Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

NPOV tag

An IP editor tagged the article for NPOV this morning. The edit summary said: This is an attempt to rewrite history as part the current american political dialogue to cast negative aspersions on atheism through association. Hitler was catholic who spoke positively of his christian. WP:MTR says that the NPOV template is meant to be accompanied by discussion on the talk page, identifying specific issues. Since there's been no discussion here, I removed the template. I would be happy to have the discussion, though. I'm not sure I agree that the article casts negative aspersions against atheism. But I might be too close to the article at this point, and not able to see biases creeping in. The tag will be replaced if the IP editor, or any other editor, states a rationale here at the talk page. JerryRussell (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. TFD (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the NPOV flagging. There is heavy political pressure from Christians to brand Hitler as an atheist and an anti-Christian and I think this article can be very misleading at some places in that regard. The article is pretty well-sourced as a whole and is based on solid historical data such as Mein Kampf, Hitler's speeches, Albert Speer's memoirs, and the Goebbels diaries. These sources have a pretty clear message overall : that Hitler unquestionably says throughout his life that he believes in a God / the "Providence" / the "almighty Creator" which he constantly mentions even when he has no political reason to do so, that he thinks his actions are inspired by this "Providence", however that his attitude towards Christianity and the Catholic Church as a political institution are controversial, changing through time, and often contradictory. The article starts by saying "Aspects of Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate". When you read through the rest of the article, you see that there is indeed a controversy, and that this controversy is on a very specific point : was Hitler a Christian who tried to adapt parts of the Catholic dogma to fit his political agenda, or was Hitler a Deist who progressively became thoroughly anti-Christian since he viewed Xtianity as an obstacle to his nationalism. Since there are quotes that support both points of view, I think the bulk of the article is pretty honest on that subject ; however the introduction is extremely misleading. The introduction literally implies that Hitler was an atheist (or at least an anti-Christian Nihilist) who used Christianity as an opportunist move for his political agenda. However you can't claim this as a fact and say there is a controversy at the same time, since this is the very subject of the controversy in the first place!

The article is also way too biased toward Alan Bullock's opinions. The whole article stands on the assumption that Hitler is purely an opportunist, and the only source for that is that Bullock said so. I think it's downright misleading to call Hitler an opportunist, when he was clearly an extreme German nationalist through and through, and everything he did was in the name of nationalism, as you can see in Mein Kampf. It's easy to call Hitler an opportunist based on hatred during the post WW2 climate, still doesn't make it accurate. Hell, even Bullock *himself* changed his mind on that idea. Quoted from Wikipedia's article on Bullock : "Later, Bullock to some extent changed his mind about Hitler. His later works show the dictator as much more of an ideologue, who pursued the ideas expressed in Mein Kampf (and elsewhere) despite their consequences.".

List of contestable statements in the article :

- "Hitler was baptised and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church as a boy, but became hostile to Catholicism in adulthood." This is downright false. Hitler was born in 1889. He was clearly an adult when he said in 1941, at age 52, as reported in Engel's diary, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." At most you can say "Some historians argue that he progressively became hostile to Catholicism towards the end of WW2".

- "Many scholars believe that Hitler's expressed views on religion were always and entirely cynical throughout his political career, and that he was in fact an atheist.[citation needed] ". Citation needed indeed. This is a baseless claim and should be either supported or removed. The following quote by Bullock is even self-contradictory, since it says Hitler sees himself as "a man with a mission marked by Providence", but he believes "neither in God nor in conscience". If the point is that the "providence" Hitler refers to is not actually God, this is severely misleading, since Hitler alternatively uses the words "providence", "God" and "the almighty Creator" (3 different German words) in both his speeches and Mein Kampf.

- "In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf, Hitler outlines a nihilistic philosophy". This feels both biased and false. Hitler is anything but a nihilist, as I've said, he's a German ultra-nationalist who wants to free Germany from the Versailles treaty and the "Jewish conspiracy", and he believed in the "Providence/almighty Creator". I don't have the same edition of Mein Kampf so I can't pinpoint the exact references in [12], but I read Mein Kampf and this feels really out of place. I'm just going to say "Mein Kampf" means "My Fight". What does a nihilist fight for exactly???-

- "In practice Hitler's regime persecuted the churches, and worked to reduce the influence of Christianity on society." Even if this statement is true, it's still biased. Hitler persecuted atheists too, there's even a section on it. If you mention this, you have to mention that he persecuted atheists as well.

- "Hitler was reluctant to make public attacks on the Church for political reasons,[20] but generally permitted or encouraged his inner-circle of anti-church radicals such as Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann to perpetrate the Nazi persecutions of the churches." This is extremely biased, because it implies that Hitler always wanted to attack the Church, and it fails to mention that Hitler was on extremely good terms with the Vatican throughout his period in power, which drove german Christians to accept his rule.

- The fact that the SS had the policy that believing in God is a *requirement* to join should be mentioned. "I never allowed an unbeliever to join the SS" - Himmler, 1944. The SS oath was : “What is your oath ?” – “I vow to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the leaders, that you set for me, absolute allegiance, till death. So help me god !” “So you believe in a god ?” – “Yes, I believe in a supreme being.” “What do you think about a man who does not believe in a god ?” – “I think he is overbearing, megalomaniac and foolish; he is not adequate for our society.”

- "Officially, the Party endorsed what it termed "Positive Christianity" which stripped the religion of its Jewish origins and certain key doctrines such as belief in the divinity of Christ." The claim that Positive Christianity stripped the religion of the divinity of Christ is misleading and unfounded. The reference given is [15], a quote by Hans Kerrl, which says that Christianity is "not dependent" upon the Apostle's creed and the divinity of Christ. Not that it rejects it. That's a big nuance. And why use this convoluted quote instead of the much simpler one, by Kerrl as well : “The question of the divinity of Christ is ridiculous and inessential. A new answer has arisen as to what Christ and Christianity are: Adolph Hitler.”. If the message is to say that Hitler can't be a Christian because Positive Christianity rejects the divinity of Christ, then this claim is purely and simply unsupported.

- "Plans to destroy Christianity", also all references to Hitler wanting to destroy Christianity throughout the article. This is biased because all the evidence talks about plans against the two major Christian *Churches*, both the Catholic and Protestant ones, not Christianity itself. It's kind of a No True Scotsman fallacy, since it assumes at the very beginning that Nazism is not Christian (otherwise you couldn't say that he planned to destroy all of Christianity, just all the other forms of it), and it's ironic that this assumption is made here since this exact argument of persecution against Catholics and Protestants is often quoted in the Christian narrative as evidence that...Hitler wasn't a Christian! The provable historic facts are that Hitler wanted to subjugate the Christian churches to the Nazi state, that the Nazis persecuted all the churches that resisted which led to persecutions of both Catholics and Protestants, that the Nazis tried to absorb the Christian doctrine and subjugate it to their own racist and militaristic ideology, that Hitler was very critical of some aspects of Xtianity, and that they made significant alterations to the Christian dogma through the impulse of Hans Kerrl to fit their ideology. However, what if Positive Christianity is like Mormonism, a doctrine significantly different from Catholicism and Protestantism, but that still qualifies as Christian? If fundamentalist Mormons made a totalitarian state, of course they'd be fighting against both Catholics and Protestants, oppressing them and trying to subjugate them, since they would be rivals. But in that case it'd be called a religious struggle *inside* Christianity, not a plan to destroy Christianity. I'm not claiming that this interpretation is true. I'm just saying that as long as no evidence is presented that this interpretation is impossible, the article cannot straight up rule it out like it does right now. IMO it has to be more factual like saying "Plan to subjugate the Catholic and Protestant Churches" for example. The OSS report "the Nazi master plan" for example clearly talks about the two Churches as political entities, not Xtianity as a belief system.

All in all, the bulk of the article is good, but the introduction is extremely biased and should be rewritten at least partially IMO, and the bias for Bullock's "opportunist Hitler" should be either reworked or supported with other independent sources. For the sake of honesty, the introduction should IMO be clear on the fact that there is massive evidence of Hitler saying that he believes in a personal God at every point of his life, zero evidence that he's an atheist, however that the exact nature of his religious beliefs remains controversial and unclear and can range anywhere from Deism/Pantheism to Christianity (at least his interpretation of it, but any religious person relies on interpretation anyways), with the truth probably somewhere in between.

Since I've provided with material to work with in the discussion I think I can safely put back the NPOV tag.

Hamstergamer (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You arguing with (usually) sourced material is original research, which we don't use. You alone do not make up a consensus. Also, as you admit, "the bulk of the article is good." As such, tagging the whole article is inappropriate. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In order to show that the article is biased towards a certain point of view, you cannot merely show that other interpretations are possible. You need to show that other interpretations have prominence in reliable sources, per neutrality policy. TFD (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with quoting Bullock's opinion on the subject. But the entire article is based on portraying Hitler as an opportunist, with only Bullock quoted as a source. So there is a neutrality problem because the whole article is founded on an appeal to authority to one specific historian at one specific time of his work. The issues I pointed out in my post run through the entirety of the article so I don't see how you could come to any other conclusion from what I said than tagging the entire article. When I said the bulk of the article is good, I meant that the article was well-sourced and written professionally, however that the writer(s) have a bias throughout the entire article that should be corrected. Hamstergamer (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"as you can see in Mein Kampf". This seems problematic. Mein Kampf is an autobiography, and presents ideas and events that Hitler wanted to make public. Its factual nature is somewhat questionable, particularly whether it should be taken at face value. Would Hitler publicize controversial ideas that could damage his political career? Probably not.

And the work was actually published in 1925-1926, when Hitler was still far from achieving political power. He lived for another 20 years and his religious views could have changed.

Take this passage from the Murphy translation of Mein Kampf, regarding Hitler's childhood experience with religion: "In my freetime I practised singing in the choir of the monastery church at Lambach, and thus it happened that I was placed in a very favourable position to be emotionally impressed again and again by the magnificent splendour of ecclesiastical ceremonial. What could be more natural for me than to look upon the Abbot as representing the highest human ideal worth striving for, just as the position of the humble village priest had appeared to my father in his own boyhood days?"

A choir boy enamored with church ceremony. Do you think his views did not change with time?

On another topic, Hitler claims to have had little knowledge of Jews as as a boy and no personal familiarity with them. "To-day it is hard and almost impossible for me to say when the word 'Jew' first began to raise any particular thought in my mind. I do not remember even having heard the word at home during my father's lifetime. If this name were mentioned in a derogatory sense I think the old gentleman would just have considered those who used it in this way as being uneducated reactionaries." ... "At the REALSCHULE I knew one Jewish boy. We were all on our guard in our relations with him, but only because his reticence and certain actions of his warned us to be discreet. Beyond that my companions and myself formed no particular opinions in regard to him."

Do you think his views did not change? Dimadick (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe we have two votes in favor of tagging the article for POV -- @Hamstergamer: as well as the earlier IP visitor. I'm not a big fan of maintenance tags, but the rules say if there's a substantive dispute going on, the article should be tagged. So, I'm restoring the tag.

And, I agree with most of Hamstergamer's specific points. I would encourage Hamstergamer to go ahead and make whatever changes to the text as he feels would be appropriate to fix the problems he's identified, and then we can discuss. Maybe one item at a time, to prevent mass reverts and confusion? JerryRussell (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Pretty quiet around here, eh? I'll start the ball rolling: Many scholars believe that Hitler's expressed views on religion were always and entirely cynical throughout his political career, and that he was in fact an atheist.[citation needed] " I think I inserted the cn tag when I was last working on the article. I'm deleting it. JerryRussell (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm quiet because I just noticed several days ago the MASSIVE archive of debate on this article, and it takes a while to process it so as not to say the same things again for the 100th time. I'm still not done with my criticism and there are a few other claims I want to examine in closer detail before I get to the editing. For example the claims about a "consensus of historians" on specific topics. This takes some research. I will update you accordingly and I have no problem with JerryRussel or someone else doing the editing at least for now. Hamstergamer (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hamstergamer, good to know you're still working on it. I look forward to your contributions. You'll notice I've done a lot of editing on the article recently, and I don't want to be accused of ownership behavior. JerryRussell (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you had a hand in writing the article, but if you just deal with the specific issues honestly I see no problem with it. Talking about accusations, I just have to respond to the original research accusation I received for what I said, which is completely unfounded. Wikipedia is pretty clear that original research is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". I never used any of that. Pointing out that one specific reference of the article is in direct contradiction with another reference is the very opposite of original research. It means that there's a contradiction that needs to be worked out. Hamstergamer (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

First round of editing.

- "plans to destroy Christianity" -> "plans against the Christian churches". You can't claim as a fact that there was a plan to destroy Christianity when the paragraph underneath clearly has several quotes that support the interpretation that the Nazis wanted to subjugate Christianity to the Nazi doctrine, which is a very different thing. You can't take an interpretation of the facts and claim it as a fact.

- "he became hostile to Xtianity in adulthood" -> "towards the end of his life". The anti-Xtian quotes of Hitler are all dated from after 1941.

- "Officially, the Party endorsed what it termed "Positive Christianity" which stripped the religion of its Jewish origins and certain key doctrines such as belief in the divinity of Christ." -> "which stripped the religion of its Jewish origins, set up Hitler as a messianic figure, and did not require the belief in the divinity of Christ.". Look at Kerrl's quote, my version matches the quote, the previous version didn't.

The bias of the article is mainly in the introduction, which IMO needs to be rewritten. I will make a separate section to explain why the current introduction is heavily biased, misleading, and does not give an accurate summary of the bulk of the article. I will then write my own introduction and start a discussion.

Hamstergamer (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"Augustinian"

There is a probable misspelling in the article: "Hitler, wrote Goebbels, saw the pre-Christian Augustinian Age as the high point of history"

There is no such thing as an Augustinian Age, but the term Augustan Age is used for the reign of Augustus over the Roman Empire. And it is often considered a peak for Roman culture and literature. Dimadick (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The source says Augustinian Google books but I suppose there's no obligation for us to reproduce a deprecated word form. I'm fixing it. JerryRussell (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Debunking the bias in the introduction

The entire introduction has a *massive* bias. It doesn't give an accurate summary of the bulk of the article by any stretch of the word. Instead, it cherrypicks the most extreme position among all the quotes and evidence available in the references and puts that position on display at the front of the article. It is also extremely misleading by both stating some provably incorrect facts (some of which I've already corrected), and by taking quotes out of context. This section is dedicated to debunking that bias.

"Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity"". But Goebbels also said in the same diary : "The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian". The quote is even in the bulk of the article! So the part about Hitler being deeply religious is not relevant enough to be included apparently. Only the part about him hating Christianity. On an article about Hitler's *religious views*. You can't truncate the complete message from Goebbels' diaries if you want to include it.

"transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, indicate anti-Christian beliefs.". Yes, they definitely do. However, these transcripts *also* indicate anti-atheist beliefs, which aren't included in the references but are on Wikiquote. Again, you can't have one without the other. Either mention both or don't mention the Table Talk in the introduction.

"Bullock considered Hitler to be a rationalist and a materialist who did not believe in God, but who frequently employed the language of "divine providence" in defence of his own myth." The bias here by putting this quote in the introduction is so massive it's laughable. This is ONE quote. One single quote in the entire set of 268 references in the article that claim that Hitler did not believe in God. It's not representative of anything. It's not a consensus of historians by any stretch of the word, it's not representative in any way of the general message gives by the bulk of the article since no other quote says that. It's even directly contradicted by several OTHER references. And it's put in the freaking introduction, which is supposed to give an overall view of the bulk of the evidence! I think it should be removed from the introduction (since it's already quoted twice in the bulk) and replaced with a much more middle-ground quote that *actually* reflects the majority of the bulk.

This reference : "Wheaton, Eliot Barculo The Nazi revolution, 1933–1935: prelude to calamity:with a background survey of the Weimar era, p. 290, 363, Doubleday 1968: The Nazis sought "to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch." given in [36]. I can't check it directly, but the expression is oddly reminiscent of this quote : "The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future—certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity, root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.", present on https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Misattributed. It's the exact same expression "eradicate Christianity root and branch". And it's...a forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamstergamer (talk • contribs) 02:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"eradicate Christianity" replaced by "eliminate the christian churches". You can't conflate the churches with "Christianity". The references clearly talk about the churches as political entities.

Even if everything said in the introduction was accurate and unbiased (which it isn't), the introduction is still lacking. The question is Hitler's religious views. And the text only explains why Hitler is not a Christian. "not a Christian" is not "religious views". "religious views" means POSITIVE religious views. Where is that? Hamstergamer (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

First significant edit of the introduction. Since editing involves dealing with references I can't post drafts on this discussion page, I have to edit the actual article straight away. Feel free to compare with the previous version to see the changes. What I plan to do do in subsequent edits: include persecutions of atheist groups along with Jehovah's witnesses and others, give a more accurate summary of the section on Mein Kampf in the bulk, and give a more faithful overview of the interpretations of historians compared to what's in the bulk of the artcle. Don't hesitate to discuss. Hamstergamer (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes. Perhaps in place of In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf, Hitler outlines a nihilistic philosophy we should say a nationalistic philosophy? JerryRussell (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed, nihilistic is really poor wording but I'm not sure naturalistic is the word to replace it as. After all he does use the words ,creator, lord and god .

Nationalistic? If there's a one word summary of Mein Kampf, that would have to be it. JerryRussell (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, done. I've edited everything that in my opinion posed a neutrality issue in the article. I changed the "nihilistic" part into the more factual statement already used in the Mein Kampf section. I apologize if my editing was done all at once and on my own terms, but as I've said before I didn't have the option to post drafts on this page because my editing required messing with the reference table and I can't post 200+ references here. I think I've explained in detail the reasoning behind my editing. Don't hesitate to look at the change log for exact changes. I'm available for debate and I welcome any kind of discussion or constructive criticism. If there are no objections to the changes I'm willing to drop the NPOV tag. Hamstergamer (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Hamstergamer! I agree that the changes make for a more accurate and neutral article. I would also endorse removing the NPOV tag at this point.

One other problem I've noticed is that the ToolTip hover-over citations are broken in the lede now. I've studied the citations and I can't see what's gone wrong. Does anyone else see this? JerryRussell (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: The problem seem to have started by your edit here Worked before, not after. Jim1138 (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Tacit Assumptions of Evidence in Confusion

"Raised by an anti-clerical father and practising Catholic mother, Hitler was baptised and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church as a boy, which he never officially left, and openly supported Christianity in his public speeches and in some private statements. However, there is a general consensus among historians that he became hostile to religion, especially Christianity, towards the end of his life."

There's a logical structure suggested by the two sentences as currently juxtaposed that's a problem. The first closes as though it were tacitly compounding a series of facts that might suggest the conclusion that the "Religious views of Adolf Hitler" (the title) are possibly quite Christian: "...and openly supported Christianity in his public speeches and in some private statements." The idea that this sentence is cohesively suggesting the possible conclusion of a Christian Hitler is re-enforced as the next sentence leads with "However"; setting up the juxtaposition, then providing the alternative (the general historic consensus).

On closer examination, sentence 1 begins not with evidence but with counter-evidence (was raised by an anti-clerical father). It also artlessly blurs passive participation (baptised as an infant--apparently he made no strenuous objections) and active initiative (and supported Christianity in his public speeches). Guilty on 2 counts. It conflates legitimate biographical details (his mother was a practising Catholic) with compelling evidences of the Fuhrer's own views (his own private statements). Lastly, it fails to distinguish between the evidence of action and of inaction (which he never officially left) and tacitly assumes the latter to have (obvious) meaning.

This article has problems that can't be remedied by voices aggressively competing to rewrite history. Somebody fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3BB:2400:3169:E794:38A2:FDD6 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it is quite balanced considering Hitler's complicated views on religion. I assume you are well enough informed to know that he made openly Christian claims in public and then took openly anti-Christian actions as a leader. How do we balance the prose in an article about a person who says one thing and does another? We just repeat what reliable sources say about the matter and leave the speculation to the reader, which is what we have done. Lipsquid (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite balanced. I agree there are a lot of people (atheists) attempting to rewrite history by presenting Hitler as a christian when he clearly wasn't. He was at least anti-religion and at the most an atheist. 10:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I think he was really an elf from Middle Earth, but luckily we don't put editor opinions on Wikipedia. Lipsquid (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No need. My opinion, as highlighted in the article is the consensus among historians. Luckily armchair historians like yourself don't get the final say. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are not one of the people quoted in the article, you too are an armchair historian. :) As i said, Hitler was a vocal, public Christian proponent who acted in very un-Christian manner, that is the consensus among historians. That is why we have both views in the article. 18:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see you are also an armchair intellectual, like most atheists. Did you actually read the article? "He is generally believed to have been skeptical of religion, but opportunistic and shrewdly aware of its influence on politics" and " However, there is a general consensus among historians that he became hostile to religion, especially Christianity, towards the end of his life" Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I helped write that, seriously.  :) Hahahaha.... personal attacks don't bother me, but fair warning, it is against wikipedia policy and others don't take it as well. Keep the banter to the article, not opinions about other's views. You guessing I am an atheist or intellectual atheist doesn't do anything for the article, but it does make me laugh, which is good in its own way. Lipsquid (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You not understanding the content of the article makes me laugh also. :) Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand since I help write it.

“Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.” ~Adolf Hitler

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out” ~Adolf Hitler

"He was at least anti-religion and at the most an atheist" - Apollo the Logician

hahahaha Lipsquid (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"He is generally believed to have been skeptical of religion, but opportunistic and shrewdly aware of its influence on politics

I see you have shifted the goalposts by the way. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I helped write that too :) Here is my edit on the sentence Lipsquid (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

None of this changes the fact that you are changing the goalposts and are wrong. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The sentence you mention in the OP is made to mention two facts which are extremely well-sourced : that Hitler was openly pro-Christian in his speeches but that during the post-1940 period he made anti-Christian statements in his private circle. The two things aren't mutually exclusive by any stretch, and they're verifiable facts not interpretations. The "However" is here because of the obvious contradiction between Hitler's actions. Since the two claims are fully sourced the only thing you can do is accuse it of original synthesis. But even then that accusation doesn't hold to examination. Original synthesis is using two well-sourced statements in a personal manner to imply a biased conclusion. But the sentence in question doesn't imply a specific conclusion over another. It can be interpreted either as "Hitler was a Christian for most of his life but he rejected Christianity during WW2" or as "Hitler was an anti-Christian all his life but made speeches to defend Christianity as a political move". The sentence doesn't have a bias towards a specific interpretation, and it doesn't imply anything more than the sum of its parts. It states facts and lets the reader make his own mind. So the accusation of original synthesis falls flat.

As for the part about Hitler being a member of the Catholic church which he never left, since this is an article about Hitler's religious views, his official appartenance to the Catholic church has to be mentioned in the introduction. It's a verifiable fact, it's fully relevant to the issue, and it doesn't include any interpretation whatsoever. The only thing this sentence implies is that Hitler wanted to publically appear Catholic, which is supported by massive evidence. Accusing this of being biased is really unfounded.

You claim that these passages imply the fact that Hitler was Christian, but this is just unfounded. The first passage does nothing but state sourced facts, and doesn't take sides on the debate of whether Hitler was a Christian or not before WW2. As you can see in the bulk of the article, historians all agree that Hitler abandoned Christianity at some point, which the article clearly says, however that the exact time at which he did so is a matter of debate so there's no consensus. Wikipedia can't take sides in this debate. And the passage about Hitler never leaving the Catholic church only implies the fact that Hitler wanted to PUBLICALLY appear Christian, which has to be said here, and which is a verifiable fact. And nothing else. It's even written "which he never OFFICIALLY left". So there's no ambiguity that this is talking about his official status and not his personal beliefs.

You also make claims of "tacit assumptions" but you don't give any evidence of tacit assumptions in the article that aren't properly sourced.Hamstergamer (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Stumped by tooltip problem

The tooltip hover-over citations are broken in the lede. This morning, I experimented with a process of elimination in an attempt to isolate the problem. The editing history for the page shows the various experiments I tried. I believe it's now safe to say that the problem is not caused by any particular citation or other item in the lede, but rather it is some distributed issue. Pinging the Javascript developer, @Yair rand:, for help. Thanks! JerryRussell (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: An unclosed cite tag inside the blockquote was doing really weird things to the HTML of the references, which was causing the bug. Now fixed. --Yair rand (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Get over it.

Hitler was always an atheist. I am tired of people denying that fact. Those speeches people bring up are lies. Hitler said he was an atheist and never claimed to be Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:FD34:96C1:7D4E:BC38 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add this information to the article, you have to cite a source for it. Otherwise, it will be (and has been) reverted, because it looks like an opinion. It may not be an opinion, but without a reliable source, there's no way of knowing if it is or not. MereTechnicality (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

He did claim to be a Christian. Here is a link to a compilation of multiple assertions of his faith, including his denunciations of atheism. TFD (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

These claims have already been debunked and denied by the general historian.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

By whom? Please provide a link (I don't have a lot of time right now so I don't want to find one myself) MereTechnicality (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

See the refs in the article.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You said, "Hitler...never claimed to be a Christian." (my emphasis.) In fact he did, and I just provided a link to multiple occassions where he made the claim. Can you point to any of these where he was falsely quoted? If not you have begun this discussion thread with a false statement. TFD (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I didnt start this discussion thread. I was just pointing out that most historians would laugh in your face for using those quotes for proof of Hitler being christianApollo The Logician (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think TFD meant that Hitler at the minimum used the title Christian to describe himself to the public. WikiEditor1993 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Apollo, I did not provide them as proof that Hitler was a Christian but as proof he claimed to be one, which is the premise of the argument provided by the IP. Did you come here to respond to the discussion or just to insult other editors? TFD (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies then. I wouldn't exactly call that an insult though Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"most historians would laugh in your face" is insulting. TFD (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is this quote from?

I saw this quote at the end of the article, "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfilment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence.". Where did this quote originate from? WikiEditor1993 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

See the footnote: Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003), The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-82371-5 p. 26. TFD (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Did it originate from Hitler? If it came from Hitler, what speech or where did he write it at? WikiEditor1993 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The source says it is from Mein Kampf, pp. 214, 327.[1] TFD (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and source. WikiEditor1993 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Question?

Did the Nazis ban Christmas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:FCBA:D3ED:DA65:34F9 (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

See Christmas in Nazi Germany. General Ization ^Talk 22:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:FCBA:D3ED:DA65:34F9 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Quotes from Mein Kampf

Nations that make mongrels of their people, or allow their people to be turned into mongrels, sin against the Will of Eternal Providence.

The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people.

By presenting his doctrine as part and parcel of a just revindication of social rights, the Jew propagated the doctrine all the more effectively. But at the same time he provoked the opposition of decent people who refused to admit these demands which, because of the form and pseudo-philosophical trimmings in which they are presented, seemed fundamentally unjust and impossible for realization. For, under the cloak of purely social concepts there are hidden aims which are of a Satanic character.

source : http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

So the Jews are associated with Satan, and the doctrine of racial purity comes directly from "the Eternal Providence". Doesn't this deserve a mention? Hamstergamer (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources that analyze and interpret sources, rather than our personal interpretations of primary sources. In this case, my reading is that Hitler was using the terms "satanically" and "Providence" metaphorically. However, to be sure I would have read the entire book to understand the context and see how other writers of the time used these terms. Fortunately, scholars have already done that for us, and we can use their works as sources. TFD (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Satanic is maybe metaphorical, yes. He uses the word quite a few times though, and always when talking about Jews. A metaphorical use of the word Providence, I have never seen that in my life. Can you like me to the Wikipedia policy that makes using secondary sources a requirement? Hamstergamer (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

See "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources": "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Napoleon, who was an atheist and incidentally admired by Hitler said, "I am the instrument of providence, she will use me as long as I accomplish her designs, then she will break me like a glass." TFD (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deists

Wikipedia lists Napoleon as a deist. It's far from clear cut that he was an atheist. Napoleon is in a similar camp as Hitler so it's the same problem.Hamstergamer (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

What about something like "Hitler in Mein Kampf used Satan to refer to the actions of the Jews." or something like that? 2601:982:8200:4790:100:3B06:9A01:8780 (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Beware of using Speer to claim Hitler was Catholic

Beware of using Speer as your confirmation that Hitler was "Catholic". Speer did note that he thought Hitler had "no attachment" to Catholicism, but "remained in the Church" at the time of his suicide. BUT Speer also writes that Hitler intended a "reckoning with the Church" once his "other problem" was solved. This fits with what Goebells wrote about Hitler keeping senior Nazis in their Churches as a "tactical" move. This should also explain to the doubters why all the Hitler biographers state that Hitler was hostile to Catholicism. Ozhistory (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ozhistory:, thanks for reviewing the article. I hope everyone will agree, now, that the pov tag can come off? @Hamstergamer:, still OK? JerryRussell (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually...not anymore. I have issues with the recent edits.

"Though he became hostile to its teachings in adulthood, did not participate in its rites, and planned a "reckoning" with the Church when politics allowed, he had not officially left it at the time of his suicide". There are several problems with this sentence. The most glaring one is the expression "in adulthood". I've already talked about that, it's biased because it blurs time. All the anti-Christian statements from Hitler date from after 1939. Hitler became an adult when he turned 18, but he was past 50 when he made those statements. That's why I replaced it by "towards the end of his life". Besides, this sentence is just repeating what has already been said elsewhere. The introduction already states "there is a consensus among historians that Hitler became hostile to Christianity towards the end of his life". Repeating the exact same thing as a reserve on the statement of Hitler belonging to the Catholic church is both needless and undue weight. Besides, I read Speer's quotes and I don't remember anything about Hitler being hostile to the church's teachings. How is "being hostile to the church's teachings" even a verifiable fact? Is there evidence of Hitler having a priest arrested because he didn't like the religious contents of his sermon? I always thought Hitler only fought the political side of the churches. If he had nothing against their religious teachings, you can't really claim that, can you? I agree with the part about not participating in the rites and the "reckoning" though, this can definitely be said. But as a whole, you can't put 2 lines of reserve before stating that Hitler was officially a member of the Catholic church, that's a clear undue weight issue.

"At times in his political career, Hitler said he supported "Christianity" in public speeches". Why add the expression "at times"? Are there times where his attitude towards Christianity in public was - not - open support? Citation needed? And why put "Christianity" in quotes? It's not in quotes in any of the sources, isn't that a No True Scotsman to imply that it's not "true" Christianity?

My version :

Hitler remained a member of the Catholic church until his suicide. However he did not participate in its rites, and according to Speer he had no personal attachment to it at the end of his life.

even the "reckoning" part, while perfectly relevant, has already been said elsewhere in the introduction, like in "Hitler eventually hoped to eliminate the Christian churches in Germany, although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons". so no point saying it here. Again, repetitions and undue weight. Hamstergamer (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent version is fine. We cant really say when he became hostile to Catholicism as he kept his real views secret. Adulthood will have to do.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hamstergamer that the repetition is undue weight, and that the scare quotes around "Christianity" imply a bias. JerryRussell (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Opposing "Hitler was baptized as a boy" and "he became hostile to the church's teachings in adulthood" implies that Hitler lost his faith as a young adult like Rudolf Höss did. That's a very biased way of putting it. I call that original synthesis. Hamstergamer (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with the edits (I edited nothing). The "at some point during adulthood" is good and putting it several sentences after the "he was baptized as a boy" removes the original synthesis. GJ. I think the NPOV issue is gone now.

Still one contradiction :

"he became hostile to religion, especially Christianity, at some point during adulthood" (wikipedia) vs "The Führer is deeply religious, but completely anti-Christian" (Goebbels). I'm not sure the claim that Hitler was against religion in general is supported. Hamstergamer (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hamstergamer:'s version of this sentence: Hitler remained a member of the Catholic church until his suicide. However he did not participate in its rites, and according to Speer he had no personal attachment to it at the end of his life. has been reverted by @EarlOfBagels: to @OzHistory:'s version Though he became hostile to its teachings in adulthood, did not participate in its rites, and planned a "reckoning" with the Church when politics allowed, he had not officially left it at the time of his suicide. Hamstergamer's objection to this formulation was based on WP:SYNTH, but mainly on a question about whether Hitler was hostile to the Catholic Church's teachings, or merely its politics. Is there a citation that could be used to verify the statement? Hamstergamer thinks that Speer didn't exactly say that.

Perhaps to further put the facts in perspective, the article should specifically point out that the issue isn't just that Hitler didn't quit the church himself. Just as importantly, he was never excommunicated by the Catholic church hierarchy, in spite of his misdeeds. JerryRussell (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, misspelled @Ozhistory:. JerryRussell (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

My main objection to this formulation was the fact that it repeated as a reserve things that were already clearly said elsewhere in the introduction. So repetitions and undue weight. Look at my previous comments. The original synthesis was fixed by separating the statements so it's no longer an issue, forget about that. Please stop edit warring without debating here. The fact that Hitler was never excommunicated is said in the bulk of the article, just not in the introduction. If you want to quickly mention it in the introduction, why not. The relevant fact is maybe the fact that he wasn't excommunicated *after* his death, which isn't implied by what there is written currently.Hamstergamer (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hamstergamer, thanks for the clarification. Above you wrote, I read Speer's quotes and I don't remember anything about Hitler being hostile to the church's teachings. How is "being hostile to the church's teachings" even a verifiable fact? Who knows what Hitler actually thought, but the question is what Speer said about it, or what historians think in general? It seems reasonable to ask for a citation check. JerryRussell (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be better to ask for citation for an historian who doesn't say Hitler was hostile to Catholicism, as this is how his main biographers define his view of the religion. Who are the historians who claim otherwise? Ozhistory (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the lede

Apollo The Logician I don't necessarily disagree with your edits in truthfulness, but the lede reads better as currently written. Per pretty much all of the sources in the article, Hitler was born and raised Catholic, he remained a member of the Catholic church his entire life, he spoke positively about Christianity in public (especially during the early years of the Third Reich) and at some point became very opposed to religion and this is exactly what the lede says now. To write that he was opposed to religion in the first sentence, does not agree with his periods of positive commentary about Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam, in his early leadership of Nazi party. All of this is well documented in the article. Most is a weasel word unless well sourced. The average reader seeing 4 scholars saying the same thing will be construed as strong proof, there is no reason to change it to "most". 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

All mentioned historians say he was opposed to religion. "Skeptical" is just WP:WEASELApollo The Logician (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It depends on what period on the timeline of his life. No sources say he was always opposed, which is what your edit implies. Most says he ended up opposed to religion and that is how the lede currently reads. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No it says "skeptical" which is clearly WP:WEASEL. Stop removing most historians, it is the longstanding version.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Most" was added this month. Before it said "many". "Many" was determined to be vague, so those specific scholars were added, which is probably an improvement. [[2]] It reads great as is. The really long term stable version would have that entire sentence removed. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to re add many and if you remove it I will report you and you will almost certainly be blocked.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That was the issue, as I already noted and you were confused as "many" not "most" was in long term stable version. You shouldn't make threats when you are over 3RR, escpecially since you have zero influence on blocking me. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No I am not, that would be you. Either way none of this changes the fact that you are breaching wiki policy.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm, no you have breached policy. You had no consensus, you breached 3rr and you ignored the spirit of Bold, Revert, Discuss. i had to open this discussion and it never said Many, it said most. Happy Friday! 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at your own edit history. You have broken 3RR and have no consensus to delete many.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician your are violation of WP:TALKNO and 3RR. When two other editors ask you to discuss you should listen and respect the process of Wikipedia. I have checked through the history and there is no 'stable' version of this article over the last 4-6 weeks. The best improvement was the inclusion of named historians instead of 'many' or 'most' (although these terms are variously included as well). Let's discuss the best way forward rather than resorting to edit warring and threats (which you are guilty of) Robynthehode (talk)

And he just edits it again anyway. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: Give one reason why many cant e included as well as the kid of historians. If the list of historians has been added then there is no vagueness.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

New edits

I am shifting alot of material around, in the hope of ultimately reducing the size of the article by deleting repetition, of which there is still much. I am also cross-checking sources which have often moved away from original text. Ozhistory (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Introduction changes - debate

The introduction has undergone important changes recently and not a single line of constructive debate has been had. Moving material from and to the introduction has obvious neutrality issues and there needs to be a serious discussion on this page on the recent changes to the intro. Personally I believe that any significant edit to the intro should be discussed here in a democratic manner - not doing so can only lead to ownership behavior and edit warring.

I see a lot of loaded language used in the introduction such as Hitler "oppressed the Churches" (used several times), or Hitler's "secretive and perfidious nature". This needs to be replaced by neutral words.

Besides, the reason why there's a debate is not Hitler's "secretive and perfidious nature". It's the fact that the information is contradictory : some quotes support a Christian Hitler, some quotes support a Deist "Gottglaubig" Hitler, and some quotes support an anticlerical Hitler. There's also evidence that his beliefs changed through time.

Hitler showing "skepticism towards religion at an early age" is NOT supported by quote [1] at all, quote which can even support the opposite interpretation (asking a lot of questions = a fond interest in religion) ; and quote [2] is NOT skepticism towards religion either, it's just Hitler saying that other people are skeptical, not himself - besides this is clearly biased since other quotes state that Hitler *does* believe in an afterlife. This "skepticisism towards religion at an early age" statement is really unsupported.

Finally I take issue with removing the dates for each statement - which I remember mentioning myself - because Hitler's beliefs evolved over time : for example "His remarks to confidants [...] indicate anti-Christian beliefs" has to say that this is post 1939.

The section of the introduction on Mein Kampf has a significant bias. All the content is anticlerical and the passages stating Hitler's belief in a personal God were moved to the bulk. As someone who's read Mein Kampf from cover to cover - this is not an objective summary of the book's views on religion by any stretch.

Finally - and this is an old issue of the article - the "victim narrative" of the Christian churches needs to be challenged. The role of the Churches during WW2 is complex and is NOT just the role of a victim. Like the part about the Vatican officially celebrating Hitler's birthday, which isn't even mentioned in the article, and the Catholic Church's support for Nazism before WW2. Having only a few words on the concordat while repeating multiple times that the Churches were "oppressed" is a massive undue weight issue and a long-standing bias througout the article. Hamstergamer (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, more recent edits have expanded the citations you name as of concern, to give a fuller account confirming those historians wrote that Hitler "showed skepticism towards religion at an early age". I cannot see how a summary could not touch on Hitler's deceptive nature, but I have added the caveat "partly". Undoubtedly the man's views evolved, so I agree with you on the necessity for dating. I also agree the Mein Kampf section needs work - but keep in mind the necessity to quote reliably sourced historians, and not merely pick out original research quotes supporting your interpretations. On your final concern of presenting the churches as victims, I have beefed up the citations from which this account is based. This is not an article about church responses to nazism, but it does concern Hitler's view and treatment of the churches. In any case, the sources overwhelmingly confirm the churches were oppressed under Hitler. Ozhistory (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your recent edits. However the accusation of "original research" is completely baseless. Quoting Mein Kampf where Hitler explicitely states his belief in a personal God on multiple occasions is anything but original research. Original research is interpretation of sources, here it's an explicit statement with no room for interpretation, quoted verbatim. At most you can say it's primary sources, but on a personal issue like religious beliefs I really can't understand not giving any room for what comes directly from the horse's mouth. Hamstergamer (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Nuremberg

Absent, but very pertinent is a good source on what the judges found at Nuremberg about Hitler's religious policy. I will go looking. Ozhistory (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why this not on article?

"Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:9D3A:7729:8601:4727 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What was Hitler's religious views?

What are they? 2601:982:8200:4790:ECE0:11F5:7D1E:239F (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC) 2601:982:8200:4790:75D5:979E:F880:29D5 (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous bias

A bunch of editors who have never read a serious book about Hitler are trying to distort this page to make it look like he was a Christian.

All of Hitler's close confidantes--Bormann, in his diaries; Goebbels, in his diaries; Speer, in his memoirs; and Goering, at Nuremberg--say he was anti-Christian and wanted to eliminate Christianity in the long run. That was also the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials. And all of the academic biographies of Hitler--Kershaw, Bullock, Tolland, etc--say he was anti-Christian.

Yes he made some speeches talking about jesus , and mentioned Jesus a couple times in Mein Kampf. The most persuasive explanation of this--and the explanation adopted by everyone who has looked at this seriously and objectively--is that it was done out of political necessity, in an overwhelmingly Christian society. Dude never went to church once after 18, leaving aside state functions. Steeletrap (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your summary here is quite correct. We just need to work on sourcing for your summary lead. I'll take a closer look. Ozhistory (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I am working through to cite your material where possible. Perhaps though you can do some cross checking of your own, as some of the citations you have left no longer match the line.Ozhistory (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusing editors of bad faith? "trying to distort this page"? Manners please.

Yes, Hitler was anti-Christian for sure starting 1939 as numerous quotes attest. However this says nothing about his beliefs pre-1939. There's a clear shift in tone from Mein Kampf to the WW2 era quotes. What tells you he didn't change from a Christian to a Deist during that time? That's whay Steigman-Gall says. Want to outrule his interpretation completely?

"He wanted to eliminate Christianity" : None of the sources you mention support claiming this as a fact. All the historians' quotes that support this interpretation keep the ambiguity between "control Christianity" and "destroy Christianity". Being a totalitarian leader, obviously Hitler wanted to control religion and sujugate it to Nazi ideology. However that's not the same thing as destroying it altogether : saying that Nazi-controlled Christianity is not Christianity would be a No True Scotsman fallacy. The persecutions of the Christian churches as reported in the OSS report as well as the Nuremberg trials speak of a struggle of the Nazis with the Christian Churches as POLITICAL entities. Identifying the churches with "christianity" is abusive because it implicitly forgets about the "control Christianity" interpretation.

Yes he made some speeches talking about jesus , and mentioned Jesus a couple times in Mein Kampf. The most persuasive explanation of this--and the explanation adopted by everyone who has looked at this seriously and objectively--is that it was done out of political necessity, in an overwhelmingly Christian society. -> Your alleged "seriousness" and "objectiveness" are irrelevant. Only the sources you can provide to support your claim matter. That's one of the possible interpretations, but if you want the article to claim it as the objective truth to the exclusion of all others, prove it. Hamstergamer (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hamstergamer, Bullock and Kershaw certainly do speak of Hitler and the Nazis hope to destroy Christianity. As do Speer, Goebbels and of course Bormann. The quotes begin well before 1939. The OSS brief in fact is explicit too: Christianity was a foundational ideological enemy of Nazism, not merely a political rival. Ozhistory (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Exact citations please. Hamstergamer (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well Kershaw writes that in 1937 Goebbels noted Hitler was becoming more radical on the 'Church Question', and indicated that, though current political circumstances required waiting, his long therm plan was to eventually dissolve the Reich concordat with Rome, detach the church entirely from the state and turn the entire force of the party to 'the destruction of the clerics', and end the Peace of Westphalia in a 'great world showdown'. In 1941, when Bishop August von Galen protested against Nazi Euthanasia and seizures of church properties, although Hitler's sympathies lay with the radicals who wanted Galen dead and church properties seized, he calculated that this would turn Catholic areas still further against the regime. "Only the need for peace in relation with the churches to avoid deteriorating morale on the home front determined his stance", wrote Kershaw, "Events in the Warthegau (where by 1941 94% of churches and chapels in the Posen-Gnesen diocese were closed, 11 % of the clergy were murdered, and most of the remainder thrust into prisons and concentration camps) showed the face of the future."

Here's Bullock: Once the war was over, wrote Bullock, Hitler wanted to root out and destroy the influence of the churches, though until till then he would be circumspect for political reasons:.

In an 8 April 1941 entry, Goebbels wrote that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

According to Speer, Hitler's private secretary, Martin Bormann, relished recording any harsh pronouncements by Hitler against the church. Speer noted in his memoir that churches were not to receive building sites in Hitler's new Berlin. Speer considered Bormann to be the driving force behind the regime's campaign against the churches. Speer thought that Hitler approved of Bormann's aims, but was more pragmatic and wanted to "postpone this problem to a more favourable time": "Once I have settled my other problem," [Hitler] occasionally declared, "I'll have my reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes." But Bormann did not want this reckoning postponed [...] he would take out a document from his pocket and begin reading passages from a defiant sermon or pastoral letter. Frequently Hitler would become so worked up... and vowed to punish the offending clergyman eventually... That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat..."

And finally Bormann - On 14 October 1941, in an entry concerning the fate of Christianity, Hitler says: "Science cannot lie, for its always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself." Religion will crumble before scientific advances, says Hitler: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

The OSS investigator wrote:

"National Socialism was by its very nature hostile to Christianity and the Christian churches [...] Conflict was inevitable [...] Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation by a complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion tailored to fit the needs of National Socialist policy. This radically anti-Christian position is most significantly presented in Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century...generally regarded after Mein Kampf as the most authoritative statement of National Socialist ideology. [...] Thus in a declaration of 5 November 1934, Baldur von Schirach, the German youth leader declared... 'the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognised as a purpose of the National Socialist movement. Considerations of expediency made it impossible, however to to adopt this radical anti-Christian policy officially. Thus the policy actually adopted was to reduce the influence of the Christian churches as far as possible through use of every available means, without provoking the difficulties of an open war of extermination."

— OSS; The Nazi Master Plan; Annex 4: The Persecution of the Christian Churches, 6 July 1945

Speaking of sources, do you have any precise ones please?? Ozhistory (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not about me submitting my own sources to disagree with the "Destroy Christianity" theory. My point is way stronger than that. This is about *your own sources* not proving this theory in any way, in fact the sources you show, specifically selected to prove your point, actually support my point, which I clearly stated in the above paragraph. For me "Hitler wanted to destroy Christianity" is pretty much one big conspiracy theory with no valid evidence to support it. Stating a conspiracy theory that has a large popularity on Christian blogs on Wikipedia as a proven fact is the kind of thing that warrants a shiny NPOV tag.

Let's go through the quotes one at a time :

- Kershaw : This is a about a power struggle between the Nazi party and the Church as a political entity. Obviously a totalitarian leader like Hitler doesn't want the Vatican meddling with his business, he wants to control religion himself. This has nothing to do with "Christianity" as an abstract idea, the word isn't even mentioned. No plan to destroy Christianity to see here, and no evidence to decide between "destroy" and "control".

- Bullock : The "influence of the Churches"? "Delaying conflict for political reasons?". Exactly my point. This is a political struggle, not a religious one. Again, no plan to destroy "Christianity". And no evidence to decide between "destroy" and "control".

- Goebbels : Hitler is anti-Christian after 1939 like I said myself. Nothing new.

- Speer : political struggle and nothing else.

- Bormann : Hitler is anti-Christian after 1939, nothing new. Besides, this is Table Talk, which is highly dubious as a source, so the extreme anti-Christian sentiment could well be a mistranslation.

- OSS report : The only one that says anything of the sort. But there are multiple issues here. First off, this passage is exclusively about the Rosenberg wing of the Nazi movement, not Nazism as a whole, and definitely not Hitler's official stance. The quote is misrepresenting the actual message of the report because 'the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognised as a purpose of the National Socialist movement' is taken out of context. What it says is 'So as far as this sector of the National Socialist Party is concerned, the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognised as a purpose of the National Socialist movement' Second, while the OSS report clearly claims that the Rosenberg wing wants the destruction of Christianity, it's not exactly an ideologically neutral source. Is there external confirmation for this? When you look at Rosenberg's actual writing, it's pretty clear that he's talking about the version of Christianity that has been corrupted by the "Jewish influence" of Paul of Tarsus, and that he wishes to replace that with "positive Christianity" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Twentieth_Century. So are Rosenberg's writings anti-Christian...or anti-Catholic? Is there evidence of Rosenberg condemning Christianity as a whole? And third, Hitler has officially distanced himself from Rosenberg's "Myth of the 20th Century", and has never read the book himself :

I must insist that Rosenberg's "The Myth of the Twentieth Century" is not to be regarded as an expression of the official doctrine of the party. The moment the book appeared, I deliberately refrained from recognizing it as any such thing. In the first place, its title gives a completely false impression... a National Socialist should affirm that to the myth of the nineteenth century he opposes the faith and science of our times... I have myself merely glanced cursorily at it. - Adolf Hitler

Note that the above quote is POST 1941. After Hiter became anti-Christian. This distanciation from Rosenberg is in direct contradiction with what the OSS report claims in your quote : "Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century...generally regarded after Mein Kampf as the most authoritative statement of National Socialist ideology". Well, Hitler doesn't seem to agree.

So, the only thing left is the OSS claim, and there are a lot of things that don't add up about it.

The most you could say is "According to the OSS report, the Rosenberg wing of the Nazi party had the intention to destroy Christianity in Germany, although Hitler distanced himself from Rosenberg's ideological views".

Does that even fit in this article? This article is about Hitler's religious views. Hamstergamer (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You are pushing a fringe POV that goes against almost all of the sources in the article, which depict Hitler making anti-Christian statements in private from the earliest days of his reign. Please stop.

By the way: The quote from the Goebbels dairy, saying that Hitler is "deeply religious" is literally accurate. But the term "religious" means something different in German; it can mean reverence for nature, providence, god/providence (in a deistic sense) etc. In English, it means follower of a specific denomination. So the inclusion of the translation is misleading. Steeletrap (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I am transgender, anti-Christian, Jewish, vegetarian, and an atheist (yes, really). I probably would've been gassed 5 times over. But I am irritated with people distorting history to try to prevent Hitler's views from aligning with their own. Hitler was anti-Christian, irreligious, pantheistic, and a vegetarian. Get over it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You're accusing me of bad faith out of the blue simply for disagreeing with you (WP:AGF), and accusing me of POV pushing and deliberately "distorting history" for political reasons when I'm only *debunking* your own claims in this thread because they're not IMO supported by the sources (WP:NPA : Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence). That's the second time you make ad hominems. There's only one person who should stop what they're doing here and it's you.

Let's see your points. "Hitler was anti-Christian from the earliest days of his reign (which would be 1933)". I have yet to see an anti-Christian statement made before 1937. Even if for some reason it was 1933 this doesn't change anything : the article is clear on the fact that we don't know when exactly Hitler abandoned Christianity ; in 1933 he was still in his mid 40s so this tells us nothing about his religious convictions before that. "religious means something different in German, it can mean Deism/Pantheism" -> well obviously that's what it's about. Goebbels is saying that Hitler was Gottgläubig at that moment. Nothing misleading here. Is there any other interpretation of "deeply religious but anti-Christian"? "Hitler was anti-Christian, irreligious, pantheistic, and a vegetarian." -> At what moment? The tone of the quotes changes over time. Got any definite evidence of that before 1937? How do you know when he left Christianity? Besides, Hitler believed in a PERSONAL God, with a plan for humanity (Mein Kampf is clear on that), so that would be "Gottgläubigkeit", not Pantheism. Hamstergamer (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a distinction between anti-Christianity and anti-clericalism. People who oppose the secular powers of the established church are anti-clerical but not necessarily anti-Christian. the United States constitution for example is anti-clerical, preventing the establishment of a state religion, but is not generally seen as anti-Christian. Also, most of the reports of secret comments by Hitler against the church are either forgeries or inaccurate records. TFD (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is indeed a distinction between anti-Christian and anti-clerical TFD - though a constitution that sets up separation of church of state is not anti-clerical per se. But in any case, the point is not necessarily relevant to make here, as historians generally say Hitler was both anti-clerical and anti-Christian. Hamstergamer, I think you might be drawing an undue separation between "ideological" and "political", but it would help here if you did present historians to back your interpretations of sources. I don't disagree with everything you've written, however already in our article there are indeed historians who do indeed use the term "Christianity" or the "Christian religion" rather than just "churches". Bullock is unequivocal on a detestation of Christianity, as much as he is on a plan to destroy the churches. But here are some more recent authors: Michael Phayer at Yad Vashem: By the latter part of the decade of the Thirties church officials were well aware that the ultimate aim of Hitler and other Nazis was the total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion; Shirer: "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could"; Anton Gill "[the Nazis planned to] de-Christianise Germany after the final victory" (An Honourable Defeat; A History of the German Resistance to Hitler. Heinemann Mandarin. 1995 pp. 14–15); Roger Griffin "There is no doubt that in the long run Nazi leaders such as Hitler and Himmler intended to eradicate Christianity just as ruthlessly as any other rival ideology, even if in the short term they had to be content to make compromises with it." and there are more. On the OSS - the passage is not only about the Rosenberg wing (that is to say the official nazi ideologist's wing). The opening lines are the OSS's assessment of Nazism as a whole and they say: "National Socialism was by its very nature hostile to Christianity and the Christian churches [...] Conflict was inevitable." Von Shirach quote is significant, of course as he was the Youth leader, which rather points to the future. (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

TFD alleges that "most of the reports of secret comments by Hitler against the church are either forgeries or inaccurate records." As someone who has studied Hitler extensively, this is a preposterous statement. The Goebbels diaries are not forged, nor are the Table Talks recorded by Bormann, nor are Albert Speer's memories; these are the sources from which we find the secret anti-Christian comments. People need to stop feigning knowledge of this subject matter--a time-honored TFD tactic, incidentally--to support their POV that Hitler was somehow a Christian. Steeletrap (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hitler was always an atheist, he never was a Christian his whole life. You people are trying to change the facts, mostly Hamstergamer, which I think is a troll account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:6114:15D0:4BA4:F9F (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The first source you mention is "Bormann, in his diaries." AFAIK Bormann kept an appointments diary in the bunker and was credited as the source of the "Last Testament of Adolf Hitler," which is widely regarded as a forgery, but otherwise there are no diaries. Are you referring to Table Talk? See "Hitler’s Table Talk: An Update" by Richard Carrier for a general discussion of these sources. In any case we should not be reading through Nazi documents, drawing conclusions and adding them to articles but relying on experts. TFD (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The conclusion that Hitler was not a Christian is based on expert interpretation of the three, unquestionably authentic private sources I mentioned. Steeletrap (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

while most historians who have looked at it find Hitler was anti-Christian, there are opposing views. We should bear in mind that articles should not attempt to persuade readers, but merely outline various views in proportion to their weight. TFD (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

References

4 Paragraph Structure for introduction

Hi all - whatever the results of current discussions, can you please edit the introduction to keep the 4 paragraph structure recommended by Wikipedia. Ozhistory (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note, also, that a "paragraph" is defined "as a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea." Putting together a random assembly of sentences does not create a paragraph.

In my last clean version of the lede Version of 25 Aug 2016 there were three paragraphs. The first discussed Hitler's public statements of his religious views, the second discussed remarks to confidants and historians' opinions, and the third dealt with Hitler's actions.

I suggest that we try to get back to that basic outline. JerryRussell (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

New non-consensus changes to the lead

I returned the article to the long term stable lead again. I have no idea what happened while I went on vacation, but it seems 2 editors, Ozhistory and Steeletrap took it upon themselves to completely rewrite the article since 3/30/17. There has been very little discussion and certainly no consensus for the massive changes to the article, especially the lead. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

All we've done is conform the article to the reasoned judgment of the major academic biographers of Hitler--Kershaw, Bullock, Evans, Rees,--and the views of Hitler's intimate contemporaries (Goebbels, Speer, Bormann). Steeletrap (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, but there was no consensus for the changes and btw, I reverted it all, but I had much more of an issue with Ozhistory's edits. I intend to change the lead back to the long term stable version, unless someone wants to defend Ozhistory's changes to the lead. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm also reverting it all, and let's discuss the changes. IMO the organization of the article, which I worked hard to establish, has been completely reshuffled. JerryRussell (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate all the work you have done on the article, your openness to suggestions and commitment to having consensus. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

With all the changes, I'm sure there's a lot of worthwhile material. One good idea in Steeletrap and Ozhistory's version is the creation of a section on "Historians on Hitler's religious beliefs". Maybe that section should go right at the top. JerryRussell (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole article is a summation of "Historians on Hitler's religious beliefs", it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to pick out some quotes and put them at the top. The layout you have is logical, balanced and above all, easy to read. That said, if you want to move somethings around, I am not opposed. I am just concerned that other editors will cherry pick quotes that push a POV, stick in in the Historian's views at the top and the section will end up messy. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

In the March 27 version (which, I'm pleasantly surprised to see, survived the weekend without further edit warring) -- the introductory paragraphs to the section on 'Adulthood and political career' was already a summary of historians' viewpoints. It just wasn't labelled as such. Considering Wikipedia policy to prefer information from high-quality secondary sources, I do believe it's correct that historians' interpretations should be given a highlighted position in the article. WP:IMPARTIAL says Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. So, the section doesn't need to be messy, if we do a good job of summarizing the various viewpoints. JerryRussell (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a clear heading for the place to put historians' balanced assessments was an improvement I thought to be very much needed. I have shifted all the general assessments by historians that I could find in the article and where possible I have gone back to sources to check accuracy. Ozhistory (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

BRRRR(not enough D) cycle

In hopes of breaking the BRRRRR... cycle, I've combined Ozhistory's version of the article text with the 3/27 version of the lede, and rearranged the sections mostly according to the earlier outline, but with the section about "historians' views" moved to the top. From this as a starting point, I hope we can review whatever detailed changes have been made.

I see that the newer proposed version of the lede contains several bundles of extensive quotes from historians. This is where the majority of the proposed additional 35K in article size is found. In many cases, I didn't agree that the quotes exactly supported the proposed lede text. Also, as I mentioned earlier, WP:IMPARTIAL says try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. And there is in fact a heated dispute; not all historians share the views expressed in these footnotes. Putting quotes in footnotes that are cherry-picked from one side of a debate, does not create a balanced neutral presentation. JerryRussell (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jerry, I appreciate the effort to find compromise. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Article outline

Before the series of edits starting March 27, the article outline was:

1 Youth

2 Adulthood and political career

2.1 Early speeches 2.2 Mein Kampf 2.3 Hitler's speeches against atheism

3 Hitler's remarks to confidants

3.1 Speer on Hitler and religion 3.2 Bormann and Hitler's Table Talk 3.3 Goebbels on Hitler and religion

4 Religion under Hitler

4.1 Role of religion in the Nazi state 4.2 Persecution of the Churches 4.3 Roman Catholicism 4.4 Protestantism 4.5 Jehovah's Witnesses 4.6 "Positive Christianity" and Hitler's Catholicism 4.7 Plans to destroy the Christian churches

5 Eastern religions

5.1 Influence of Ancient Indian religions 5.2 Hitler's views on Islam 5.3 Hitler's views on Arabs

6 Mysticism and occultism

7 Religion, social Darwinism, and Hitler's racism

7.1 Hitler's anti-Semitism: Religious sources 7.2 Social Darwinism as a source of Hitler's racism

8 See also

Without even looking at the detailed changes, could somebody justify for me why the outline was changed? What was the reasoning behind taking all the materials about "Hitler's remarks to confidants" and moving them up into the section on Hitler's public actions and statements during his adult political career? And, why are there now two separate sections on Hitler's views on mysticism and the occult?JerryRussell (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ozhistory says above, on March 27: I am shifting alot of material around, in the hope of ultimately reducing the size of the article by deleting repetition, of which there is still much. I am also cross-checking sources which have often moved away from original text. So now, the article size (byte count) is 35K bigger! (By 'now', of course, I mean before I reverted the changes.) If there was any repetition left in the article on 3/27, let's start by identifying it, OK? JerryRussell (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the additional "k" will be in the bibliographical notes, not the body text. This is intended to stablise the page, so editors can check sources more easily before deleting or disputing. Ozhistory (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The outline you constructed needed a few improvements, JerryRussel, but also much material didn't match headings (no doubt for a variety of reasons). In some cases too the heading was probably unmatchable with the content (eg "Hitler's speeches against atheism" only contained statements of passing reference to atheism, and were not speeches about atheism). In terms of other additions and subtractions: the introduction of an "historians' views" section you note already above, and allowed for quite a bit of fixing of material not matching its heading (eg where general historians views were placed in the Goebells or Bormann views section etc. The subsection on Arabs was superfluous, as the content dealt with Islam. Judaism did not have a heading at all. In general, the article now more clearly delineates "views", "rhetoric" and "policies", which is sensible given Hitler's perfidy and cunning - and also allows for separate sections on "Views on mysticism and occultism" AND for "Policies towards mysticism and occultism" - which I think should answers your question on that one. Ozhistory (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ozhistory You have been asked twice now, please obtain consensus before making additional changes to the article. If you wish to clean-up references, which was your stated objective, that is fine. Mass changes to the text of the article must have consensus. Whether one version/ article format or another is preferable is also a matter for consensus. You were bold, you have been reverted twice, please follow WP:BRD 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The organization before 3/27 was built around the idea of a development of Hitler's views over time. That is, his youth as a Catholic; adolescent rebellion and flirtation with the occult; formulation of the "Positive Christian" doctrine during his rise to power; and reports of private musings to confidants towards the end. The policies he instituted while in power, seem consistent with those private musings. This organization seems consistent with the sources, and makes for an article that flows better and is easier to read.

Which is not to say that Ozhistory isn't making some valid points. I agree that it's a good idea to have a section on "historians' views" and I think it should go at the top. JerryRussell (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B, I haven't reverted your reversions - other editors have. But probably would have if I'd got there first on the basis that the recent additions by myself and other editors contain substantially better sourcing and the text matches the actual content of the citations far more closely than JerryRussels earlier draft. On another point - JerryRussel, I agree with putting the historians section up top, thanks for that one. But as other editors will probably continue to revert or alter the lede can you perhaps outline your chief objections to it. It is thoroughly sourced, but what are the alternative views you feel are not canvassed? Ozhistory (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)