often times Hitler gave orders verbally which were then conveyed in written form through his close associate, Martin Bormann." --cited to Kershaw. Kierzek (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for the bold / capital writings.
  • "Arms minister Albert Speer was entrusted with executing this scorched earth plan. It seems (according to the mentioned quotes) that Hitler ordered different officials, in parallel with Speer.
  • "Hitler typically did not give written orders. I am not sure as for the an alternative and correct description. Reading Speer p. 207, which starts at In the winter of 1942, during the STALINGRAD crisis, bormann, keitel, and Lammers decided to close their own ring around Hitler more tightly. Henceforth, all orders to be signed by the Chief of State had to be cleared through these three men, it seems rather erratic and depends with whom he was speaking. Ykantor (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hitler normally did give contradictory orders or ordered multiple people to do the same task. His leadership style was erratic and got to be more so as the end of the war drew near. There's already material in the "leadership style" section that covers how everything had to be cleared through Bormann. But for the specific case of the scorched earth plan, if you are saying that Hitler gave someone other than Speer a direct written order to implement it, I would have to see a citation on that, because Sereny says that Speer had to insist on a written order giving him control of this task and even had to draw up the document himself and insist that it be signed. So I think it unlikely that someone else got a written order also. The quotations you present call for the evacuation of residents and/or the war to be carried out on German soil without regard for their welfare, which is not the same thing as the task he gave Speer, which was to blow up infrastructure such as bridges and factories, so that the enemy could not make use of them. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)s
  • The order to Speer:The decree pertained only to industry; the orders for destruction of shipping, railroad installations, communications, and bridges remained in effect. (Speer, Inside the 3rd Reich, p. 456)
  • The Scorch earth order was given at 19 March, While only at 29 March Speer asked Hitler to sign his version.
  • These point are not so important and in my opinion the article could remain as is. Ykantor (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

'Alois Hitler' needs attention

While this article has reached a commendable level, Alois Hitler is badly in need of attention from experienced editors. There are two problems:

  1. Outdated or obscure sources. Maser, McDonough, Langer, should not be used as preferred sources except when later sources fail to cover something that they do (and I don't think that is the case.) Citations to English-language editions of works by Hamann, Kershaw, Evans are to be preferred. Too few statements of fact are referenced to good-quality sources at present.
  2. Article is frequently edited by a mix of well-meaning people who introduce errors due to being poorly informed and people with some kind of agenda other than improving the quality of this biography. Watchlisting the article and quickly reverting unacceptable changes would discourage people who are not providing a positive contribution.--89.204.130.42 (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Weaselly sentence in the lead

The article currently says:

Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the cause of the outbreak of World War II in Europe.

I took a slight aesthetic annoyance at the sentence, and immediately changed it to Hitler's aggressive foreign policy caused the outbreak of World War II in Europe. I was reverted, and told that the current wording is the result of some kind of protracted and uneasy compromise, referred in an archive of talk. I skimmed the archive, but didn't see anything that appeared to immediately call for the use of weasel words in the opening of this important article, so I tagged it for that reason. If the two sentences mean something different, the distinction is eluding me; if respectable authorities report that Hitler's foreign policy caused World War II in Europe, we should report on the outbreak of the war, not what some unnamed person considers to be true. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you; either we trust our sources or we don't. I think Hitler's aggressive foreign policy caused the outbreak of World War II in Europe works better. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it was discussed at length Ihcoyc; and that was the best consensus version that could be reached at the time; as Diannaa knows. With that said, I don't have a problem with the new adjusted wording above. Kierzek (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I too have no problem with a sentence that is not as hedged as the current one. Though "is considered" is not weaselly imo—given the weight of the this assertion—and it took some doing to arrive at the current consensus (this is why I reverted the recent edit, my personal views notwithstanding). I'd suggest to bear this in mind before insisting on changes that some readers might find too forceful and that may result in another round of long and unproductive discussion. Malljaja (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I hate seeing a maintenance tag on this article so I have given a couple of examples from lower in the article of historians who said this. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it was expressed this way to avoid the implication that the one man started the war all on his own. The war was of course the product of social and other influences and although Hitler was an important protagonist he was not the only one. Britmax (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. Hitler's actions and policies (eg, the re-occupation of the Rhineland, annexation of Austria, Munich agreement, and so forth) were met with little or no resistance by the other major European powers at a time when Germany was not really prepared to go to war on the scale of WWII. Plus Hitler had many supporters in Germany who backed or encouraged his policies. As Kershaw says, Hitler was the main author of WWII, but not its sole author. Malljaja (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree 100%. The roots of WWII lie also in Versailles, with the pretense of the winners to consider Germany "guilty" for the outbreak of WWI, which really was a clash among competing imperialisms. Alex2006 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree; Hitler's aggressive foreign policy also had causes. And it would also be accurate to say that Hitler's invasion of Poland caused the war as well. Still, important, big-picture statements that are supported by mainstream sources can and should be stated as matters of fact rather than opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's 'charisma'

I don't edit or contribute content to this article for reasons I've already stated but I'm wondering if something about the Führer's charisma should be mentioned, perhaps in the section Leadership style. For those who would like to expand the article, it's well documented in Rees, Laurence, The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler 2012, Edbury Press. (paperback edition 2013, ISBN 978-0-09191-765-4). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. There's already quite a bit of information on this point in the "Entry into politics" section. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right after all. I picked the book up in Hong Kong airport and read it on the plane on my way home from Wikimania. It does contain some further interesting and new material as to his personality though. Over 400 pages, and extremely well sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a newer version ... Laurence Rees (2013). Hitler's Charisma: Leading Millions Into the Abyss. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-307-37729-6. -- Moxy (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Part of the same publishing group and probably a regional release - Edbury and Doubleday are both imprints of Random House. The full title of the copy I have is The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler Leading Millions Into The Abyss. As the hardcover was first published in 2012, I doubt that the author will have updated the content. For anyone interested in the subject it's certainly worth reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

I notice the article has been subject to a lot of reverting again recently. Semi protection or PC won't work so it may be necessary to put the page under Full Protection for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think full protection is needed at this point, Kudpung. There was a random bit of vandalism from an autoconfirmed acct today, but I think we are safe to carry on with the present level of protection. Other opinions welcome, of course -- Diannaa (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine by that as long as there are plenty of admin eyes on the article. .Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"approximately five million..." or "at least 5.5 million..."

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Consensus was that the use of the phrase at least 5.5M is preferable per past discussions and present scholarship on the Holocaust. Robert McClenon's suggestion about going with "at least 5.1M" is noted as a possible alternative lower bound, though scarcely anyone commented on it after he proposed it, so that particular proposal is getting a no consensus due to the lack of response after it was made. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article contain wording that contradicts the verifiable reputable sources of Reitlinger, Hilberg, Benz and Rummel and the more detailed Holocaust article. The current wording states "...at least 5.5 million". But this wording contradicts Raul Hillberg ('The Destruction of the European Jews'), R. J. Rummel ('Death by Government', Pg 10, Table 1.5), Reitlinger ('The Final Solution') and Wolfgang Benz of the Technical University of Berlin, all of whom have published estimated total death tolls BELOW 5.5 million.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As you are well aware, this has been discussed before (more than once); discussion in which you took part. The current wording is cited to Evans (2008), p. 318; Holocaust Memorial Museum and for the Romani people, cited to Hancock (2004), pp. 383–396 and the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Holocaust article is not a GA article. This is a GA article where consensus was reached as to wording used; its not like it is WP:OR or a WAG. If you gain a new consensus, then, so be it. I await others thoughts and input. Kierzek (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
A footnote to my comment above; since you asked Mystichumwipe, I am not for changing the wording. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. But if I may correct you, it is not accurate to write that consensus was reached before. A stalemate was reached and other concerns prevented my pursuing it further. Anyway, this is a different discussion and is specifically about whether one small part of the current wording contradicts the reputable sources for the death total. It should I hope be a much simpler thing to rectify. Do YOU personally agree or disagree on whether the wording "at least" contradicts the sources mentioned? Its really a simple 'yes' or 'no' question. Another way of approaching this is to ask should we give one historian (Evans) precedence as a source over FOUR other highly reputable historians?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
For those unaware of the history of his matter, previous discussions on this matter include Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53#Deaths atributable to Hitler (December 2012); Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 54#Citation for "systematic murder of eleven million..." in the intro? (February 2013; and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. In the dispute resolution, the participating editors, except for Mystichumwipe, agreed on the present wording. Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. I would like to quote from the page WP:Consensus, an official Wikipedia policy page, where it states: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided." I would also like to point out that an RFC should have a neutrally-worded statement at the top; Mystichumwipe has failed to do this; he has asked a loaded non-neutrally worded question and thus this RFC is flawed. For the record, I am in favour of keeping the present wording, "at least 5.5 million Jews", as this wording best reflects current scholarship on the subject. Please refer to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler for my sources and further discussion. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a rehashing of an old resolved discussion. That dispute resolution was declared "failed" by the administrator. And this is a NEW discussion focusing specifically on using the wording "at least" which admittedly accurately cites Evans but which contradicts the figures of four other reputable historians and also the wiki Holocaust article.

  • Comment - Hillberg's figure of 5.1 million (3.8 million in the death camps and 1.3 million by the killing squads) is the best researched count but is probably low due to the details of his methodology. Hillberg provided counts of Jews killed in three categories (three dimensions), country of origin, place of death, and year of death (e.g., Czechoslovakia, Dachau, 1944). As a result, he is likely to have undercounted less fully documented killings. As a result, his count is certainly a lower bound. The figure of "at least 5.1 million", if stated, can be attributed to Hillberg. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Which is the most reliable and accurate way of wording the specific figure in line with ALL the reputable sources: is that best done with the wording "approximately" or "at least"

I would like to again clarify, that THIS discussion is NOT about synth It is instead asking why we have wording citing one historian (Evans) giving him precedence as a source over FOUR other highly reputable historians, thereby contradicting them and the wiki Holocaust page. The contention is that by doing so we are making this article (in its intro and H section) factually inaccurate. That editors are choosing to do so (and without a requested explanation for this), seems to point to possible ideological motives at work in editing this page? Or perhaps a sense of ownership of the article? To dispel an increasing perception of editors here refusing to engage in open and academic analysis with perceived newcomers/usurper editors without being forced to by a process of arbitration (as displayed previously in the synth discussion), could editors do me the favour of answering the simple question of why Evans's "at least 5.5..." is regarded as more factually accurate and representative of ALL the sources than "approximately 5 to 6..."? Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to follow on from my comment above, I don't know the sources to which you refer here and elsewhere. The holocaust section of the article says "including 5.5 to six million Jews", and this is the part summarised in the Lede by the phrase "at least 5.5 million". To me there is a marginal, but crucial difference between the two options to which you refer. On the whole "at least" summarises this part of the main section better. That there are other opinions about numbers involved, from what I assume are reliable historians, has clearly been discussed here and elsewhere but this is not mentioned in the article (as far as I can see). I think it should be, and I think there are better ways of summarising the holocaust section of the main article. In the article there are only 2 sources, Evans and the Holocaust Memorial Museum used to discuss the number of Jewish dead. "At least" reflects the evidence provided better than "approximately" as it does indicate there is unclarity about the exact numbers and that it may be significantly more than 5.5 million. Should this section fleshed out further, then another phrase may be more suitable. I don't understand why you are asking an RfC to look at all the sources to which you refer (and don't give links to) and decide how best to summarise them, when these sources and the information in them has not been used in the article. Surely a basis point of the Lede is to summarise the article that follows? Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
To address Mystichumwipe's underlying question, when an uninvolved editor examines a case such as this, the general rule (there are exceptions that I am going to discuss in a moment) is that when a bunch of editors say that they see X in the sources and one editor says he sees Y in the sources we assume that the multiple editors are correct. See WP:CONSENSUS. This is true whether the uninvolved editor is a dispute resolution volunteer like me (by design we have zero power other than the power of persuasion) or an administrator looking into the issue (admins can block user or protect pages). We simply cannot spend the amount of time examining sources that you editors who are working on the page can spend.
One exception to the above involves Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter how many editors want to violate something like WP:BLP or WP:V, it isn't going to happen. However, if you are the lone holdout, don't get your hopes up; it pretty much needs to be a clear violation that is obvious to any reasonable person, and you have to explain why multiple editors think there isn't a clear violation. This does happen, BTW; we must have had 200 people tell us to remove all images of Mohammad.
Another exception that is often claimed but seldom proved is a systemic bias. We try to identify when a bunch of supporters of a cause or organization or opponents of a cause or organization dominate a Wikipedia page. Again, if you are the lone holdout, don't get your hopes up; it almost always turns out to have a much simpler explanation: a bunch of people think you are wrong.
If you really think you can make a case for one of the above exceptions, it is almost always futile to do so on the article talk page (but you still have to try) and you need to take your evidence to WP:ANI -- but read WP:BOOMERANG first. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Mine is quite a simple contention, viz. that BOTH the lead AND the sub-section it summarises are contradicted by the sources (previously referred to). I changed BOTH to be more consistent with each other, with the other sources AND with the holocaust article. My edit was reverted.
Stating "at least 5.5 million" contradicts the lower estimated figures of the FOUR experts previously cited here [[8]] which were:
Raul Hillberg, 'The Destruction of the European Jews' revised 1985 = 5.1 million;
R. J. Rummel. 'Death by Government', Pg 10, Table1.5 = 5.291 million;
Wolfgang Benz. University of Berlin 'Dimension des Völkermords', Oldenbourg, Munich 1991 = 5.29 to 6 million;
Reitlinger, 'The Final Solution', = 4.2 to 4.5 million.
Do you require page numbers for all these?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, its really a simple question of arithmetic: is "at least 5.5" equal to 5.1 or 5.2 or ...etc. As I see it, it is OBVIOUSLY NOT. And therefore I suspect perhaps other considerations are at work here on this page. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • say "At least" at least for now The degree of bias in the wording of the RFC makes me also concerned that that selection of sources way also be biased / cherry picked. So there is a malformed and suspect RFC, and no way for persons to weigh in unless they do a lot of research. So I go with the (apparently previously discussed) status quo, pending someon making a stronger case to change it. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support "at least." "Approximately" is an acceptable alternative. This is a common sense conclusion, based on the available sources. Liangshan Yi (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose any wording with "approximately and one figure. Since the range of estimates is so large, "approximately" is not an option. The lead, where it is not possible to detail different estimates and caveats, should probably be changed to "several million". In the body of the text, different estimates can be presented.--Boson (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

Mystichumwipe, You took a survey, and despite the wording being less that neutral, the consensus was unanimous against you, and yet you refuse to accept the result. Why do I suspect that if the survey results went your way and one editor refused to accept the result you would not have taken it well? You have been at this for a long, long time and still nobody agrees with you. The time has come for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's over. Find some other, better use of your time. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing has a section about Failure or refusal to "get the point" that you should read and take to heart. Also, you need to stop saying things like "I suspect perhaps other considerations are at work here on this page". If you have any actual evidence of this (and no, that was NOT an invitation to post said evidence here) take it to WP:ANI. If your evidence is compelling, an administrator will intervene. If you do not drop the stick, someone is going to report you to ANI, with the likely result of you being topic banned.
Please note that I am saying this as someone who does not know or care who is right here (I did check for any obvious policy violations and didn't find any) and who finds this entire topic to be rather boring. If anyone wants to see numbers on this, Wikipedia has all the statistics and sources anyone could ask for at The Holocaust#Victims and death toll. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

He he. Well of course I refuse to accept the result as the figures 5.1 and 5.2, etc, are obviously NOT "at least 5.5". Its simple arithmetic. I actually want to contribute to this article in other areas also, but when something as obvious as this gets reverted... then...? So off to ANI it is then.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Why did you change the signature on my post?[9] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I wasn't aware that I had.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I myself am no stranger to mistyping things. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it.Basket Feudalist 13:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hitler's Possible Jewish Ancestry

How come until today, 09/12/2013, there has not been a mention of the DNA research published in The Telegraph, that stated Hitler may have Jewish and African ancestry according to DNA test of his living family members. Even if this study is invalid it should be included with a refutation on why it is not valid. This article is so publicly distributed it has been references by both Time magazine and the Huffington Post. The Telegraph article is here. Waters2100 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the nature of human ancestry, every human being is very likely to be descended by one path or another from almost every conceivable human group. Without a citation to peer-reviewed scientific research, it's hard to know both whether this is biologically meaningful or has any historical significance at all. See this article for a more skeptical viewpoint on this story. Specifically, this sentence: "Even within Europe most men who carry this set of markers are not Ashkenazi Jews." -- The Anome (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
No guess work by historians on genetics please. See Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51#Hitler's DNA -- Moxy (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The research was undertaken by journalists, not scientists. The information Anome provides from Discovery Magazine shows the conclusions are flawed. It has to stay out in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
This is old news, so to speak; we have discussed this in the past and the consensus was to keep it out as speculation and conjuncture. It should still be excluded as flawed and not conclusive. Kierzek (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The headlines are misleading and are very eye catching but do not represent any sort of truth and we cannot even be sure that they were even scientifically verified to confirm the alleged results; "The results of the study are inconclusive until further verification by a scientific source. "[10] The DNA is mentioned in Alois's (Adolf's father) article here Alois_Hitler#DNA which says the following:

"The largest Y-chromosome testing organization for genealogy and ancestry purposes (‘Family Tree DNA’) later announced that the interpretation of the Hitler family ancestry given by certain media outlets based on the information released by Jean-Paul Mulders and historian Marc Vermeeren was "highly questionable". Family Tree DNA’s Chief Y-DNA Scientist, Professor Michael Hammer said that “scientific studies as well as records from our own database make it clear that one cannot reach the kind of conclusion featured in the published articles.”

Based on Family Tree DNA records, some 9% of the populations of Germany and Austria belong to the haplogroup E1b1b, and among those, about 80% are not associated with Jewish ancestry.

"This data clearly show that just because one person belongs to the branch of the Y-chromosome referred to as haplogroup E1b1b, that does not mean the person is likely to be of Jewish ancestry," said Professor Hammer.

Therefore contrary to newspaper headlines regarding the Hitler family DNA, it is not correct to say that they had any Jewish or recent African ancestry as the DNA found is relatively common in Austria and Germany (9% in Austria and 8% in Germany) and the tests remain inconclusive until they have been scientifically verified.

Mulders confirmed the misinterpretation of his research with the following statement to Family Tree DNA: "I never wrote that Hitler was a Jew, or that he had a Jewish grandfather. I only wrote that Hitler's haplogroup is E1b1b, being more common among Berbers, Somalian people and Jews than among overall Germans. This, in order to convey that he was not exactly what during the Third Reich would have been called 'Aryan.' All the rest are speculations of journalists who didn't even take the trouble to read my article, although I had it translated into English especially for this purpose."[11]

Hitler's ancestry has often been questioned due to the question of his paternal grandfather and several books write about the possibility of a paternal Jewish grandfather but the facts remain that Alois legitimized himself, Third Reich genealogists confirmed Johann Georg Hiedler as the grandfather, the SS and other people investigated the rumour and found no Jewish ancestors and biographers such as Ian Kershaw dismiss the Jewish grandfather as a smear and a myth noting it is impossible due to the fact Jews were barred from that area where Hitler's father was born well until after his death.--Sanchezhands (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2013

Hitler’s name is already black enough and there is no need to slant facts to paint him blacker. For instance the section on World War I has him “...spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines.[56][57].” The implication is that he was a slacker. Of course this statement is meaningless unless we know what percentage of the time an infantry man in the List Regiment spent in the front lines, a statistic that would be hard to come by. Moreover the “nearly half” is not on either of the pages cited as references. This section of the sentence should be deleted.

Similarly "...he was wounded either in the groin area [63]…" does not belong in an entry in an encyclopedia. The implication is that he was wounded in the genitals. The Telegraph is not a reliable source and the consensus of his biographers is that he was wounded in the thigh.

Important facts are not in the article. Like it or not, by the testimony of his comrades Hitler was a brave and dedicated soldier, which should be stated. All of his decorations should be listed in the awards table in the article, adding the Military Service Cross III class with Swords on September 17, 1917; a Regimental Diploma for Outstanding Bravery before the Enemy on May 9, 1918; the Service Award III class on August 25, 1918, or the table should state that only some of his awards are listed.

The fact that one-quarter of the men serving in the List Regiment were killed in the war should be in the article.<refWeber, T, Hitler's First War, Oxford, 2010 p.222/ref>

The article should point out that serving as a messenger at regimental headquarters gave him the opportunity to acquire the military education that enabled him to creditably assume the leadership of the Wehrmacht. As Jodl wrote after Hitler’s death “Hitler’s “astounding technical and tactical vision led him also to become the creator of modern weaponry for the army.” [3] WVDK (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL Basket Feudalist 12:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This article gives an overview of his World War I service and greater details are present in the sub-article Military career of Adolf Hitler. His awards and decorations are mentioned therein and that is where any additional ones should be placed, as well (properly cited). As far as adding something to either article as to: "...point out that serving as a messenger at regimental headquarters gave him the opportunity to acquire the military education that enabled him to creditably assume the leadership of the Wehrmacht...." I must disagree; it is only opinion with WP:OR and WP:RS problems, to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Kershaw p.57 says that Hitler was wounded in the left thigh when a shell exploded in the runners' dugout. Bullock p.51 says he was wounded in the leg. Shirer page 30 says he was hit in the leg. I think we should take out the possibility that he was hit in the groin, as the primary biographers don't mention the possibility. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree on that, Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I am going ahead with that part of the request then, and as that's the only part of the edit request that's garnered any support, I am marking it as answered. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Good. Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior

Couple of problems with this:

The "his followers" is very mis-reading to some as not all Germans or even Nazis of that time believed everything Hitler and other prominent Nazis did. In fact, some Nazis even argued among themselves, for example Himmler did not get on well with everyone and in Hitler's inner circle there was a sense of jealousy quite often.

The racially inferior links to the master race which is not right and needs to be changed to either the untermensch or the Holocaust page.

Can this be changed?--Warrior Of Great (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the target of the wikilink to the Untermensch page. I am not understanding your first point, because saying "his followers" does not imply that the whole country followed these beliefs, or even necessarily all of his followers. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Karl May's Books: Hitler and his hero, the Native American Übermensch Winnetou

I just read the A H Talk Archive about how Hitler loved the books of the German author Karl May (1842-1912), who wrote a lot of novels about an America 100 years before Hitler, and the stories about Old Shatterhand, the noble white man who won all fights against the redskins – and the allegory made by the Archive talker to the red Russians in the Red Army ... But Karl May's Native Americans are usually portrayed as innocent victims of white law-breakers, and many are presented as heroic characters. Winnetou is the greatest hero, greater than May's alter ego Old Shatterhand in these novels (you don't have to be nazi to, as a boy, like Karl May's books) and Winnetou was an Apache, a redskin. As I remember it, Winnetou was the same type of Übermensch as the American author Edward S. Elli's (1840-1916) Indian hero Deerfoot in the novels read widely by young boys. I remember one scene where the two close friends Old Shatterhand and Winnetou tied together with a rope by bandits are forced to fight each other to the death, each with a knife - and Winnetou is the one who manages them both off the hook with a miraculous solution. Winnetou and Deerfoot were charismatic figures, natural born leaders, but they were not charismatic by burning talks before tens of thousands in galas orchestrated by Albert Speer. These Native Americans are quiet heroes who tries to avoid taking life, except when necessary. Which conclusions may possible Hitler has drawn from this fact? Some say that Hitler found his Übermensch ideal in Nietzsche's philosophy, but someone on the archived talk page claimed that Hitler would have forced his officers to carry May's books, not Nietzsche's work, in their war gasket. If this is true, it would be interesting to know when, during the war, he commanded his officers to carry at least one book by May. And which book? Deeply rooted in Karl May's works is the belief that all mankind should live together peacefully, the opposite of Hitler's philosophy. There are some parallels between May and Hitler as young unsuccessful artists, and as debuting authors during their respective prison times: as young May attempted to earn a living as a private tutor, writing tales, composing music and by recitation. But these did not secure his livelihood. As a consequence he started to commit thefts and frauds, and as a result May was sentenced to four years in a workhouse 1865-69, and to jail once again in Waldheim from 1870 to 1874. He wrote his first published book in the jail 1874. --Caspiax 07:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspiax (talk • contribs)

Last sentence of the lead

The last sentence of the lead paragraph, which finishes like so:

« 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior.»

This sentence is wrong, because it seems to say that the millions of people who were killed alongside the Jews were killed due to Nazi perception of them being racially inferior. However, the homosexuals, disabled people, Soviet POWs, Soviet civilians, the Poles (although due to my lack of knowledge of the Holocaust, I do not know if the mass killings of the Poles was racially motivated), Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, political dissidents, etc.

Thank you for your consideration,

Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.19.20.184 (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This should be changed to just "inferior" as many even Nordic Germans (best Aryans) were persecuted for showing hostility to Nazis such as the Communists, homosexuals were also persecuted, people with mental and physical disabilities and many others. The mass killings of Poles was not racially motivated, it was politically motivated for the simple reason that since the Polish Government refused any negotiations between Germany and Poland for Hitler's peace offers for Danzig and other stuff he wanted it was the Nazis desire to completely overtake Poland and to gain power when Poland was divided between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union after the invasion of Poland.

The killing of Jews, Gypsies, blacks, mixed race and others not seen as Aryan (European) was racially motivated and was the reason they were targeted, Slavs (who were Aryans too by Nazi Germany) were targeted because they were in the land that was designed according to Hitler's plan for the Lebensraum (living space) in the East for the Germanic people. Many Slavic people fought on the Nazis side including many Polish, Ukrainian, Russian and others, in Ukraine Nazi propaganda made Hitler appear as a liberator from the communists too.--Sphere1994 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

More on A H ethnic background

The surname 'Hitler' is an ortographic and phonetical transformation of an old German word akin to 'Whistler', or 'Flutist', recent research on living relatives of 'the führer', en equivalent in meaning to 'director', point that the male line of the Hitler family may be of Berber genetics, a people close to ancient Egyptians and other European and African peoples. Members of Berber tribe brought the Merino sheep to the Iberian peninsula during the VIII century Arab invasion, the 'Golden fleece', came from Merino sheeps' wool. Data about A H DNA came from samples from living relatives, and from the bone remains held by the USSR.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.91.194 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The name is a variant of Heidler, probably coming either from Hütte (Hut) or from hüten (guard), implying "hut-dweller" or "shepherd". The origin of the name has no necessary link to ancient ancestry, since "surnames" are most unlikely to be inherited from that far back. It's just an accident of paternal ancestry, and is a fairly typical "peasant" surname. The issue of the DNA is discussed in the archive. Paul B (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's surname is of German origin, there is some people who believe it could be of Czech origin possibly.--ET Extra Terrestrial (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's ancestors were Germans from Austria. His ancestry was German with the slight possibility of Czech (great-grandfather) but this was never confirmed and the name - which people took to be possibly of Czech origin - was also found among the Germans. The part Jewish rumor was found to be a myth when he had it investigated and by modern historians, the DNA results do not prove anything but rather a newspaper journalist blowing a so-called study out of proportion.--Sphere1994 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Meeting with Toynbee

Where, in which articles, do you think this material should appear? [12] Do you consider it useful for this article? or in general for other articles? Cogiati (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's far too marginal to be in this article. Hitler had uncountable numbers of meetings. It's appropriate for Toynbee's own article, in which it already has its own section (indeed it seems to have been cut-and-pasted from there). It might go in Nazi propaganda and the United Kingdom or Appeasement, if there is any evidence Toynbee contributed to the latter. Paul B (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Paul's recommendations. Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Antony Beevor

The quote from Antony Beevor on Hitler's supposed refusal to provide his commanders with any flexibility or authorise retreats isn't really satisfactory by itself. While Beevor may believe this, other historians note that while Hitler was often inflexible once he'd made his mind up and meddled in topics in which he should have had no involvement, there's lots of examples of where he authorised retreats and allowed his commanders to use their discretion. The rapid abandonment of southern France after Operation Dragoon appears to disprove Beevor's assertion that "He would not allow any form of retreat", and Hitler also authorised the withdrawal from the Balkans in 1944 and areas of the USSR in 1943-44. Commanders were generally able to plan the tactical details of their operations without involvement from Hitler, and he seems to have allowed Dönitz and various other favoured senior officers to run their wars as they saw fit. More generally, Beevor's views reflect a rather old-fashioned take on Hitler as a military commander which other historians argue has its roots in the arguments put forward by some of the senior surviving German military commanders after the war in which they attempted to pin the entire blame for losing the war on the Nazis. Time allowing, I'll see if I can dig up some other references on this over the weekend, and will propose some alternate wording: while Hitler was clearly a lightweight as a military commander who made many disastrous decisions, it's not accurate to characterise him entirely as a bungler during the second half of the war. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a great idea, Nick. I've never been very comfortable with this wording either -- Diannaa (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

See also

Should some of them be removed or be a see also template below the header of the correlating section. The reason being is that there is a lot of space being lost everywhere I look on this article. Or should a nice template be made for the links in the see also section and add a few more to fill in the white space with the most relevant articles that help define who hitler was.—CKY2250 ταικ 01:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't personally see white space as a problem on this article. It's an okay layout in my opinion. See-also material is not normally placed in a template. Note there's already a large collection of navigation templates at the very bottom of the article. I have removed a few things from the see-also that are already linked in the body, and removed Vorbunker because we have already linked to Fuhrerbunker. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Mental Health

Why is there barely anything mentioned about Hitler's mental health condition? Numerous psychoanalysts, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have claimed that Hitler suffered from borderline personality disorder (BPD) and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) (both of these disorders are Cluster B Personality disorders and share traits with psychopathy - in fact, some researchers contend that BPD, NPD, and AsPD are all subtypes of psychopathy). He is also well known to have had addictions to amphetamines and barbiturates. Why is this not something that the "Health" section not go into more detail about? --DendroNaja (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to post your proposed edits and sources here for discussion. There's certainly room for a sentence or two on this topic, assuming quality reliable sources can be found. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy with other articles and in my day to day life as well, so I haven't been thinking of this matter here. I am going to gather all the names of the many psychoanalysts and psychiatrists that posthumously diagnosed Hitler with borderline personality disorder (BPD), a cluster B personality disorder and an Axis II disorder. Waite authored the book The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, which is considered to be one of the most, if not the most valuable psychobiographical study on Hitler. Waite, who conducted an exhaustive and extensive amount of research and consulted with numerous experts in personality pathologies and psychoanalysis, including experts like Erik Erikson, Norbert Bromberg, Lawrence Climo, Peter Loewenberg and a few others. Waite drew heavily on psychoanalytic theory in discussing psychosexual stages in Hitler's development, Hitler's Oedipus complex and the utilization of pathological defense mechanisms such as displacement and projection in Hitler's antisemitism. Waite really left no stone unturned and his research spanned years. After years of painstaking research, Waite concluded Hitler had BPD. The majority of the experts he consulted were clear and united in their belief that Hitler had BPD with features and traits of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), which is another cluster B personality disorder and an Axis II disorder. A few of the experts believed Hitler was co-morbid BPD/NPD. The two disorders are very similar and they are very difficult to differentiate sometimes. In the book, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Waite diagnosis Hitler with BPD, not psychopathy, which is what the article currently states. Psychopathy is not a diagnosable personality disorder, instead it is a type of personality which has aspects of all the cluster B disorders (NPD, BPD and AsPD). Some theorists and researchers believe that borderline personalities are "secondary psychopaths", while narcississts and sociopaths (a term used for those with antisocial personality disorder) are "primary psychopaths". The distinction has to do with the fact that people with BPD show emotions such as nervousness, fear, and anxiety while those with NPD and AsPD are cold and don't display emotion. Hitler was a every volatile person who displayed intense and dramatic emotions (anger, rage, anxiety, etc). There is another study that claims that BPD, NPD, and AsPD are just three subtypes of pscyhopathy, meaning that borderline personalities are psychopaths, just a different breed of psychopaths. Hitler was a borderline personality, and as a cluster B personality disorder, BPD has many traits that are psychopathic. The article already references the study that Waite did but his conclusion was BPD and not merely "psychopathy". --DendroNaja (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake. The article cites Walter Langer, not Robert G.L. Waite, as concluding that Hitler was a "neurotic psychopath". This comes from The Mind of Adolf Hitler, a book published in the early 1970's and is based on research done during the early 1940's when Hitler was still alive. This is not the best source because it is unreliable for obvious reasons. It is believed that Langer copied or was at least influenced by the earlier work of Henry Murray (Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler). Murray was a psychologist of high calibre and he was a well educated and highly intelligent man, but both of these studies were conducted during the war when psychology looked nothing like it does today. The evolution of psychology and perspectives on human behaviors and the understanding of mental disorders through advanced scientific research studies makes the works of both Langer and Murray unreliable. They both were educated well before the 1940's, in an era when the the understanding of psychology and mental illnesses was still very poor Great read on the history of psychology. Knowledge and understanding of personality disorders and psychopathy was also poor at the time. People who were extremely impulsive, suicidal, self-harming, aggressive, emotionally unstable, those whom were habitual criminals or those that engaged in deviant behaviors - people who today might be diagnosed BPD or AsPD, were invariably "schizophrenic" back then. Murray and Langer did not have any really detailed and accurate information of Hitler's upbringing nor did they have anything on the nature or status of all his interpersonal relationships (with any romantic relations, with Nazi leaders, close friends, acquaintances, family, etc). Information on Hitler was gathered through many sources, including informants. The sources Langer and Murray used are highly questionable by todays standards. This is why their works, although groundbreaking and useful, are not as reliable or accurate as Waite's. Anyone agree that Langer's "neurotic psychopath" conclusion should be replaced by Waite's "borderline personality disorder" based on the reasoning I have given? --DendroNaja (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
We could add a bit; the other doesn't have to come out, as BPD did not exist yet as a diagnosis when they did their work. There can and probably should be multiple points of view. Here's a proposed wording:

In his 1977 book The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, historian Robert G. L. Waite proposes that Hitler suffered from borderline personality disorder. Waite, Robert G. L. (1993) [1977]. The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler. New York: Da Capo Press. p. 356. ISBN 0-306-80514-6.

-- Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the suggested wording offered above by Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I have gone ahead with the addition, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa, this is really good. --DendroNaja (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wittgenstein

I believe paragraph 1 of section 2.2 of of the Ludwig Wittgenstein article, Jewish background and Hitler should be included in this article. That, or the section should be deleted from Wittgenstein's page.

I don't see that Wittgenstein's Jewish background has anything to do with the Hitler article, and I don't see why trivia such as who went to the same school as Hitler belongs here either. --Boson (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Boson. This looks like the story about the alleged meeting between Mussolini and Lenin in Switzerland before WWI... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree, it is too trivial to include here, please seek consensus, if possible, before re-adding it here. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the information from Wittgensteins's page than; as it's so trivial.

First, please don't forget to sign your postings herein. Second, whether it should or should not be included on the Wittgenstein bio page is up to the editors of that page. Kierzek (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Only a few writers have speculated that Wittgenstein and Hitler met, interacted, and made a lasting impression on each other (or just one on the other) while at the Realschule in Linz. As far as I know, not a single historian holds this view. Remember, they were two grades apart. Such speculation is un-encyclopedic and does not belong in either the Hitler or Wittgenstein article.89.204.135.125 (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hindenburg despised Hitler

Is this not worth mentioning?

The article of Paul von Hindenburg mentions it in the very beginning, Hindenburg is mentioned several times in this article (obviously) so it should also be noted that Hindenburg greatly disliked Hitler and called him the "Austrian Corporal" or "Bohemian Corporal" referring to the origin of Hitler and his rank in WW1. He was greatly reluctant to even appoint him:

"Until January 1933, Hindenburg often stated that he would never appoint Hitler as Chancellor under any circumstances. On 26 January 1933, Hindenburg privately told a group of his friends: "Gentlemen, I hope you will not hold me capable of appointing this Austrian corporal to be Reich Chancellor"."--Windows66 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people despised Hitler. Why single out Hindenberg? I think it gives his opinion undue weight. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler did have many opponents but Hindenburg was the one who appointed him as Chancellor and it should be noted of his own feelings towards Hitler just before he appointed him (even just four days before hand). Without Hindenburg, Hitler would never have came to power.--Windows66 (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible Monorchism

I recently read Norman Mailer's The Castle in the Forest, which contains references to Hitler's alleged monorchism (i.e. the condition of only having one testicle). I had heard about that rumor before and wanted to verify it on Wikipedia. A search for Hitler's testicle (my apologies, first idea that sprang to my mind) redirects to the 'health' section of this article, but it contains no specific information on that rumor apart from the very general 'Theories about Hitler's medical condition are difficult to prove'. However, I now found out that there's also a separate article on Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, which contains all the information I was looking for.

My first suggestion would therefore be to amend the 'health' section of this page with See also: Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism. If that is deemed inadequate, I would at least recommend that Hitler's testicle redirects to the article I am referring to. (92.205.98.71 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC))

The book given is just a fictional novel and is not a source to be used in reference to Hitler's possible monorchism. The rumour cannot be verified. There has been a long held debate regarding Hitler possibly only having one testicle, some view it as anti-Hitler Soviet propaganda and others regard it as the truth.--Windows66 (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It was a British joke in a marching song, which attributed testicular failings to all the main Nazi leaders, not just Adolf. It then became incorporated into Soviet belittling of Hitler after the war when an alleged "autopsy" of his body was released. Originally these redirects pointed to Hitler has only got one ball, which is about the song, but someone decided that the article on the song should not contain discussion of the 'truth', since it should just be about the song. Hence the creation of the 'monorchism' article, which originated as content from the song article. I think that's a silly decision to spin-off content personally. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, Hitler's testicle is now pointing in the right direction. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Poor on H. and his age

Hmm, saying that this article is imbued with a Great Man theory understanding of Hitler is almost an understatement. No, he is not described as a "great guy", but he's 99% sized up as a towering, dominant figure who shaped Germany in his image and cut through an inert and featureless contemorary world like a knife through warm butter. There's next to nothing about where he found his support, who bankrolled his early political campaigns before he took over (nothing about that in the article on his rise to power either) or about his preferred methods of ruling Germany. Everything's written down to a talent for terror tactics and scheming.

There's barely anything about how his political ideas, planning or strategies evolved, either. Everything is described as if Hitler's word was enough to make things happen - he would have been proud of that kind of eulogy himself, since this was how he styled it ("the Führer principle") but research over the last few decades has abundantly shown that realities were often a lot more fluid and contradictory. Hitler was well known for favoritism, for giving free reins to some persons on the inside of the power apparatus and allowing them to trump the moves of other bigwigs, and then changing his tack later on. Already A.J.P. Taylor described Hitler as a sometimes opportunistic leader who wiggled, coaxed and tried his way along to see how people would react and whom he should work with - and who more than often had two irons in the fire at the same time on a specific issue. 83.241.234.4 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was seriously inbred

Why is there no mention of this? His parents were cousins and his grandparents were both descended from Hitlers. He also had an affair with his niece. Pistolpierre (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As with your other comments on here, all claims need to be cited with reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source to support your claims, you are welcome to edit and add them. However, note that reliable sources should be as neutral as possible and from experts. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's family was not "seriously inbred" (as you call it), the problem lies within his paternal grandfather, if the legitimized Georg Hiedler is who we accept then his parents were first cousins once removed. This was quite normal for where he was born and his family had lived for centuries, lots of interbreeding occurred.

There is no definitive proof that Hitler had an affair with his half-niece, it would not have been an affair neither (he was single and met Eva Braun after the death of Geli), such sexual rumours and other things suggested have been dismissed as anti-Hitler propaganda by historians such as Ian Kershaw.

If you are able to prove that his family were seriously inbred and that he definitively had an affair with his niece then go for it.--Windows66 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

His grandparents were both descendants of Hitlers. Pistolpierre (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And Prince William's grandparents are both descendants of Queen Victoria. Your point is? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My point is that he was inbred. As for the aristocracy, everybody knows they have always been inbred. That is probably why so many kings were insane. As for Hitler being inbred, it was significant enough to be noted by William Shirer in the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Pistolpierre (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Lowballing the Holocaust

It is embarrassing that Wikipedia is using the figure of five and a half million instead of the universally accepted six million. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your use of the words embarrassing and universally seems weird. And what on earth is lowballing? Embarrassing to whom? And it's obviously not universal if there's a different figure here. But anyway, I see text saying "5.5 to six million Jews", with two sources. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48 - Lowball. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
? HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
We have been through all this before and the wording is backed up by the cited estimates of the WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, please check the archives instead of automatically creating a new section. Also, what is "lowballing"?--Windows66 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"lowballing" in this context = "underestimating". A sporting term, originally. Paul B (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that is what he/she meant with the key word being low, still a ridiculous thing he/she has claimed though anyways.--Windows66 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

How is not counting 500,000 Holocaust victims ridiculous? Pistolpierre (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop playing tit-for-tat with me, you have created two new sections basically on the same lines, why? If you have reliable evidence that stands up to the figure you are mentioning then please post it. The six million figure is not universally agreed please see here.--Windows66 (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Pistolpierre, see this link to the archived DRN discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. That goes all through the numbers and cited sources which led to the current numbers used. Not to mention archived talk sections of this page herein. Kierzek (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The article you cite says the consensus is six million. Pistolpierre (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. It says that's the traditional round figure used, and then it gives various estimates from different scholars that give a range of figures between 5 and 6 million. Paul B (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia is stressing the low estimate as opposed to using the traditional figure. The article on the Holocaust says six million, yet the Adolf Hitler article says five and a half million. This is odd. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Provide some sources to back up your so-called traditional figure and show they are cited.

The Holocaust article says these words:

approximately six million just under six million—around 78 percent of the 7.3 million Jews in occupied Europe at the time.

Since 1945, the most commonly cited figure for the total number of Jews killed has been six million.

The figure most commonly used is the six million attributed to Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official.

Yet the six million murder victims make the holocaust a unique crime in the history of mankind.

There has never been a complete agreement because different works give varied figures.

Hitler's article says at least 5.5 million Jews - what is the problem?--Windows66 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why should the Hitler article say 5.5 million when the Holocaust article says six million? Pistolpierre (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting the facts. It does not lead to helpful or productive discussion. The Holocaust article does not "say six million". It says that's the most "commonly cited" figure, not that it's the true figure. The article gives a detailed account of the several different estimates by various scholars (a spectrum from 5-6 million): quite properly, since that's the main article on the topic, so you would expect more detail. This is not an article on the holocaust, so you would not expect a detailed discussion of differing estimates. This article says "at least 5.5 million". Paul B (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You don't think it is strange to ignore the commonly cited figure in favor of a figure that could understate the amount of victims by 500,000? Pistolpierre (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
No, because accuracy is most desirable. Anyway, it could equally easily be said that six million is a "figure that could overstate the amount of victims by 500,000". If you have read the Holocaust article you should know what has now been repeated over and over - that scholars give a range of estimates between 5 and 6 million. So stop pretending that the figure is "universally accepted" as you falsely claimed in the opening of this thread. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You dismiss the figure of six million which is traditionally given in favor of a lower figure. Why do you think six million is the traditional figure?Pistolpierre (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
For freaking sake - the answer has been given to you over and over and over. Here's the link again The Holocaust#Victims and death toll. Stop just 'replying' for the sake of having the last word, without saying anything constructive. If you want to do it again, go ahead, but you will get no reply from me unless you bother to look at the sources for the range of estimates. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Pistolpierre please refrain from making personal attacks with words such as "you" implying certain people are denying a specific figure that you seem to so much think is universally accepted and agreed, well please take care and listen - the ranges for Jewish victims in the Holocaust range from 5 million to 6 million depending largely on who's work you rely on. Nobody is denying any figure given here and if you read the entire article you will see that the total toll of Jews that died range from 5 million to 6 million (i.e Hilberg claims 5.1 million). This is NOT a forum or soapbox but talk pages are rather to discuss ways of improving articles which you seem to not be doing but going into harassment and personal attacks by saying "you" and claiming people are disregarding numbers that are given which is not true at all.

So the question that remains - what are you wanting changing and what sources do you have to put forward as reliable evidence for the changes? Please provide in your next response all the citation sources you want to use and what you are wanting changed, go for it.--Windows66 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think Wikipedia should emphasize a lower figure when the six million figure is traditionally used? It seems stupid to argue with a high ranking Nazi who was in a position to know. This is not a personal attack. Pistolpierre (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I give up but I think it is depressing that all of the articles on major public figures of the 20th Century suck. Look at Franco, Mussolini, and Charles De Gaulle. I will refrain from Wikipedia going forward. Pistolpierre (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Instead of saying Hitler killed at least 5.5 million Jews, the article should say between 5.1 and 6.2 million. The 6.2 million figure is from the German Holocaust article. Pistolpierre (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are completely changing your objection without having the decency to admit it. This attitude just create an unwillingness to engage in straightforward debate, because you come across as, frankly, dishonest. Real conversation creates real discussion, and that is based on honesty. Paul B (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about by calling me dishonest. I believe the article should be accurate. Why shouldn't the highest estimate be included?Pistolpierre (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is being emphasized lower and the total number of victims is given a range as there is no exact agreement on the total number. Eichmann's figure is given in the article of the Holocaust.

The personal attack lies when you are saying "you" and are implying that people on this section of the talk page are denying the number given to Jewish victims of the Holocaust because they simply do not agree with what you are stating. I suggest you to read WP:PA.

You have said previously that there is a "universal agreement" on the total numbers of Jews that died during the Holocaust yet you are now given a range of numbers, please make your mind up. Also on the Holocaust German version you can see there is a discussion on the total numbers given and again Gerald Reitlinger 4.2 to 4.7 million is mentioned and Hilberg's 5.1 million is mentioned (so much for your implication that there is a "universal agreement" of 6 million).

What you have done throughout the whole two new sections you have created is done exactly what talk pages are NOT meant for. I and others have asked you to provide citation sources and when asked you then change the subject to another thing altogether.

Firstly, you said that there was a universal agreement of 6 million yet without the knowledge or on purpose have actually acknowledged that there is not an overall agreement but rather a range given so this debunks what your first claim was.

Secondly, you have implied that people on this talk page have emphasized and lowered the "traditional figure" yet none of us have done this.

Thirdly, you have went onto my talk page which can be seen here and have came to the conclusion because Hitler's family were closely related that he was a psychopath and a raving lunatic (again - personal opinions) and somehow think that your personal opinions are what should be added into articles when they are not relevant at all.

I looked at your talk page which for all users can be found here and it seems you have had trouble in the past due to your contribution on Wikipedia, you have previously been blocked and are constantly making unnecessary edits on articles.

This has to be drawn at a line instead of the tedious responses you are giving on here.

It is simple: provide evidence for your claims (excluding your source given previously - this has already been discussed why it cannot be used by another user) or stop replying.

I and others have been quite lenient with you so far but the responses you are given are not what talk pages are meant for, either in your next response provide sources and what you want changing (which I have already asked you to do but you ignored) or do not continue debating something that is lacking honesty and credibility.--Windows66 (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not dishonest and have no idea how you can say that. It is ridiculous that you think Hitler's being inbred is not relevant to the article. I have not made any personal attacks and you are wrong to keep saying this. The article would clearly be improved by all three of my suggestions. As for Hitler being a psychopath, the article already says that, so what are you talking about? I did not accuse anyone of lowering the traditional figure. I said Wikipedia is lowballing the true figure, I didn't blame anyone personally in this post. I don't see why you are bringing up past edits of mine when I have not made any. My suggested edits would improve this already bad article. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea how I can call you dishonest? Look at your talk page, people do not get blocked for no reason on Wikipedia, it is quite clear you cannot follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. Hitler's family is already mentioned in his early life and in the "Family" section there is a link to the article Hitler family, this clears it all up.

You indeed have made personal attacks within the last two sections you created:

i.e., "You dismiss the figure of six million which is traditionally given in favor of a lower figure" - you are making the claim that people are not believing the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. WP:PA - "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." or "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." - this would come under either of them.

The article would not be improved by any of your apparent recommended "changes" to the article that lack total evidence. There is a mention on the article directly under the Health section that an author labeled him a "neurotic psychopath", and?

You indeed did accuse people of dismissing the six million figure - "You dismiss the figure of six million which is traditionally given in favor of a lower figure".

I have mentioned your talk page because what is getting shown is your true colours and this has been noted several times throughout your talk page, you have a repetitive streak of going into talk pages and just replying without making anything worthwhile even reading or going to contribute towards the article that you are querying about. I have repeatedly asked (and so have others) that if you are wanting things changed then mention what you want changed and cite the sources (AGAIN: dismissing the source you gave before as this has already been explained why it cannot be used). Either start replying with citation sources and reasoning or stop using this as a forum WP:SOAP, talk pages are not meant to be for discussing personal opinions but rather improving articles which is something none of your posts have done (so far). None of your posts have really made sense neither, you have contradicted yourself several times i.e., you said that "six million" is the universally accepted figure yet you then gave a 'range' of numbers.

The chances of you getting anywhere is now very slim by calling this and other articles that do not fall into your category of how you want them to appear as "bad" or that they "suck", from you:

"I give up but I think it is depressing that all of the articles on major public figures of the 20th Century suck. Look at Franco, Mussolini, and Charles De Gaulle. I will refrain from Wikipedia going forward."

"My suggested edits would improve this already bad article.".--Windows66 (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You can keep saying I made personal attacks but that doesn't make it true. The article would clearly be improved if it gave the highest estimate for the Holocaust. You still have not shown how I am dishonest. I have made several edits in the past. You are talking about something that is not even relevant. I haven't made any edits to this article. I wasn't blocked on Wikipedia for being dishonest. Nobody with a brain has any respect for Wikipedia. It is a mess and the articles I mentioned do suck. Wikipedia says they suck. Now you are just lying. I do not have a habit of making random comments on talk pages. Maybe you should look at your own behavior. Calling people dishonest, accusing them of personal attacks, and now lying about things I haven't done. You don't understand that this article would be improved if it gave the highest estimate for the Holocaust. How can you say that doesn't make any sense? The article does not show that Hitler was inbred. What article are you reading?Pistolpierre (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But the thing is it is true and I have shown evidence at which qualifies for personal attacks. The article will not benefit from what you are whining on about. Your past edits are totally relevant, why should we listen to a user who is persistently harassing people via talk pages for the last word? My own behaviour can be found quite clearly in my contributions and you will see I do not harass, make personal attacks or pester people.

Can you please point me in the direction that Wikipedia states their OWN articles "suck"?

As far as your edit that you seem so keen on wanting to change then for the fiftieth time then please provide sources. You might also want to become aware that the 6.3 million figure on the German Wikipedia article has no source, can you provide any for 6.3 million? You have contradicted yourself totally by first claiming there is a "universal agreement" of six million as the 'traditional figure' and I and others are "lowballing this" and then finally you now want the range changed but fail to provide sources. Instead of begging for the last word either reply with sources or stop. This is becoming tedious and WP:DE.--Windows66 (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't need more than an "at least" figure anyway. Could I remind editors that this article is about Adolf Hitler, not the Holocaust directly. Britmax (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The article on the Holocaust says 6.2 million is the highest estimate. Why do you keep telling lies? I have never harassed anybody. My past edits are not irrelevant. I have not contradicted myself. The traditional figure needs to be reflected in the article. If the traditional figure is included in a range of estimates then Wikipedia will cease to be lowballing the Holocaust. You have been wrong about everything you said. First you claimed I was causing confrontation which is a ridiculous thing to say. Then you accused me of personal attacks. Then you called me dishonest. Then you lied about me posting random comments on talk pages. Then you said my proposed edits make no sense. Now you are lying about me harassing people. You don't think Wikipedia admits it sucks. You are wrong about everything. All this grief for suggesting Wikipedia should be accurate about the Holocaust. Wikipedia is pathetic.Pistolpierre (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ HansJuergen Koelhler/Rudolf Binion
  2. ^ Band of Brothers (TV miniseries), Episode 10
  3. ^ Schramm, PS, Hitler the man and military leader, Penguin 1972, p.104
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive_54&oldid=1142541530"