Jump to content

Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

Hitler did not halt the advance on Moscow in 1941

It's just another urban myth that has been debunked many times. (109.158.178.72 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Ah yes, yet another incredibly annoying urban myth. Time to Bury the hatchet, no doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked this sock Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A Central Figure of the Holocaust?

Can't we do better than calling him "a central figure of the Holocaust" in the lede? It makes it sound like there were other figures just as, if not more, central to the Final Solution. Granted, Hitler didn't pull the trigger or drop the Zyklon B. But he animated the whole bloody enterprise. Himmler, Heydrich and all the others were carrying out his vision. No Hitler, no Holocaust. Scaleshombre (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What you are not aware of is that this section of sentences went through much discussion and debate; this was written through consensus. Its all back in the archives (Archive 54, for one). And although I agree he was the center of the wheel on which all Nazism turned, including the Holocaust, the fact is that Himmler, the SS, Heydrich, Goebbels and some others where all a part of it; with Himmler being at the top of the list with Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"No Hitler, no holocaust". That's interesting. How do you know that? Britmax (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
That is an opinion, not a fact. Himmelfarb, Milton (March 1, 1984). "No Hitler, No Holocaust". Commentary Magazine. Retrieved December 6, 2016. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As Kierzek mentioned, this issue's already been hashed out, so there's no consensus for changing the wording. As a larger issue, though, Hitler is the Holocaust. Read histories on the Nazis. Scaleshombre (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Kierzek, after writing my above comment, I looked through Archive 54 and some later archives. I found discussion about Hitler's centrality to the Holocaust, but it seemed the consensus was to name him the central figure, as opposed to one of them. You were active in those discussions. What's your take? Thanks, Scaleshombre (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I took part and the one you were looking at in Archive 54 ended with "Hitler was at the center" which is not quite the same thing as "the" center. And that was superseded by further discussion later. I will look again as I know there was more and it all tied in to a discussion on the Holocaust numbers. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, see Archive 55 - "Hitler and the holocaust" and the request for comment (September 2013) and dispute resolution of March 2013. As Diannaa pointed out during the discussion, "Hitler made the overall policy, but other people directed and executed the genocide." It was a LONG process to reach the wording used. Kierzek (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's worth reminding ourselves of context: "As dictator of the German Reich, he initiated World War II in Europe .... and was a central figure of the Holocaust". ie we are discussing 'executive responsibility', not necessarily 'personal role'. I don't have a problem with present wording (or 'was central to'). I think the suggested rewording would open up 'a can of worms' about how much he personally was involved. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand what you're both saying about the long process that was needed to achieve consensus for the current wording. But we're talking about one of history's largest crimes. If more discussion is needed to home in on historical accuracy, isn't it worth it? Calling him "a" central figure in the Holocaust makes it sound as if Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels et al. met in committee where each had one vote on whether to pursue the Final Solution. That's the very antithesis of the Hitler State, where all major policies began (at least conceptually) with Hitler. Wouldn't it be more accurate for the lede to say something like "Hitler's racial policies culminated in the Holocaust"? Scaleshombre (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
No. Britmax (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, it would be good to have informed, substantive input on this.Scaleshombre (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Why? What's changed? Britmax (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
A semantic debate I think. A matter of emphasis. "A" or "The". I would agree Hitler was the pivot on which this merry go round twirled. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I also think that "the" is much more accurate. Hitler was the key figure in setting the conditions for and initiating the Holocaust, and was ultimately in charge of it. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Would "the central figure in the instigation of the Holocaust" work for others, or is there a better word than instigation? This is my attempt to say that his shaping of policies, his grip on the levers of power, his rhetoric etc make him central, rather than any 'operational' role. I personally don't like 'the' in existing text, not because I want to 'special plead' the guy, but this is a subject where even a hint of hyperbole weakens the case IMO. Q. Was he the main reason it happened? A. Absolutely Q. How much was he involved in implementation? A. Near zilch traceably, he kept a fastidious distance from it. Pincrete (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not correct to say that Hitler merely "instigated" the Holocaust, not least as it was a process which changed over time. Hitler made high level decisions on many key operational issues throughout the Holocaust, and directed the intensification of violence towards the Jews. For instance, he ordered mass executions in Poland in 1939-40 and approved the commencement of the Holocaust in France in late 1942. He was also frequently briefed on what occurred. See [1] for instance. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't happy with the word 'instigate' myself, but was unable to find a better.
How about "and was central to the Holocaust". This avoids any 'a/the central figure' quibbling and does not attempt to characterise his role as either policy maker or active implementer, he was pivotal, that much is certain.
I noticed in the previous DRN discussion, several editors supporting "was at the center of", my suggestion is even terser and avoids any uncomfortable resonances of "well actually millions of unfortunate Jews, Roma etc were 'at the center' of the Holocaust". I note that we cover his role in WWII very minimally in the lead, "he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland". I'm looking for a similarly succinct phrasing, because we are never going to find one sentence that adequately summarises both the scale and nuances of his role without either sliding towards hyperbole, or, conversely, minimalising his responsibilty. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I could agree to ..."and was central to the Holocaust"; @Diannaa: Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
How about "and was central to the implementation of the Holocaust" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
My reaction to 'implementation' is that it goes into his role unnecessarily. Simply saying he was pivotal was my intention. Pincrete (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. I would also be okay with Kierzek's wording "and was central to the Holocaust" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
What about something like "and was the prime mover behind the Holocaust"? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I haven't heard back on the "prime mover" suggestion in several weeks. I'm going to be bold and change the lede. If someone has ideas for better phrasing, please weigh in. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Scaleshombre, to me the suggestion is imprecise and fairly informal English and still has all the a/the problems of the previous wording. My own logic was that it is essential to mention the Holocaust in the lead and essential to say that he was certainly 'central' (whatever his precise roles were in creating or implementing the various policies at various stages, which is dealt with quite well in the body IMO), but the more succinct and 'unquestionable' the lead was, the better. Pincrete (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
"Prime mover" is too informal and somewhat vague. Nothing, so far, has shown to be better than what is presently there. Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Specific Occupation

Should Hitler be classified as an author and military related figure (whatever title may apply), along with his current status as a politician in the article? Just figuring because he wrote Mein Kampf and was in the military, I'm wondering if that should be added. Mein Kampf Military Career of Adolf Hitler J4l0rz (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC) J4l0rz

You want to add Category:German-language writers? He's already at Category:20th-century German writers, Category:German political writers, and Category:Political writers who committed suicide? And he's at Category:German military leaders of World War II. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

I would like to change the cause of death by adding "ballistic trauma" after suicide. He committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. Gunshot wounds are called "ballistic trauma" Edisonk (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessarily abstruse? "Suicide (gunshot to head)" might be acceptable, but I think this parameter is meant to be a summary. Infobox person just says "Should be clearly defined and sourced." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The article is written in UK English, 'ballistic trauma' would never be used in UK. Pincrete (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it is not needed for the reasons stated above; given we write for general readers and students. Kierzek (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Alexb102072: and @Maurice Smith:, while your enthusiasm is commendable, there appears to be a consensus among other editors that these edits aren't actually improving the article. In particular, you are adding unnecessary links (please see WP:OVERLINKING for advice on links to avoid) and changing text to be unnecessarily wordy. Please discuss any further such proposed changes here rather than try to repeatedly insert them - this is considered edit warring, and will lead to you being blocked if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Alexb102072:, you are also changing grammatical text to ungrammatical text (e.g., confusion between 'which' and 'that'). Please slow down. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I have used the rollback feature which can be used to prevent the disruption of an article. I would echo the concerns of Nick and SBHB above, and would urge the colleague(s) who have been pinged to start dialogue. This can easily be resolved I am sure. Irondome (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
There are actually quite a number of duplicated links, I've just removed a few, but left others where the link might be useful in context (eg where the duplication was distant from first use). Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Should countries be linked? If so, which ones? I had thought that User:Alexb102072 might have a view on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Where political or geographical definition has changed (eg Austria-Hung, German Empire etc.), or where the term is not one fairly universally understood (Balkans?), I would say yes, otherwise I would say no. Anyone reading this article probably has a good idea where France or Britain are! I'm not sure where the 'cut-off' point should be, but see no harm in a single link if we are in doubt. On my quick (partial) clean-up the majority of 'seemingly-country' links were actually to 'invasion of' articles, which obviously should be linked to.Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
As far as what to link, as a general rule of thumb, things which should be linked are done so, once in the lede (if mentioned there) and once in the body at first appearance. Common words do not need to be linked. @Diannaa: knows the nuances better than myself. Kierzek (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Easter eggs for Hitler
We don't link to common geographical terms any more; everybody knows where London is. Running the script suggests un-linking German language, May Day, and Middle East. Normally I link once in the lead and once in the body, plus on first usage in the info box and first usage in any image captions. So any given term might have potentially 4 valid links. As to repeated linking, I might wikilink a second time in the body to a little-known term or person in a really big article. I also try to avoid easter-egg links; they should as much as possible be WYSIWYG. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No one likes Easter eggs, do they. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
♫Springtime for Hitler and Germany♫ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Is Middle East universally understood? In Australia for example where Far/Near/Middle and Easterliness aren't quite the same. Unfortunately, in this instance the linked article itself isn't very clear about where it itself is (I know the feeling!). Pincrete (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Australians use "middle east" regularly. Far/Near East aren't used, and I didn't think that they were common in other areas any more? (due to the rather racist/colonialist undertones in which what's actually the centre of humanity is portrayed as somehow being distant). Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Orla Guerin is still BBC's "Middle East Correspondent" as far as I know. But "Near East" and "Far East" have certainly fallen out of fashion, e.g. Justin Rowlatt is the South Asia correspondent and Soutik Biswas is the India correspondent. But both geography and political correctness were very different pre-1945? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually I don't think 'Near East' and 'Far East' ever were as widely used as 'Middle', but I assumed they necessarily came as a trio, in order to make even limited sense. I must remember to clear out the shellac records and take down the Mafeking bunting in the New Year. Pincrete (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any objection to the inclusion of the image of Hitler as a child at school?--Maurice Smith (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Kierzek, the source for my edit is Mark Mazower's Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe, but unfortunately Google books does not display the page number on this book. The book itself covers that Forster ignored SS racial experts when it came to the Germanization of Poles ("Ignoring the SS racial experts, he kept settlers away and swelled the List with huge numbers of mixed class 3s.") and that he mocked Himmler's obsession with race and commented that "If I looked like Himmler, I would not talk so much about race." Forster simply forced Poles to become Germans and Germanized many small cities or towns either by the majority or completely. Greiser's policies were far more in check with Himmler's ideas. Himmler was only interested in Poles with a Nordic appearance. Himmler was also hell-bent on creating a blonde province in occupied Poland to prevent any Mongol types developing in the East. Mazower also mentions that one of the reasons Hitler allowed Himmler and Forster to define "Germanness" in their own way was because he knew that racially speaking there was no single category of Slavs, Hitler believed that many Ukrainians were also of German descent, referring to the German tribes who had settled there centuries before hand and noted this when commenting on the many blue-eyed Ukrainians he came across.--Maurice Smith (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
You did not cite it to that work and struck it into the middle of the prior Kershaw cited text; that is not acceptable. Kierzek (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I know, my apologises. I added the book in the book references and was trying to find a way to somehow get the page numbers. Does anybody own this book?--Maurice Smith (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I do. The material on Albert Forster is on page 197, but states that he didn't actually allow Poles to volunteer to become German if they wished, but forced them to do so based, in part, on some kind of belief that they were almost Germans already. On page 198 it's stated that Hitler wasn't very interested when Himmler complained about this, and Nazi "racial specialists" endorsed Forster's belief. I think that this is all much too detailed for an article covering Hitler. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not proposing for there to be any lengthy explanation addition into the article of the two very different approaches of Germanization by Forster and Greiser, rather, an inclusion that Forster's ideas were also against Himmler's and SS racial experts, it was totally in opposition to some of Nazism's central ideas. Mazower's book states that some little towns and cities were fully Germanized and that Forster believed people like the Kashubians were not ethnically Polish. According to Forster, any Pole who spoke a reasonable amount of German and had no anti-Nazi feeling were eligible for Germanization.--Maurice Smith (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is this relevant to a biography of Hitler? Moreover, Mazower does not state that Forster's actions were "totally in opposition to some of Nazism's central ideas" or similar - the point seem to be that he was following the same crackpot racial ideology as other senior Nazis, just in a different way (hence his endorsement by "racial specialists" and Hitler's lack of concern). Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Because the Germanization of the east and the necessity of gaining living space there for Germans were two very central ideas that Hitler firmly believed in. Mazower states that Forster's Germanization attempts were completely the opposite of what the Nazis fundamentally wanted to achieve in the east, none of the more prominent Nazis such as Hitler and Himmler believed that non-Germanic people could be Germanized. Moreover, Hitler refraining from getting involved proves nothing, he did this lots of times and enjoyed hearing about people quarreling. Hitler's policies of Germanization were constantly in flux, in Mein Kampf he speaks out about the previous Germanization of the Poles and warns that such a policy would only bring about a racial decline of the German nation yet in the Table Talks he speaks positively about Czechs with Nordic features, Ukrainians he claimed to be of peasant German tribes from centuries ago, etc. The Nazis policies towards the Slavs and when it came to the Germanization process in the east was constantly in doubt and open to interpretation and quite often left for a certain individual to just do some guess work and decide for themselves, it was very similar when it came to the definition of a Jew under the Third Reich. Currently the article states "In Forster's area, ethnic Poles merely had to sign forms stating that they had German blood." but his criteria for Germanization also involved other things e.g having no hostility towards the Third Reich. Also, Greiser pursued exploitation of the Poles not just simply an ethnic cleansing policy, some Poles were treated better than others. I also don't appreciate your 'reason' for the revert you gave, many could take that as a personal insult which is not allowed.--Maurice Smith (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Long running edit warring concerning an issue under discussion is highly uncivil to your colleagues here: if you don't want to be called on it, please stop it. Mazower's book does not support those claims: he actually says that Greiser and Forster's different policies were "equally national socialist" (see page 198). Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This episode of Greiser and Forster has been added to the Himmler article I see, where it is more relevant, but frankly any expansion here would carry WP:Undue weight when it comes to Hitler. Especially in light of Nick-D's findings above. Kierzek (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Physical appearance

  • "Adolf Hitler measured 5 feet 8 inches tall." Reference.com
  • "A square moustache and forelock of black hair where his trademarks." The War Aims and Strategies of Adolf Hitler, p.8
  • "...weight gain in 1943." Adolf Hitler: A Biography, Health and Sexuality, p.1

88001a (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting additions or changes to this article? I think you'll need to present better sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

Add two new categories into Adolf Hitler. 2601:583:C205:19D0:8F1:DED4:DF3D:FE8B (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Which? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

I believe the Nazi unemployment facts aren't detailed enough and would like to add details to them Danielm2002 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This information would be better off in a history of Germany or the Third Reich rather than a biography of Hitler. Britmax (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in article

Hitler actually ordered nightly bombing raids on Britain in early September 1940, not the end of October 1940. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:11D1:D119:5891:E1C (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC))

What's your source for that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Suicide

Suicide is not a cause of death.It is a manner of death. Tilak441 (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Have attempted an adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

64.58.253.98 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Blitz

HarveyCarter sockpuppet account blocked Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Blitz began on 7 September 1940, not the end of October: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/did-a-nazi-bomb-land-near-your-house-during-the-blitz/ (Sideboard1 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC))

Could you kindly stop edit warring, by adding on your personal view of things, in this Good Article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
All sources online say the Blitz began on 7 September 1940. (Sideboard1 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC))
So you've actually checked "all online sources" for that claim? Where is your source for Hitler ordering, in early September, nightly air raids on British cities, including London, Plymouth and Coventry? The current article text is supported by pages 563, 569 and 570 from Ian Kershaw's 1999 Hitler: 1889–1936: Hubris ... are you saying he's wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Kershaw was wrong about many things. Hitler gave a speech on 4 September where he said he would bomb London every night in revenge for the RAF attacks on Berlin in late August. The nightly raids on London began on 7 September 1940. Here is a source on the speech he gave: http://ww2today.com/4th-september-1940-hitler-declares-that-he-will-hit-back (Sideboard1 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC))
I will check it when I get home, if no one else does first. Have to look at the context presented. So, "Kershaw was wrong about many things"; thanks, I needed a good laugh today at work. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Kershaw wrote it was a mistake for Germany and Italy to declare war on the United States when in reality the US had dropped its neutrality in March 1941. Many of his other statements have been challenged by other historians. (Sideboard1 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC))
So what did Hitler say about Plymouth and Coventry on 4 September? Perhaps you have a verbatim quote, on German, that Kershaw has foolishly mistranslated? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
He ordered the bombing of London on 5 September 1940. (Sideboard1 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC))
Again, could you kindly stop edit warring, by adding your personal view of things, against consensus, and piling up unformatted references, in this Good Article, before consensus has been established here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not my personal view. The nightly bombing raids on British cities began on 7 September 1940. (Sideboard1 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC))
It's your personal view of what should be in this article. That single fact, with "all online sources" in support, does not invalidate the text currently included, which is itself supported by a perfectly good and well-respected reliable source. If you have a bee in your bonnet about when the bombing began in London, please take it elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Harvey who? What a complete surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hitler didn't die in 1945

Note the use of Argentine tinfoil - particularly strong and durable

https://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler http://yournewswire.com/fbi-hitler-didnt-die-fled-to-argentina-stunning-admission/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amydempster18 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The first link says "FBI Files indicate that the Bureau investigated some of the rumors of Hitler’s survival," but does not say that he actually did survive. The second link is a Fake news website, and in no way reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm shocked at this information! Is Elvis there too? Kierzek (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but was the body a body double of Hitler's or the so called Hitler that lived WWII a body double of Hitler's!? I smell a Conspiracy theory! Arthurboyz1 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a sentence

The article currently states "By 1933 the Nazi Party was the largest elected party in the German Reichstag, which led to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933."

This strictly is not true. Hitler was not appointed Chancellor simply because the Nazis were the largest party. Could this sentence not be better worded?--Donald Ivanov (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It says it was a factor (which is obviously true), not the sole cause. You've inferred a "simply because" that isn't there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It says "which led" which is simply not true. Hindenburg did not appoint Hitler as Chancellor because of Hitler and the Nazis popularity.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The sentence does imply a causal relationship IMO, though I'm not sure how to fix that. The body does give the fuller picture. BTW, 'largest elected party' implies there were UN-elected parties at the time. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of Jewish ancestry prior to Frank's statement in his memoirs

The article currently undermines and ignores the fact that prior to Frank's statement in his memoirs that opponents of Hitler had been accusing him of having Jewish ancestry since the 1920s.

The third possibility is that Adolf Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Rumours to that effect circulated in Munich cafes in the early 1920s, and were fostered by sensationalist journalism of the foreign press during the 1930s. It was suggested that the name `Huttler' was Jewish, `revealed' that he could be traced to a Jewish family called Hitler in Bucharest, and even claimed that his father had been sired by Baron Rothschild, in whose house in Vienna his grandmother had allegedly spent some time as a servant. But the most serious speculation about Hitler's supposed Jewish background has occurred since the Second World War, and is directly traceable to the memoirs of the leading Nazi lawyer and Governor General of Poland, Hans Frank, dictated in his Nuremberg cell while awaiting the hangman.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kershaw-hitler.html

Could the paragraph about Frank not be simplified whilst including something regarding all of the various different rumours that were spread about Hitler's alleged Jewish ancestry?--Donald Ivanov (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Rumors about who his grandfather was and this family background are covered enough. The size of this article is still over the recommended word limit (bytes) and there is no reason to add more trivia. No reason to add a lot of speculation and rumors which have not been found to be true and as your linked article states, "...simply does not stand up". Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to add anymore words, but on the contrary, reduce the amount of words by reducing the emphasis of Frank's statement and instead cut that one short and instead add that various different theories have been put forward but none of have been proved and historians such as Kershaw say that whoever his paternal grandfather was, it was not the Jew from Graz that Frank claimed since Jews had been expelled until the 1860s. Historians do not "dimiss" that Alois's father was Jewish (which is what the article currently states), but they have refuted the Graz thesis which was put forward by Frank. Hitler's paternal grandfather remains unknown so it's impossible to say for certain who his grandfather was.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
How about shortening the current wording to something along these lines:

Rumours suggesting that Hitler's paternal grandfather was Jewish have existed since the 1920s and include various different theories. The most serious of the allegations comes from Nazi official Hans Frank who wrote whilst awaiting execution at Nuremberg in his memoirs that when Maria Schicklgruber gave birth to Alois she was working for a Jewish family named Frankenberger as a household cook in the town of Graz, and that her child might have been conceived out of wedlock with the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold Frankenberger. Historians such as Ian Kershaw and Brigitte Hamann dismiss Frank's thesis, pointing out that there is no evidence of a Frankenberger family living in Graz at that time, the various inaccuracies in Frank's account and also that all Jews had been expelled from Styria (which includes Graz) in the 15th century and were not allowed to return until the 1860s, several decades after Alois was born.

(I would add the various sources if this were to be allowed to replace what is currently in the article.)--Donald Ivanov (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The article currently devotes 62 words to this subject and your proposed amendment would increase this to 152 words. We are already 1,700 words over the suggested 10,000-word suggested page size, so I don't think we have room to expand this paragraph. Historians dismiss Frank's suggestion, and we already have extensive coverage of this topic at Hans Frank. Therefore my opinion is no, we should not add any more material on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't count word for word but was only giving a rough example of what I meant by including all the various different allegations regarding Jewish ancestry. Why is the article only focusing on Frank's thesis and ignoring all the rest? If one were to look at the German Wikipedia article of Hitler then one would read a lot more information regarding his background and the various different allegations. Granted, it is the German version but it could be something to go off. The article at present seems to only tell the reader that one allegation was put forward about Hitler's ancestry after his death when in fact since the 1920s when he became a known figure, various different allegations about his family tree and ancestry were spread. Hitler himself ordered genealogists to publish his family tree to clear up any rumours. Regarding the limit for words, could other parts of the article not possibly be shortened? Then again, looking at the German article it seems to be even longer than the English.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ceremony honouring the dead (Totenehrung) ?

The photo isn't hugely interesting or 'typical' IMO, but the fact that it was initially propaganda is irrelevant, 90% of available photos would initially have been 'official' and it is impossible to separate Nazi photos from their initial propagandist purpose and why would we want to? Much of Nazi culture WAS propagandist. Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The picture is a primary source and Wikipedia uses mostly secondary sources. One needs some knowledge to understand the picture and plenty of readers wouldn't because billions of people don't understand what is Nazi propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictures aren't sources at all, they are pictures, and there is no such thing as picture that is a secondary source. And that something is Nazi propaganda is irrelevant to WP ... we don't protect readers from such things. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So you mean "We manipulate the readers."
KZ picture is allegedly too shocking but Nazi propaganda O.K. - I don't aggree.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No, of course that's not what I mean, and you know it. If you want anyone else to care what you say, then you need to act in good faith. 68.111.35.169 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Pincrete; someone could object or find something wrong with almost any picture suggested. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Because something is complicated doesn't mean we should accept cheap stereotypes.Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No one said anything about "complicated" or accepting "cheap stereotypes"; "cheap stereotypes" aren't the subject at all. Please don't attack strawmen. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with primery sources is that they are "complicated", one need to read several boring books to understand them. This picture says: I'm a Nazi propaganda piece, I want you to love our Great leader and our Big Nation, our hatred, our prejudices. Nazi Germany had many faces: KZs, mass shootings, robbery, advanced technology and manipulation. This picture shows idealized image, whic I called "cheap sterotypes". Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the photo is a good example of the type of image created by the Reich and the huge crowd at the rally demonstrates the popularity of the regime. Speer designed the rally grounds, and he is mentioned in the accompanying prose. My opinion: Keep. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is about Adolf Hitler, not about Speer nor hundred other subjects. The text should mention also 20 million Nazi victims, I'm afraid there is no place for pictures of them. Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa, the photo is a typical photo of the time and conveys that point in time in Germany. As for "primary sources", first they are not forbidden in use and second, this is a photo not a cited source, such as a book used; so apples and oranges. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Likewise. No objection for that image to be also used at Albert Speer, except that that article is pretty well illustrated with good images already. Seems rather disingenuous to argue that only images of Hitler himself should be allowed in this article. And the comparison with 20 million Nazi victims really does not stand any scrutiny. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Endorse points made by Diannaa, Kierzek and Martinevans, however the real question is Nick-D's, namely what do you suggest as a replacement? Given that the subject at that point is 'Economy and culture'. Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Does the article mention this ceremony as Nazi propoganda? I can't find a referenced sentence in the article explaining the ceremony. It seems to have some sort of Nazi cultic implications. I believe photos should be referenced and explained in the text of the article. To me, it is a photo, but it should be explained to the modern reader. Was this to honor the WWI dead soldiers or something else ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The picture is being used in 9 pages, apparently too much times.
Nuremberg Rally contains a better explanation.
Totenehrung is neutral, honoring of the dead. But here not all dead people are honored, I don't have a source which ones, probably mostly the Beer Hall Putsch Nazi vicitims.
Hitler is in the picture, but very small.Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Austrian-born" emphasis again

A recent edit which has been reverted attempted to add into the article "Austrian-born" again. Is there a specific reason that this is regularly attempted to be added into the article? The article points out quite clearly that Hitler was born in Austria in the second paragraph and that he only became a German citizen in 1932 is mentioned in the article as well.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This has gone round in circles during the time that i have watched this article. The name of country born nationality formula is very concise where a simple story is being told (Hitchcock? T.S. Eliot?). In the case of AH, Austria, as we know it, did not exist at the time, therefore text and links have to reflect what did exist if they are to present the fuller picture. That, as I recall it, is the logic behind moving 'born in Austria' to para 2, leaving para 1 solely for why he is known. I think it is probably a good compromise. Pincrete (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree Pincrete and what is presented Ivanov is the current consensus as to a matter that has been thoroughly discussed. Kierzek (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok people have a misunderstanding that he was a German. He was not a German. He was Austrian, who got German citizenship. This should be noted by calling him what he was, he was not German. He was an Austrian-born German politican. Just calling him incorrectly German gives the incorrect implication that he was German. Even atlases mistakenly make statements such as " German soil gave birth to a Mozart and a Hitler." Wrong, Hitler was Austrian NOT German. That he obtained German citizenship later doesn't make him German. I was just trying to clarify the facts. I know it says he was born in Austria in the second paragraph. I just think it should be noted he was an Austrian NOT a German, although he did gain German citizenship. NapoleonX (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

NapoleonX, in the context of WP, a person's nationality is principally the nationality when they became 'known', rather than at birth (ie T S Eliot is a British poet, born American, Harry Houdini a Hungarian born American). Though we would never wish to ignore 'born' nationality, it doesn't take 'pole position'. In the case of AH, various formulations have been tried. An additional complication in this case is that 'Austria' did not exist at the time of his birth, except as half of the 'dual monarchy'. Personally I think no one wishes to hide his place of birth, nor that he needed to acquire German citizenship and was not born entitled to it, it is simply a case of recording all this in an efficient, accurate and complete fashion. The logic of moving 'Austrian' to para 2 is that it leaves para 1 open to concentrate on what AH is best known for, ie as the leader of Nazi Germany. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
For example, Bob Hope, Charlie Chaplin, Stan Laurel, Harry Houdini, Alfred Hitchcock, Walter Huston, and Mary Pickford were all Americans, but none of them was born in the U.S. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User:68.111.35.169, actually Chaplin remained British all his life, Hitchcock is an example of someone who was famous in both his nationalities, don't know about the others, but the important thing is that we inform, rather than 'own/disown' anyone. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I got those names from a list of famous Americans who weren't born in the U.S. If not all belong on such a list, there are numerous others who do. The important thing has nothing to do with owning/disowning anyone, but rather that it is erroneous to equate nationality with place of birth as NapoleonX did, and my examples were meant to illustrate this. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree.Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for addressing my views in a respectful and informative matter. I appreciate that. I understand why Adolf Hitler's birth is addressed the way it is. NapoleonX (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"equate nationality with place of birth"

I would equate nationality with the state of birth and the citizenship of the parents, not necessarily the place of birth.:

  • Olivia de Havilland was born in Tokyo, but has never held Japanese citizenship. Her father was a British professor who, at the time of her birth, served as a faculty member in the University of Tokyo.
  • J. R. R. Tolkien was born in Bloemfontein which was at the time part of the Orange Free State, a Boer republic. His parents were British, and his father worked at the local office of a British bank. Tolkien left the Orange Free State when 3-years-old, never gained citizenship in any African state, and served his military service as a junior officer in the British Army.
  • George Gaynes was born in Helsinki, Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire. His father was Dutch and his mother Russian. He never gained either Finnish or Russian citizenship, was raised in at least three different European countries, and spend his military service as a naval officer in both the Dutch and British navies.
  • René Goscinny only ever held French citizenship and was born in Paris. But his parents were both Polish Jews, he was mostly raised in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and spend a few years as an immigrant in New York City, United States. He was even considered eligible for getting drafted to the United States Military and chose instead to volunteer for the French Army.

As for Charlie Chaplin, he was officially banned from re-entering the United States in 1952. The decision belonged to United States Attorney General James P. McGranery. Between 1952 and 1955, Chaplin sold all his property which remained on American soil. His wife renounced her American citizenship and took British citizenship. He finally entered the United States again for a brief visit in 1972. Otherwise he spend the final 25 years of his life in Europe. Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler is not German

"supposedly german born" Adolf Hitler is actually An Austrian and is also a Hypocrite because he wanted everyone to have blond hair blue eyes but what did he have? Black hair, brown eyes plus he was also half Jewish he came to germany with a sudden hatred for jews when german citizens went in to debt but the jews were doing fine because in those day Jews were rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedstoneTinkerer (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:V, and try actually reading an article before commenting on it. The article does not say that he was born in Germany or even supposedly born in Germany. Hitler was not half Jewish, you've confused one of his parents with an unsubstantiated claim that Hitler's paternal grandfather might have possibly been Jewish (that is rejected by modern historians). Your claims regarding Jews sound like Nazi propaganda. Would you like to be blocked as a troll? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The article makes no claim that Hitler was German-born but that he was a German politician, which of course, he was. Whether or not Hitler was German would depend on the definition of "German" used. Germans as an ethnic group existed long before the unification of Germany as a nation-state in 1871. Hitler was not born in Germany and he never claimed to be, on the contrary, he used his Austrian birth to reinforce his German identity in advocating the pan-German concept of a Greater Germany which would include his birth country Austria (as well as other territories). Hitler was an ethnic German born in an Austrian town that had been part of Germany until 1866 when Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 which ultimately excluded Austria and the Austrian Germans from Germany and the Prussian-dominated German Empire. The German-speaking Austrian inhabitants of the Austro-Hungarian empire considered themselves to be Germans. After the collapse of the empire, Austria was officially called the Republic of German-Austria but the victors of WWI forbid the union between Austria and Germany. The concept of an Anschluss was well established before the Nazis came to prominence in Germany. In 1938, Austrian-born Hitler annexed his birth country Austria with the approval of the majority of the Austrian people. An Austrian identity separate from German only came about after WWII. Hitler did not want everyone to have blonde hair and blue eyes and he actually had brown hair and blue eyes. He was not half Jewish, there are persistent rumours that his paternal grandfather was Jewish but there is no substantial evidence to support this claim and Hans Frank's thesis has been thoroughly debunked by modern historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.130.223 (talk • contribs)

Please do use the talk section for the aim of improving the article rather than just posting utter hogwash.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

Er, I found out some more information, so I er, would like to edit and put it in here myself? Thank you. 123kdkd12 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't be coy; tell us what ya got. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Dictator'

I find that Wikipedia has inconsistency with the use of this term. It is used in the first paragraph of this article yet in the articles of living dictators who called themselves prime ministers, it is not used; for example, Prayut Chan-o-cha, the current dictator(2014-2017) of Thailand. For a dedicated soul it would do Wikipedia good to use this term consistently throughout the website. Either these people all were/are dictators based on a certain criteria or they aren't at all. NaturalEquality (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The criteria is the description used in reliable sources. If you can find and quote such a source that would help your argument for inclusion. Then you could make your case on the talk page of that article.Britmax (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this is a Tu quoque and metaphor fallacy. So what? Der furhrer is a prime example and the very definition of dictator. Comparison to other articles uis irrelevant to this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hitler commited suicide on Walpurgis Night April 30

Every April 30 is known in Germany and some neighboring countries as Walpurgis Night and according to History Channel's Hitler and the Occult, this festival has a connection to reincarnation. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:81EC:7A23:F060:3FE (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Indiana Jones Channel is not a reliable source. We use professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not sensationalist networks. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
History Channel did have a good discussion of this subject in 2002, with interviews from George Mosse and others. However, in recent years they have become increasingly sensationalist and are now regarded as a joke. The timing of Hitlers suicide had more to do with the military situation in the Battle of Berlin and the encroachment of the Red Army on his bunker. The fact that it was on Walpurgisnacht is just coincidence.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Bellerophon5685. The Soviet Army was literally just down the street and that's what determined the timing of the suicide. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)
Ah, but were there DARK FORCES driving the Soviets down the street? The perfect confluence of her-night, with their day? Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
About 13:00 in the afternoon, is not any night at all is it... but a fitting end to that 33-hour honeymoon? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Its apophenia - seeing meaning in random data. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you can fit the number 23 into it. The Illuminati were founded on May 1, 1776, May 1, 1933 the first Humanist Manifesto was published, as was the first issue of the Catholic Worker; on April 30, 1966 the Church of Satan was founded; May 1, 2011 Osama bin Laden died (US time). Synchronicity, Coincidence, what ever.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, 1 in 365.25 aren't really very big odds, are they? Even so, I've now cancelled by subscription, just to be on the safe side. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think [ this] is the documentary that OP is referring to, if anyone wishes to investigate further.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellerophon5685 (talk • contribs)

I think that link violates WP:COPYVIOEL, which is why I've removed it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Ahah! The Illuminati is trying to censor the truth ;)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a sentence

The article currently states "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime." referenced with the source David Welch's Hitler: Profile of a Dictator on page 2. Has anyone actually bothered to read the page? It does not say that, it states "The word most commonly associated with Hitler is "evil" and commentators have been quick to emphasize his role and personal responsibility for the undeniable crimes committed by the Nazi regime." and then goes on to say that it's simply a moral judgement to describe Hitler as "evil" and explains nothing.

Does this sentence even need to be included in the article? If so, another source should be used because Welch's book does not state what is currently in the article.--79.70.129.151 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking. I think you should correct it while consensus develops on how to deal with it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
While Welch goes on to state that he does not agree with making moral judgements, the source does back up the statement that many historians have described Hitler as evil. We could add additional citations if that would help. For instance Shirer calls Hitler evil on page 5 ("undoubted, if evil, genius") and 1081 ("By now the generals knew the evil of the man before whom they groveled"). I am sure I could find some more if that's the way people want to go. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
You know, I am not sure we really need this sentence, even though it is undoubtedly true and citeable. The rest of the article (or even the rest of the paragraph) makes it quite clear that Hitler was "evil." Affirming that historians used the specific word doesn't add much. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. As modern historians and political scientists generally avoid terms like 'evil' (as such language is seen to be an easy way out, instead of seeking to explain events), I'm sceptical about the accuracy and relevance of the statement. It sounds like the source also makes this point (thanks a lot to the IP editor for checking the reference), so it should be removed from the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Ummm. Deep waters. Evil. Kershaw appears to accept the premise that Hitler was "evil" [[2]] although he qualifies it as a problematic term in historical usage. I think there is material for improving the article here. Maybe we can turn this to the readers advantage, with a short section dealing with past and contemporary historical viewpoints, instead of a disputed, throwaway sentence. It is an issue which some readers may find the article is not addressing adequately. At this point I am minded to keep, although ideally replace the sentence with a section with more meat. There is some material in the article we can trim, to make room for a short section. In many ways the problem of "evil" is the major factor for the enduring fascination that Hitler has. It says as much about us as it does about Hitler. I think it should be addressed somehow. Irondome (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Diannaa, Welch doesn't really say that. He says that Hitler is commonly referred to as "evil", not the Nazi regime. Although Hitler was the leader of the Nazi regime, the two are not synonymous. Even Kershaw states regarding describing Hitler as evil "However, evil is a theological or philosophical, rather than a historical, concept." Does this sentence actually need to be included in the article anyway? Wikipedia stresses NPOV so I don't see why people's opinions of Hitler and the Nazi regime need to be necessarily included in the article at all. Also, no such things are mentioned in the articles of other mass murderers of history such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.--79.70.129.151 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Since the article is over-long already, I have no objection to taking it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa it should just be taken out. Kierzek (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"a short section dealing with past and contemporary historical viewpoints"

We already have an article called Historiography of Adolf Hitler, which should address such viewpoints. Dimadick (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If the article is well over-long and could do with being trimmed in parts then I think the section "legacy" could certainly be a start and have some information removed. Is it really necessary to quote full sentences from the historians mentioned? Also, since it's okay to remove the section regarding the sentence "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime." then could the same not be said for "Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral;"? They are virtually saying the same thing anyway. Also, regarding the mention of Sebastian Haffner, is it necessary to have included in the article that he "avers that without Hitler and the displacement of the Jews, the modern nation state of Israel would not exist. He contends that without Hitler, the de-colonisation of former European spheres of influence would have been postponed"? This is just his opinion and doesn't really have any bearing regarding Hitler's "legacy". Regarding Haffner's statement about Hitler's impact and comparing him to Alexander the Great when many historians such as Kershaw in his book Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris mentions how much of an impact Hitler had and still has. What do you think?--92.18.76.224 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggested sentence: "Historians and commentators emphasize his role and personal responsibility for the undeniable crimes committed by the Nazi regime.". The term "evil" is subjective and in my opinion, could be a word that glorifies Hitler, rather then denigrates him. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

Death date and location formally and offically are unknown as to the recent evidence in the past few years that uncovered the fact that he escaped germany Namelessbeaver (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we can add at least the 1945 and onward of his life?

Since the FBI openly admitted that they were aware of his life post WW2, wouldn't it be safe to revise this article and summarize the FBI documents to track his life past that point? I mean, he did at least make it to Argentina after the war - instead of saying he "died in the bunker with eva"

https://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.221 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Where do you see evidence that the FBI "admitted" they were aware of his "life post WW2"? The FBI investigated rumors he might be alive. If you can find RS that conclude he actually survived the war, now that would be something. Good luck. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We have been through all this and it is just fiction, rumors and WP:Fringe, at best. It does sell books and gives the (so-called) History Channel shows to air. The FBI states that information within its documents pertaining to the escape and sightings of Hitler cannot be verified in any way. Kierzek (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2017

37.106.139.197 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Mohamed Medhat was Hitler's best friend

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Birth certificate first name

Perhaps his first name appearing as Adolfus on his birth certificate [3] should be included in the Childhood and education section? Mcljlm (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This is mentioned in passing by Toland but not in other significant biographies. Interestingly Kershaw specifically cites the name Adolf -- not Adolfus -- to a footnote "copy of birth-certificate." I've found no evidence that Adolfus was ever used during his lifetime. Note also that the document you link to is from the (Catholic) church baptismal register and it may have been practice in that time and place to Latinize given names. Does anyone know if this was indeed the case? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I've seen that document floating around the internet, but do we have any sources about its authenticity?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cases where the name/s on the official birth certificate and those on a church baptism certificate differ in some way/s are legion. Where there is any difference, the birth certificate must always be the default evidence of the name at birth. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Fear of early death

Historians such as William Carr, Gerhard Weinberg, and Kershaw have argued that one reason for Hitler's rush to war was his fear of an early death.

This interesting comment seems to be bolted-on, with no explanation. Can we add a qualifying sentence that sums-up the three cites attached to it? Valetude (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Done today. Valetude (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Does it really need three cites? Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because it says "Historians such as William Carr, Gerhard Weinberg, and Kershaw have argued that..." so there's one cite for each historian. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Got me there; I move to strike my question, your Honor. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adolf Hitler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"German Reich"

The term "German Reich" is extremely ambiguous. "Reich" in German just means "empire." By the Nazi count, the "First Reich" is the Holy Roman Empire, and the "Second Reich" is the German Empire after unification. Nazis see the "Third Reich" under the Nazi Party as the "Third Reich." So the term "German Reich" is extremely ambiguous. It should be replaced by "Third Reich" with the explanation that it refers to Nazi Germany alongside claimed and conquered territories, as that's the reason why the the term "Third Reich" is used instead of Nazi Germany.

Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The 'Third Reich' is a Nazi propaganda term not used by serious historians. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand that the term "Third Reich" may be seen as a Nazi propaganda term not used by serious historians, which I don't happen to agree with. But the term "German Reich" is ambiguous. It could easily refer to the Holy Roman Empire or the German Empire after unification. In fact thee term Reich still today can refer to the Holy Roman Empire, like the term "Reichsfreiherr." -New account 2 (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment on the calim that the term "Third Reich" is just a Nazi propaganda term that is not used by surious historians: The term "Third Reich" is almost as much used as the term "Nazi Germany," (421,000 hits for "The Third Reich" as 426,000 hits for "Nazi Germany" in Google Books.


https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22The+Third+Reich%22
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Nazi+Germany%22
Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@New account 2: I do not support your version, this particular issue has nothing to do with how common it is, how often it's used or how many search hits there are, is term important, commonly used or a part of history ? yes, should it be thoroughly addressed in the article ? absolutely, should it replace the term Nazi Germany in the first paragraph in the lead, NO. The fist paragraph of the lead is talking about Nazi Germany as a whole, not about the Third Reich. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to point out, you seem very versed in Wikipedia discussions for a user not even a week old, is there a "New account 1" ? this seems quite ducky to me. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Really ? - FlightTime (open channel) 02:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not a new, or good faith, editor. They were also threatening going to arbitration on my talk page. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
It is the truth. The term "German Reich" is not just silly, it's ambiguous. Any sensible person will tell you that. I think there is some inertia toward changing something in an article as polished as this one. You have to see that the term "German Reich" to refer to the "Third Reich" makes absolutely no sense. Let's talk it out but I'm sure people will conclude on the same. For more clarity on the use of the term "Reich," refer to the article. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@New account 2: I'm going to take and encourage this position on you and your agenda here and anything else you choose to do here at Wikipedia, hope Jimbo feels the same. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
"The German Reich" is ambiguous. Refer to the article on Reich. No question about it. But the first edit I did was from:

As dictator of the German Reich, he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust. To: As dictator over Nazi Germany, he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust. But then user Kierzek reverted to "German Reich" because " it covers Nazi Germany and all claimed and conquered land" The term "German Reich" to refer to the "Third Reich" is just silly, so I changed the sentence to: As dictator over the Third Reich (Nazi Germany alongside claimed and conquered territories) Thanks everyone. New account 2 (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The official name was Deutsches Reich (German Reich) from 1933 to 1943; then Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich), from 1943–1945. Also this article went through serious vetting and is GA rated. Consensus was how things are dealt with, along with what the WP:RS cites state. Our personal opinions do not matter; that is WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I understand your point. But "German Reich" could also refer to the Holy Roman Empire (Heiliges Römisches Reich) or the German Empire (Deutsches Reich). The article on the word Reich treats the ambiguity of the term. That's why I prefer the Third Reich, also an official Nazi term. Linking it to the appropriate section in the article on the word "Reich," everyone knows what the term Reich and Third Reich means, their source and historical usage for those who want to know more, and note that it refers to "Nazi Germany alongside claimed and conquered territories" in parenthesis so as to note why we are not using the standard English term "Nazi Germany". As to the fact that the article has gone through serious vetting and is GA, I think English speakers just associate the word "Reich" with Nazi Germany. New account 2 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Do we want to open it up to the German Encyclopedia? Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adolf Hitler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Citations

I understand that most of it is common knowledge but there are no citations at the top part of the article. Things such as "Hitler frequently denounced international capitalism and communism as being part of a Jewish conspiracy" and "whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen ("sub-humans") and socially undesirable," for example, should be cited... 47.197.39.194 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi 47. Please see WP:LEADCITE. The material you mention should have cites in the body. --NeilN talk to me 16:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The lede is a summary of main points of the body, which should be cited therein. Kierzek (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
"According to a U.S. Office of Strategic Services report, "The Nazi Master Plan", Hitler planned to destroy the influence of Christian churches within the Reich.[382][383] His eventual goal was the total elimination of Christianity.[384]"
There are a number of problems with the sources of this part of the article. The Times piece is a summary of the report, but never makes a case with facts, it's conjecture based on interviews with Germans on trial who could, and likely would, have said or done anything to distance themselves from.
The Phayer article is even worse as it contains no citations, like at all.
These are stances of Christian apologists not of historians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77E4:E3C0:3D05:C4AA:BF0E:1B4F (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the lede

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. As dictator, he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust.

To:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. As Führer, he assumed dictatorial control over Germany, initiated aggressive policies toward neighboring states, and imposed oppressive policies toward Jews. He initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust.

Better background info in the lede.

-New account 2 (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page you will see that the current version is the result of considerable discussion. You may wish to consider whether trying to change it is a good use of your time. Britmax (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's initiate discussions again. As for the proposed change, the new sentence seems to provide background info on the administration aside from just the dramatic results, the start of World War II and the Holocaust. New account 2 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The lead is not there to provide background info, as it is a summary of information that is in the body text. Britmax (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I would like to echo my last comment in the above discussion - FlightTime (open channel) 22:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
As for the fact that it needs to be a summary of the article itself:

The dictatorship has a section of its own.

Oppressive policies toward Jews:

The Nazis embraced the concept of racial hygiene. On 15 September 1935, Hitler presented two laws—known as the Nuremberg Laws—to the Reichstag. The laws banned sexual relations and marriages between Aryans and Jews and were later extended to include "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring".[340] The laws stripped all non-Aryans of their German citizenship and forbade the employment of non-Jewish women under the age of 45 in Jewish households.[341] Hitler's early eugenic policies targeted children with physical and developmental disabilities in a programme dubbed Action Brandt, and he later authorised a euthanasia programme for adults with serious mental and physical disabilities, now referred to as Action T4.[342]

Aggressive policies toward neighboring states:

On 9 April, German forces invaded Denmark and Norway. On the same day Hitler proclaimed the birth of the Greater Germanic Reich, his vision of a united empire of Germanic nations of Europe in which the Dutch, Flemish, and Scandinavians were joined into a "racially pure" polity under German leadership.[250] In May 1940, Germany attacked France, and conquered Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium. These victories prompted Mussolini to have Italy join forces with Hitler on 10 June. France and Germany signed an armistice on 22 June.[251] Kershaw notes that Hitler's popularity within Germany – and German support for the war – reached its peak when he returned to Berlin on 6 July from his tour of Paris.[252] Following the unexpected swift victory, Hitler promoted twelve generals to the rank of field marshal during the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony.[253][254]

I think these are only the main points we need to cover in the lede.

As to FlightTime, I don't know to which portion of the discussion you refer to.

-New account 2 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is. Britmax (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't address the subtler, less dramatic, but still important portions of the Hitler administration. -New account 2 (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It is not supposed to be subtle. Watch my lips. It's a summary. Britmax (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I think people don't include it because they think it's not important enough to be in the summary. I think they don't consider it important because they are less dramatic. -New account 2 (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with changing the lede, as long as the changes are warranted. The right changes could boost the article closer to FA status. As far as the specific changes New account 2 proposes, I think the first part succinctly summarizes how Hitler went from chancellor to fuhrer/dictator and thereby adds a crucial piece of information currently missing from the lede. The remainder of the proposed new lede might be redundant with the current lede's reference to Hitler's initation of WW2 and the Holocaust, and thus less justified as part of a revamp. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The thing is that "aggressive policies toward neighboring states" and "oppressive policies toward Jews" lead up to "initiating World War II in Europe" and the Holocaust. -New account 2 (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The proposed changes do not improve the lead. Which as pointed out is only to be a summary of the main points of the article. And frankly the sentence above is too vague. Kierzek (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
We can cover the fact that there were "aggressive policies toward neighboring states" and "oppressive policies toward Jews;" before WWII and the Holocaust. These are important points in Hitlearean and Nazi policy and sections in the article cover them both. Initiating WWII with the Holocaust didn't come out of nowhere. I also don't understand why "the sentence above is too vague." -New account 2 (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like an expansion of the lede. I think the most important sentence is the first one of the article. Everything can't be put in the lede. There is some editor choice and concensus involved. Hitler was a dictator. He made his own "rules". I think it is difficult to catagorize Hitler or to even know exactly what his plans were. All we can state is what he did and what the Nazis did. I have heard that Nazism was a "death cult". When Hitler killed himself many Germans who worshipped him followed his lead. I could go on but choose not too right now. I think the article lede is fine as is. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
These are important facts about the Hitler administration and should be there. WWII and the Holocaust are not the only things that are important. Their precursors are "agressive policies toward neighboring states" and "oppressive policies toward Jews" that led up to the two already mentioned. -New account 2 (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Proposed change to the proposal:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. As Führer, he assumed dictatorial control over Germany, promoted fascism and militarism over Nazi Germany, initiated aggressive policies toward neighboring states, and imposed oppressive policies toward Jews. He initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust. -New account 2 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Now you are trying to sandwich it all into the first line. And it shows. The lead is fine as it is. Britmax (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It's meant to be that. -New account 2 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
No idea what you mean by that. Britmax (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be concise and informative. What other purpose could the lead have? I think it is better to consider better or worse rather than just "fine." The thing it seems to be though is being merciless on Hitler. -New account 2 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Still not sure what you are trying to do, but I'd be very surprised if anyone thinks that the hodge podge you are suggesting is in any way an improvement to the current lead. Britmax (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
What he's trying to do is improve the article. Prepare to be surprised, as I find his first proposal to be better than what is presently there. Incidentally, the current lead is too long (5 paragraphs) and needs to be made more concise: having paragraphs 2,3 and 4 on his life story is far too much and you're going to have to condense/combine those, so putting a little more into the first paragraph may help there. The opening sentence is meant to be an introduction to the subject and mention of Hitler's aggressive policies and his oppression of Jews are fundamental factors relevant to anyone who needs an introduction to the subject. I'm less keen on the repetition of Führer, but a middle ground should be achievable between the first proposal and the current opening. Now, what are the objections to the first proposal – just claiming "it's fine as it is" is not an argument; it's just another way of saying "I don't like it", so let's have some reasoned debate here. Do we need an RfC? because I'm not at all impressed with the lack of any attempt to seek common ground so far. --RexxS (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I also agree that the suggested extra sentence here is unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion shows an inability to understand what a summary is and a strange idea that something is of lesser importance if it isn't shoehorned into the first few lines of the lead. I hope you have read the talk page archives where this was discussed at great length; the existing text is a compromise. Britmax (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There are 59 archives, so I don't find that suggestion at all helpful. New account 2 has a mere 60 edits, so you certainly can't expect him to know how to find archives. Unless you're prepared to give a link to the discussion(s), you refer to, they might as well not exist, since asking another editor to trawl through 59 archives of 200K each (that's 12 megabytes of text, or twice the complete works of Shakespeare) is pure discourtesy, and reeks of an attempt to discourage any suggestion that the current article could be improved. If you've got any genuine reasons beyond "I like it this way" to exclude mention of Hitler's aggressive foreign policies and oppression of Jews in the introduction, let's hear them, otherwise your opposition to the suggested changes is baseless. --RexxS (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The lead does presently note "Hitler's aggressive foreign policies and oppression of Jews". The second sentence for example does so in clear direct language. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I have given reasons that are not "I don't like it". See my replies above. Britmax (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Fascism and militarism are also major points. He rearmed Germany and was clearly militaristic and everyone knows that he was fascist. In fact, he turned the country of Germany into a fascist and militarist state. As to the second sentence, it notes the start of WWII and the Holocaust, but not the policies that were the precursors and led up to it, which were: "aggressive policies toward neighboring states" "oppressive policies toward Jews." These policies were important parts of the Nazi regime, and we can't just note or focus on the two results of these policies. As to the fact that it is a bit wordy, we have to take a look at that. Frankly, I don't think it is too wordy. --New account 2 (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Britmax: No you haven't. All you've said is "I like it how it is" with a considerable degree of sarcasm and ad homininem towards a new editor. When are you going to actually start engaging with the debate?
@Nick-D: The lead also clearly notes in the third paragraph that Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party and Chancellor, as well as clearly stating in the fourth paragraph that he initiated WW2. All of which is contained in the introductory sentence. How do you explain that it would be any different from also noting his aggressive foreign policies and Jewish repression in that introductory sentence? I agree it should not be too long, but you've yet to adduce any reasons why the small selection of facts in the introduction are in any way superior, more important, or more relevant to an understanding of Adolf Hitler than the other suggestions brought to the table by a good-faith editor, who is clearly concerned with improving the article. I'll ask again: what is the basis for the current selection in preference to the alternative proposed by New account 2? --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is per Britmax and myself. Since New account 2 insists on wasting other editors time on similar issues (and the German Reich discussion above) I sill indorse a WP:DONTFEED attitude regarding this user, but please carry on as you wish. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, on the Android article, I understood the argument by Meters and left the conversation. As to the term "German Reich" I clearly explained that it was ambiguous, then noone started to reply, and it was finally changed by user Dianna. Someone claimed that I was canvassing at one point, but I was looking for more attention and not anyone agreeing with me. Both of my arguments on this page are regarding good faith edits. To what extent do you believe that an argument on good faith edits is a "waste of time?" As to WP:DONTFEED, I'm neither a vandal nor a troll, and I'm not trying to disrupt Wikipedia. -New account 2 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not plan to write reply after reply, but will add this since apparently it is not clear to a few: "As Führer, he assumed dictatorial control over Germany", is un-needed verbiage to a linked point already made that he became/was dictator of Germany. The phase, "initiated aggressive policies toward neighboring states" is vague and ambiguous. What aggressive policies? What states, when? The rest as to the actions against the Jews, the Holocaust and World War II are all covered in more clear direct language in the lede. It has nothing to do with "I don't like it". Kierzek (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @New account 2: To what extent do you believe that an argument on good faith edits is a "waste of time?" Because it is clear to me you have absolutely no intention on agreeing on anything except your version and now I'm going to go feed something that's worth nurturing. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I try to argue and not be staunch. The first sentence notes that he became Fuerer, which is noted as "leader," but not the crucial point that it was actually a dictatorship. That's why I want to note that he assumed dictatorial control under the term Fuerer. I have to state here that I was wrong, aggression toward Denmark and Norway happened after the start of WWII, so we don't need to mention that as a precursor to the war. But "Nuremburg Laws" came in 1935 so "oppressive policies toward Jews" needs to be mentioned, as before the war and the Holocaust.
So the sentence goes:
Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician who was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945. As Führer, he assumed dictatorial control over Germany, promoted fascism and militarism on Nazi Germany, and imposed oppressive policies toward Jews. He initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust.
-New account 2 (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
There's to much that happened really. Let's stick to just "As Führer, he assumed dictatorial control over Germany" -New account 2 (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @FlightTime: Another "it's fine as it is". What a waste of everybody's time feeding us your personal opinions. Back it up with some reasoned argument or don't bother. The talk page isn't the place for you to pontificate about what you like or don't like.
@Kierzek: What bit of "initiated aggressive policies toward neighboring states" don't you understand? His policies towards the Czech Sudetenland and Austria were clearly aggressive and those were neighbouring states. Is that clear enough for you? WW2 didn't just happen because of the invasion of Poland: it was predicated on Hitler's earlier policies where the Allies failed to take action. In many ways his occupation of Sudetenland and the Anschluss reveal more about Hitler than the invasion of Poland (which was merely a logical next step for him), so please justify your insistence on excluding some facts from the opening sentence while including the others. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I am sensing bias here in the lead. Hitler was dictator of Nazi Germany. Calling Hitler "a German politician" is extremely light touch for the psychopathic cult leader who caused WWII and the Holocaust. Hitler was diagnosed phycopathic when he was in a mental ward following WWI. He was involved in a cult that believed the German people were from Atlantis. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"Initiated World War II in Europe"

By the time the German invasion of Poland began the Soviets had already agreed to invade Poland as well. (2A00:23C4:638D:D500:3D04:DBEE:16A3:4071 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC))

But they didn't actually do it until a few weeks after Germany. Talking about something, or even agreeing to do it, isn't the same as doing it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the timetable, the Soviets absolutely had blood on their hands in the mutilation of Poland. What made Germany's invasion the start of another world war in Europe, though, was Britain and France's decision to (finally) respond to Hitler's aggression with force. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That might be a matter of interpretation - however I don't see any reason to question the wording as-is. Hitler started the war. The war started because Hitler wanted so. Yes, the Soviets knew in advance, did their part and took advantage. But they wouldn't have started on their own. Britain and France had no more choice. --KnightMove (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hitler could only invade Poland if Stalin did as well. Otherwise he risked a two-front war in 1939, before he was ready. Britain and France only declared war on Germany, not on the Soviet Union. Also the phrase "World War II in Europe" doesn't make sense - it was a global war as soon as the British Commonwealth and Empire declared war. (86.144.81.76 (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC))
I would support rephrasing to "WW2 began with Hitler's invasion of Poland", which is more accurate in my opinion. When Hitler decided to invade it was not certain that England and France would not cave yet again.Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the article about Adolf Hitler. The sentence "As dictator, he initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, and was central to the Holocaust." is just right and doesn't need any rephrasing, the less a dilution. --KnightMove (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
There is no reason to change what is stated, which was the result of discussion and consensus reached. Kierzek (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI, both the OP and 86* are socks of User:HarveyCarter. GABgab 00:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I thought so; he is like a broken record, in his posts. Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Britain and France started World War II to preserve their colonial empires. See what Gandhi said about the war. (2A00:23C4:638D:D500:69:CB30:7FC8:E150 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC))
Don't be so silly. Hitler started World War II by invading Poland. He was well aware that Britain and France would defend Polish independence and was given a couple of days after the invasion to withdraw from Poland but he refused.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose archiving this thread as it was initiated and periodically fed by a community banned user. Favonian (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Middle name oddity

Despite never being listed with such on any other official records, government or not, a French police record from 1924 lists Hitler's middle name as 'Jacob'. Idk if this was a common practice or just a fluke but if this record could be authenticated by someone who knows more about this sort of thing than I do, should it be noted somewhere on the article? BedrockPerson (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be authenticated. All the people are long dead and there is no under oath testimony or sworn affidavit, that I know of, in relation to same. It should not be included. Kierzek (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The website hosting the police record should remove any doubts about its historical "value" (and the webmaster's sanity). Scaleshombre (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. As a footnote, I will say that even if an official document is prepared by a state official, (such as a police report), it still has "hearsay" problems as to said information stated. The officer or official can only testify as to what he was told, as written on the report and not as to the truth of what he was told or written without other sworn testimony, testing or evidence which supports what was written. Kierzek (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Hitler's christened name in the lede

Is there really any need for Hitler's christened name to be in the lede of the article? He certainly never addressed himself as "Adolphus" but just "Adolf".

It could be added into the "Childhood and education" bit but to stress it in the lede is a bit unnecessary if you ask me. Thoughts?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As the person who added the fact in the first place, I totally agree. I just added it to the first paragraph because I figured placing it with the name was the best allocation. BedrockPerson (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree it would be better there. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Quickly solved.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Lack of background information with regards to Austria but a lot for Czechoslovakia

In the section "Austria and Czechoslovakia" there is only one short sentence about the Anschluss with Austria yet there are a few paragraphs about Czechoslovakia. There were a few events prior to the actual annexation of Austria to Germany i.e the July Putsch in 1934, the Austrofascism period in which both Dollfuss and Schuschnigg hoped for the independence of Austria and opposed Hitler's plans to annex it to the Reich.

I have two proposals that could possibly make the information for Austria and Czechoslovakia more balanced:

1) A little bit more information regarding the Anschluss, I think a paragraph would probably be sufficient which would mention the idea of a Greater Germany uniting all Germans into a nation-state, a sentence about the Austrofascism opposition to it and Hitler's final demands and keeping the sentence that is currently in the article.

2) Somehow shorten some of the text about Czechoslovakia.

Thoughts?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hitler's siblings

The article says that Hitler was the fourth of six children born to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl, and that three of his siblings — Gustav, Ida, and Otto — died in infancy. The article on Hitler's father says that Adolf Hitler was the third of six children of whom four — Gustav, Ida, Otto and Edmund — died in childhood. Who can say which is correct? Moletrouser (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Toland says fourth child on page 8 of the 1976 paperback. I will check Kershaw tomorrow when I get to the library, since that's the source we use. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The German article de:Hitler (Familie)#Geschwister has a detailed list which I trust. So he was the third child. Gustav, Ida and Otto died at age 0-2, Edmund reached the age of 6 years. So it might be that a source uses the term "infancy" so strictly not to count Edmund. --KnightMove (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but we can't use the de.wiki as a source, as it's not a reliable source; it's a wiki. Please be patient; I will check what Kershaw has to say when I get to work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I know, and I didn't intend to hastily correct it in the article. But still it can't hurt to give the OP the (most likely correct) answer to his question. --KnightMove (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The book is Kershaw, Ian (2008). Hitler: A Biography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-06757-6. and there's a genealogical table on page 4. It lists the six children as follows:
  • Gustav, 1885–1887
  • Ida, 1886–1888
  • Otto, 1887–?
  • Adolf, 1889–1945
  • Edmund, 1894–1900
  • Paula, 1896–1960. Diannaa 19:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So there is a contradiction concerning Otto. I will clear that on the German discussion page. --KnightMove (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, no need to discuss, it's already clear: The birth of Otto in 1887 is based on claims of Paula Hitler after the war and were taken over from author to author. But only last year a local historian found documents proving that Otto was born in 1892. Here's an English article in the Business Insider. Here's a German article clearing that only Paula was the source, who had talked about events prior to her births and seemingly made an error in that. --KnightMove (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is another article on the new research. The researcher is Florian Kotanko. My opinion is that Paula would not have made an error in the birth order or dates of birth of her own siblings, so I don't think we should change it. I added a mention of the new research at Hitler family. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think so? Those events were prior to her birth. She had lost both parents by the age of 11. And she wasn't able to provide details on their siblings' biographical data, especially of Otto. Further, it's perfectly plausible that her mother told her something like "I had three children before you were born, but they soon died" - and Paula erroneously memorized this as all being born prior to Adolf. I think it's necessary to give priority to the new and detailed research. --KnightMove (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Who is Florian Kotanko? What is his university affiliation? What are his qualifications to be a definitive source on the subject? Why should his opinion be considered a more reliable source than Paula Hitler? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Kotanko is the chairman of the Society for contemporary history in Braunau, but this is not exactly important. What is important is that he researched the register of births in the parish of Braunau and found definite proof for Otto's biographical data. Here's a facsimile, published in Oberösterreichische Nachrichten. --KnightMove (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It's completely illegible, so sorry. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not crucial whether you can read it, so sorry. This is sound and detailed research published in serious media, and you haven't brought a legit argument to refuse recognition. --KnightMove (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I just don't think we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice that this researcher's findings are the truth, thus effectively endorsing his opinion. It's better to explain the controversy. How about adding an explanatory note? Like this: "Research by historian Florian Kotanko in 2016 indicates that Otto may have been born in 1892, making Adolf the third of six children." Citation: Murphy, Francois (30 May 2016). "Hitler's older brother was in fact younger and died early, historian says". Reuters. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
What is the controversy? Do you know any source contradicting or disputing Kotanko's findings? More than one year would have been enough time to react. --KnightMove (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Otto Hitler's date of birth

Should the birth order of Adolf and his siblings be changed to show Adolf as third of six children born to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl?

Sources showing Adolf as fourth-born include:

Kershaw lists the six siblings as follows:

  • Gustav, 1885–1887
  • Ida, 1886–1888
  • Otto, 1887–?
  • Adolf, 1889–1945
  • Edmund, 1894–1900
  • Paula, 1896–1960.
    Research conducted by Florian Kotanko in 2016 indicates that Otto may have been born in 1892, making Adolf the third of six children. Citations include Murphy, Francois (30 May 2016). "Hitler's older brother was in fact younger and died early, historian says". Reuters. The question is, Should the birth order of Adolf and his siblings be changed to show Adolf as third of six children born to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl? Or perhaps the new information could be included as an explanatory note. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • I don't think we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice that this researcher's findings are the truth, thus effectively endorsing his opinion. It's better to explain the controversy. How about adding an explanatory note? Like this: "Research by historian Florian Kotanko in 2016 indicates that Otto may have been born in 1892, making Adolf the third of six children." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • First of all, there is no controversy, despite from the one here on the discussion page. The 2016 research in Braunau has proven that Otto Hitler was born on 17 June, 1892, and died on 23 June, 1892, falsifying the former assumption that Otto were born in 1887 (based on narrations of Paula Hitler in 1945 about this time prior to her birth). This article (in German) in Oberösterreichische Nachrichten also has screenshots of original documents: Parish register of Otto's birth, including his death on 23/6 1892 (honestly, I read "892" there, but maybe it was convention to omit the "thousand") and a report of the death in a regional newspaper. This new findings have been published via Reuters in international media, and as of now no source has been mentioned to have challenged the result in any way. There is no valid reason not to treat it as fact. --KnightMove (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be better to wait for confirmation from other recognized historians; e.g., if Kershaw or someone were to comment "that's a good piece of investigation and I agree with it." We have no deadline. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would just omit 3rd or 4th. He was the oldest of the siblings that survived infancy (which actually is not mentioned currently). His ordering in relation to dead infants (either before he was born or when he was a toddler) is really not material. Stating he was third or fourth actually miss states his actual role as eldest child in the household.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point; removal is a good option, as is mentioning that he was the eldest child to survive past the toddler years. — Diannaa (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Actually there was also Hitler's half-brother Alois Jr (born 1882) and half-sister Angela (born 1883). Since the mother of these two children died in 1883, these two half-siblings were living in the household while Adolf (born 1889) was growing up. — Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Interesting (more than dead infant siblings), and also missing in current article.Icewhiz (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
To be concrete, I would be go with something along the lines of: "The eldest of three of six siblings who survived infancy, Hitler also grew up with two older half-siblings.". Dropping mention of the dead infant siblings beyond that (next sentence). His half-sister was mentioned in Mein Kampf, unlike his surviving full sister (whom oddly is not mentioned at all in this paragraph (though is down below) - while the dead infants and Edmund (7) are named. Currently the half-siblings he grew up with are not mentioned at all in the article (not named nor mentioned that he had half-siblings)). In places and periods of high infant mortality, they are often accounted separately.Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I'm not sure whether the division into "survey" and "threaded discussion" serves its purpose. Anyway, let's continue with the different related topics:

Otto's biographical data and the evidence

Here is the parish register in perfect quality. While most readers here are certainly not able to read Kurrent, still it's similar enough to undoubtedly identify the key facts. Year is 1892 (upper left corner). Entry 44 is Otto, son of Alois Hitler, customs officer, and Klara Pölzl (mothers are consistently registered with their maiden names), born 17 June, 1892, baptised the next day, died on 23 June 1892. There is no margin left for doubt or error. No comment of historians is needed for confirmation, unless you seriously suspect a huge conspiracy to fake those data. Wikipedia's job is to collect secured knowledge, and this is secured knowledge. --KnightMove (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning of birth order

Historians have regarded Hitler's rank in the birth order as noteworthy. What would be the base to claim it were not? Who are we to claim as noteworthy that Adolf was the oldest surviving child of his parents? With those older two half-siblings living among them, that might be perfectly irrelevant. --KnightMove (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

How many died in infancy?

As the article infant informs us, there are different definitions and usages of the term. Edmund died at the age of six and may well be counted... or not. Here we can't just give one unqualified statement of "three". --KnightMove (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Birth order - clearly his elder half-siblings (which aren't in the article at all) - specifically Angela - are more significant than dead infant siblings. The current article doesn't actually mention the ordering of the dead infants in relation to Hitler - while giving them quite a bit of weight (they are named). His younger sister who survived - Paula is not mentioned - nor are the half-siblings named (and they are actually expunged - they don't exist at all in the main Hitler article - you can infer perhaps they exist from the half-niece who is mentioned at the end).
Edmund (death at age 7) - wouldn't be regarded as an infant death in the usual usage of the term.Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Silver german SS rings

I have an original authentic german silver SS ring with a devil gie has no armor on bud does have hornes. Could anyone tell me anything about it? Michelle357 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You might consider posing a question about this on the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Bus stop (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

When Hitler joined the German Workers' Party (DAP)

The article currently states that Hitler joined the same day as when Anton Drexler gave him a copy of his own pamphlet My Political Awakening, this is not true.

Kershaw writes:

According to Hitler's own account, unable to sleep he read Drexler's pamphlet in the early, and it struck a chord with him, reminding him, he claimed, of his own 'political awakening' twelve years earlier. Within a week of attending the meeting, he then received a postcard informing him that he had been accepted as a member, and should attend a committee meeting of the party a few days later to discuss the matter. Though his immediate reaction, he wrote, was a negative one - he allegedly wanted to found a party of his own - curiosity overcame him and he want along to a dimly-lit meeting of the small leadership group in the Altres Rosenbag, a shabby pub in Herrenstraße. He sympathized with the political aims of those he met. But he was appalled, he later wrote, at the small-minded organisization he encountered - 'club life of the worst manner and sort', he dubbed it. After a few days of indecision, he added, he finally made up his mind to join. What determined him was the feeling that such a small organization offered 'the individual an opportunity for real personal activity' - the prospect, that is, of quickly making his mark and dominating it. Some time during the second half of September, Hitler joined the German Workers' Party, and was given the membership number 555. He was not, as he always claimed, the seventh member.

— Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, pp. 126-127

--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Go for it! Even in the current source (Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany), I couldn't find anything backing up the claim that Hitler joined the same day Drexler gave him his pamphlet. In fact, it doesn't even mention the pamphlet. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hold on there cowboys, that is not how things work around here unless you want to be reverted per WP:BRD. I did not add that sentence originally, but someone did with a RS cite; Maybe they will respond. So wait a few for other editors weigh in. Kershaw in "Hitler: A Biography" (which is the books "Hubris" and "Nemesis" combined), states: "...within a week of attending the meeting, he then received a postcard informing him that he had been accepted as a member", pp. 75, 76. Then later on p. 76 Kershaw states, "Some time during the second half of September, Hitler joined the German Workers' Party"; so he is not exact as to the time and leaves the door open. We could say he was "officially accepted as a member within a week." But I await hearing from others first on this matter. Kierzek (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The info that he joined the party on September 12, 1919, is sourced to The Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany by Roderick Stackelberg. I was able to confirm online that the data is present in that book. Sein und Zeit recently added that Hitler attended a DAP meeting on that very date and received a pamphlet from Drexler. Kierzek then noted that Hitler joined the party that same day, and received a postcard within the week confirming his membership. (I later removed the part about the postcard, because it seemed like a less important detail, and the article is already over the recommended size.) So that's how we ended up where we are now. However, Evans 2003 page 170 discusses the events of 12 September, wher he says Hitler applied to join the party on the orders of his army superiors, and "Drexler readily acquiesced". I get the impression from Evans' wording that the application may have taken place on the 12th but he does not say for sure so neither should we. This aligns with what Sein und Zeit found in Kershaw, so I have amended using Evans 2003 instead of Stackelberg. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
But, Kershaw quite plainly writes "Some time during the second half of September, Hitler joined the German Workers' Party" so it's apparent that Hitler did not join the party the same day he attended the meeting but later on in September. I see that the article has now been altered to "On the orders of his army superiors, Hitler applied to join the party, becoming later in September party member 555" which is perfectly fine in my opinion.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Diannaa for the detective work. I would not say that Evans firmly contradicts Stackelberg, but what is clear is the door is left a little open as to events by the RS sources and also the interpretation of "applied to join" and "joined"; what we do know for sure is he received a post card shortly thereafter, informing him that he had been accepted as a member. I don't want to get into WP:OR. I did tweak the part "later on in September", to "...within a week was accepted as "; this based on: "within a week of attending the meeting, he then received a postcard informing him that he had been accepted as a member". (Kershaw, pp. 75, 76.) Kierzek (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a good amendment; Thanks, Kierzek. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Austrian Germans vs German Austrians

I think it would be better if "Austrian Germans" were changed to "German Austrians". The German-speaking Austrians (ethnic Germans) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire generally referred to themselves as "German Austrians" and after WWI the name of Austria was "German-Austria" not "Austria-German". Hitler referred to the Austrians as "German Austrians" as did the other Austrian pan-Germans such as Schönerer (see Brigitte Hamann Hitler's Vienna for numerous of references). The majority of the books I've read also use "German Austrians" over "Austrian Germans" when referring to the ethnic Germans of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, like Hitler. When it comes to Hitler himself, a Bavarian judge at the Beer Hall Putsch refused to deport Hitler back to Austria and described him as a "German-Austrian". I don't really see how such a change is controversial in the slightest or even a reason to be reverted.

Also, "Hitler began to develop" vs "Hitler developed" both essentially mean the same thing to the reader.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Austrian Germans -Moxy (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The German Austrians were/are referred to as "Deutsch Österreicher". Just like the name of Austria after the end of WWI and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was called "Deutsch-Österreich". I don't see any reason why this is even to be contested, I thought it was general knowledge.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Odd that they speak Austrian German and not the other way around. --Moxy (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really. That's the dialect of German just like Bavarian German. The same can be said for the Sudeten Germans were initially called "German Bohemians", referring to the ethnic Germans. The same as "German Prussians" etc. The ethnic group "German" followed by the sub-group.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Moby, you have reverted the change again because you seem to think that implying "German" first in English implies that Hitler was born in Germany, how so? It's referring to the Germans as an ethnic group which Hitler, as an Austrian, was part of. Simply wording it "Austrian Germans" is not about Hitler being an Austrian by birth and then later moving to Germany and gaining German citizenship, the term "Deutsch Österreicher" refers to the German Austrians that lived in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and were excluded from Bismarck's German Empire. In the very same paragraph, it described how he despised the multi-ethnic empire and showed only loyalty to Germany. The article makes it very clear about the time period of when this is being described and has nothing to do with Hitler's citizenship or where he lived at that time. I suggest you perhaps look at the German Wikipedia article regarding Austrians Österreichische Identität. There really is no confusion and it doesn't seem to be getting contesting from anyone else apart from yourself. Austrian pan-Germans such as Schönerer used the term "German Austrians", all German nationalists did, including those from the German Reich itself. An example of Hitler using the term "German Austrians" in 1921: "incorporating the ten million German-Austrians in the Empire and dethroning the Hapsburgs, the most miserably dynasty ever ruling over German lands." (see Brigitte Hamann, Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man, p. 107) Hamann herself was born in Germany and uses the term "German Austrians" throughout her book and cites many examples of the Austrian German nationalists using it. What is the problem exactly?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
You have been reverted by multiple editors. As mentioned in my edit summary we use the English format used by scholarly sources.--Moxy (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Both "Austrian Germans" and "German Austrians" are in English. What are you on about? Many scholarly sources use "German Austrians".

You said in your reason for reverting that "In English this has a reverse meaning....as in born in Germany. ....is is simply not how we say this in English" - that is not true. The usage of both "Austrian Germans" or "German Austrians" doesn't in any way imply an Austrian-born who has moved to Germany or a German-born who has moved to Austria, they are both specifically talking about Austrians belonging to the ethnic group Germans. The facts are that the Austrian pan-Germans emphasised their German identity by considering themselves as German Austrians, Hitler was one of them. As I've also mentioned, a judge from Germany at the trial for his involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch refused to deport him because he regarded Hitler as a "German-Austrian" (note - not the other way around).--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Also Moxy, according to your logic, the leading sentence of the article says "German politician", are you saying that implies to the reader that Hitler was born in Germany?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Pls request a RfC to see if we should change the format used in English Wikipediaf pages. The norm on hundreds of pages is reflected here and a change should be project wide--Moxy (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing about changing "Austrian Germans" to "German Austrians" that is foreign to the English language. I've referenced several English sources that use the term. Essentially, they both mean the same anyway. I've already explained though that I think it would be best to use the term "German Austrians" because Hitler certainly identified as a German first, like other Austrian pan-Germans, which is what the sentence itself is about.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding more information to the article

Hi, there seems to be somewhat of a reluctance to add any material that would significantly increase the size of this article because it's already passed the recommended 10,000 words but if we look at other significant figures such as Churchill (18752 words), Stalin (18401 words) and Napoleon (15900 words), then why is there a certain apprehension about adding more words to this article? There are several areas of Hitler's life in the article that have very little mention or could certainly be expanded.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That is what links and sub-articles are for; this is not a tome we are presenting. Tweaks are one thing, but adding large patches is just not needed and can make an article unwieldy, to say the least; especially, one that is already at the GA level. But since you don't state specifics at this point, I cannot address or comment further at this time. It depends on what you believe needs to be added and to what degree. With that said, some of my thoughts, I already addressed on your talk page. Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there needs to be massive amounts of new text added into the article as the article is really good already but it seems quite obvious through the talk page that there seems to be a reluctance to add some new material in case it adds onto the already exceeded 10,000 recommended amount of words. I was using other examples of leaders who have made a massive significant impact that exceed way beyond the Hitler article and I don't see any such argument used in the talk pages of any of those articles to reduce the article by words. Why should Hitler be any exception? If one goes onto the German Wikipedia article of Hitler then one quickly sees that it contains a lot of information that the English version doesn't include. To pinpoint examples in the article which lack a lot of information and could almost certainly be extended are Hitler's earliest antisemitic thoughts, not a lot of background information on the Anschluss in 1938, etc.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get you not to place the same quote on multiple articles. Perhaps best you propose any changes here first. --Moxy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Moxy, plenty of articles have the same material/quotes on them. What's wrong with that as long as it's relevant to the article?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
To put it simply. .. quotes are not compatible with encyclopedic content. Quotes are generally purged during GA and FA article reviews. Perhaps the word Purge is a bit much .... quotes are normally summarized in Wikipedia editors own words whenever possible. MOS:QUOTATIONS.--Moxy (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Granted. But, there still seems to be a hostile attitude towards adding any information to the article that would see an increase in the amount of words in the article. I've used Churchill, Napoleon and Stalin articles as examples of where there doesn't seem to be any sort of worry about this. Why is this article any different? I've pointed out a couple of examples previously of areas that could be expanded. Why is there only one sentence when it comes to the Anschluss? Hitler was Austrian and his desire to annex Austria to the German Reich to create a Greater Germany played a huge role in his German nationalist beliefs. Why is there no mention of Hitler's first publicly known statements with regards to the Jews and the Jewish Question? There are many other areas.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hitler's first publicly known antisemitic remarks

User:Moxy reverted my edit here with the claim that my attribution was "oddly placed" and "makes flow all wrong". Really? The paragraph where I added the information is about Hitler's first expression of antisemitism and my edit was about Hitler's first publicly known antisemitic remarks in a letter to Adolf Gemlich in 1919. Does no one else think that this material should be included into the article?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We have articles for details and quotes like this Religious views of Adolf Hitler... Political views of Adolf Hitler. The information and quote does not give us any more information just more detail of a topic that's covered widely in the article already. All that said I welcome other opinions on yet another matter we are dealing with.--Moxy (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Moxy, as it is along the lines of what I said in a section above. That is what we have links and sub-articles for (further expansion and details) and that adding large sections quoted directly from sources, is frowned upon. Secondary WP:RS sources is what is regarded best for use, with direct quotes to be used sparingly. Also see WP:QUOTEFARM. Kierzek (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a paragraph regarding the debate about when Hitler first expressed antisemitic feelings. Why should his first publicly known statement with regards to Jews and the Jewish Question be omitted from the paragraph? It's an important letter since it would tell readers Hitler's thoughts of the Jews in 1919.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've added into the article "Hitler's first known public statement about the Jews is a letter dated 16 September, 1919, to Adolf Gemlich, about the Jewish Question. In the letter, Hitler argues that the aim of the government "must unshakably be the removal of the Jews altogether". citing Kershaw. I've avoided using a long quote from the letter and have simply used the crux of Hitler's argument in the letter as the quote in the article.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it as it disturbs the timeline of the whole page and because this subsection on AH's developing anti-semitism is a complex topic that disturbs the clarity of this section of his early life in Vienna and Munich. It needs to be dealt with in the kind of detail you are providing elsewhere. See previous discussion on this. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I've readded it into the article in the same place the German Wikipedia Hitler article has it.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive_59&oldid=1244122193"