Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Troubles with 27/3 Lede Version

JerryRussel et al, in terms of flaws I can see in your preferred text here's some I would cite:

Para 1:

• "According to many historians" - this is vague and hard to quantify. We have sources like the BBC calling Kershaw and Bullock "leading" Hitler historians, so let's be up front and say that's what they are.
• "skeptical of mainstream religion" - what is your source for the word "mainstream". I believe the cited sources refer to "religion" or "Christianity", and not to "mainstream religion".
• Inclusion of the extended Bradley Smith citation about Hitler's father. Why do you want this kept in the lede? I can't see a reason for that extended quote there and in any case it is ambiguous, saying "his". "His" should be replaced with "[Alois Hitler]" or "[Hitler's father]" so the quote becomes understandable (people seem to read it as referring to Hitler himself).
• "Though he was sometimes critical of its teachings in adulthood" - where is this comment about Hitler's view of Catholicism sourced from? Who says he was only "sometimes critical" rather than "hostile"? The major historians are unambiguous and say Hitler became hostile to Catholicism, so our article introduction can also be unambiguous on this point: SEE A further improvement in the new text is to note that Hitler's skepticism of Catholicism started early: SEE .
• He sometimes made the claim in private statements - the sources do not say he sometimes made the remarks in private statements. Toland refers to a statement made to a general. Who says this is "private"? It is misleading to equate Hitler's comment to a general, to Hitler's repeated statements to trusted confidants of his inner circle.
• there is a consensus among historians that he became hostile to religion, mainly Christianity, at some point. - where is this line sourced from? He certainly was hostile to Christianity, but plainly was more hostile to Judaism, and say Jehovahs Witnesses. More accurate summation of the three sources cited would be that he was "skeptical of religion and hostile to Christianity" but a significantly longer list of historians can be added here to back that.

Para 2:

• In his semi-autobiographical Mein Kampf, Hitler used the words "God", "the Creator", "Providence" and "the Lord". - the citations are repeated, only the third one is needed. But in any case the line could be more efficient - I'd drop "and the Lord" for brevity, as the other lines make the point. Then again, atheists commonly use those "god" and "heaven" etc as a figure of speech too, so it would be better to compress this line into a general line about Hitler's use of religious allusions in public rhetoric, cited to a secondary source.
• Officially, the Nazi party endorsed what it termed "Positive Christianity" - why is the point not made here that historians generally see this as a tactical ploy?
• set up Hitler as a messiah - what is your source for the word "messiah"?

Remaining Paras:

• The remaining paragraphs are somewhat repetitive and their sourcing is considerably less than the recent additions. But I can see at least one point made in them that is lacking in the newer version: "Smaller religious minorities faced worse repression, with the Jews of Germany facing death on the grounds of Nazi racial ideology. Jehovah's Witnesses were fiercely oppressed for refusing both military service and loyalty to Hitler's movement." which should probably be noted.Ozhistory (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, Oz. The bias here--from the crowd who, based on a predetermined opinion, want to depict Hitler as Christian--is so extreme and persistent that I think it's about time to take this to a noticeboard. Steeletrap (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge your comment, but don't have any useful commentary other than if you prefer to take it to a noticeboard rather than work on gaining consensus, then feel free to do so. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Ozhistory You have a lot of commentary that will take some time to review. let's take them one or two at a time.

"According to many historians" - this is vague and hard to quantify. We have sources like the BBC calling Kershaw and Bullock "leading" Hitler historians, so let's be up front and say that's what they are.

Per WP:LEAD the lead is a summary of the article and does not need, but can have sources. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I think Jerry has done that very well, including portraying what is a very real controversy. I think using summary words like "According to many historians" is appropriate as a summary that is easy to read, but I don't have a huge hang-up here. What is your proposed change for the new first sentence in the lead?

"skeptical of mainstream religion" - what is your source for the word "mainstream". I believe the cited sources refer to "religion" or "Christianity", and not to "mainstream religion".

What does the source say "religion" or "Christianity"? Some of the sources say he was skeptical of Catholicism. I personally don't have any issue with changing it, are you only looking to delete the word "mainstream"? If so, I agree and have no problem with the change. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yet another new lede attempt

After reading WP:BUNDLING, I've decided to drop my objections to the big bundles. They work very nicely into my version of the lede, which I've further revised in light of Ozhistory's comments. It's about 150 words shorter than Ozhistory's preferred version, easier to read IMO, and tells both sides of the story. JerryRussell (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There's been a lot of back-and-forth editing on my lede proposal by Steeletrap, and some by Apollo The Logician. I want to say that I think it's all been very constructive, and I appreciate the participation and collaboration. JerryRussell (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your preferred version is trash, since it provides equal weight to a fringe view and an orthodox view. The view that he was a Christian deserves short thrift in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please cut out the tendentious editing. Ironically, you resemble Christian fundamentalists in your commitment to a predetermined conclusion--that Hitler was a Christian--in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That Hitler favored secular government doesn't make secular government bad. Even if contrary to all the evidence, Hitler were a Christian, that would not tell us whether Christianity is good or bad, right or wrong. Get over the fact that he wasn't a Christian; it doesn't have any impact on what is true or false, right or wrong about religion today. Steeletrap (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying that even after all the editing, the version currently on the site is unsatisfactory? You are completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. First of all, the views he describes are "Christian in name only." Secondly, the fact that he publicly stood behind such views, is just as important as his private opinions.

Accusing me of tendentious editing is a personal attack. I don't accuse you of bad faith. Please stop, or else take me to a conduct dispute forum. JerryRussell (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Steeletrap, this is the second time I'm saying this. Your behavior on this talk page is disruptive. Stop making personal attacks against editors you disagree with and try to have a calm discussion based on factual arguments. Don't accuse other editors of POV pushing when they're basing their argumentation on verifiable facts, while you're the one claiming your opinion as a fact and wanting to put it in the lede without showing verifiable evidence. If you keep making personal attacks on this page I'll report your conduct to the administrators following WP:DR. Hamstergamer (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Reversion confusion. Which lede? Which body?

IP2602 did a huge revert. I think he meant to go back to the Oct. 27 lede, as well as the earlier article body text. But instead he left the new lede, while reverting some changes to the text on Positive Christianity by OzHistory that look like good work to me. Steeletrap deleted an entire section on the occult, which had only just recently appeared. I'm not really such a huge fan of the Oct. 27 lede. I do like it better than the newest version. But if you want me to defend a version of the lede, I'd go with the one that I introduced into the article on 6 7/21/16 that was stable until 8/25/16. Changes since then have made it a lot harder to read, without adding much information IMO. JerryRussell (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, here is a good illustration of why this article remains so long and unwieldy, as the editors who followed my work have apparently not looked closely enough at it to realise that in reverting it they were restoring reams of repetition and deleting very extensive citations. But as I recall, your intro rewrite replaced a version which had been more or less stable for quite a bit longer? In any case, its flaws are as follows:

• its FIRST paragraph is misleading because it is weighted against the considered view of historians. It gives to much weight to Hitler's dubious political statements and involuntary early initiation into Catholicism, when ALL the biographers I have read note that Hitler's personal skepticism and hostility to to Catholicism had already begun in his youth, and his public musings between 1920 and 1934 were motivated by expediency. The paragraph presents as an uncomplicated "fact" that the Nazis "promoted Positive Christianity", without noting they clearly subordinated it to Nazi ideology, or that most historians (Steigmann Gall himself says "most" historians) consider it was a tactical ploy. In any case the "support", such as it was was only ever temporary. Overy, Kershaw et al are explicit that Hitler's interest was purely political and faded around 1934 once his power was secure and his interference in Protestantism had failed. Indeed the SS came to view the Positive Christians as more of a threat than the Confessing Church. The paragraph also presents it as uncomplicated fact that Hitler "affirmed a belief in Christianity" in Mein Kampf and in public speeches, when the sources essentially only suggest he responded to criticisms of his openly anti-Christian party comrades and racial antisemitism by endorsing a view of Christianity as some sort of Aryan warrior code. Not many (Steigman Gall partially excepted) agree this "christianity" was "christian" at all. The historian consensus should come before the (inadequate) summary of Hitler's relationship to Catholicism and "positive Christianity" which currently precedes and overshadows it.
• The SECOND paragraph in contrast presents the phrase that such explicit comments from Goebbells that "Hitler hates Christianity" have merely "been interpreted as evidence" of Hitler's anti-Christian beliefs. This sounds like weasel words given the calibre of historians who have drawn their conclusions from so many unambiguous statements in these sources. Bullock (who was a fine scholar, but who wrote in 50s and 60s) is quoted, but more recent scholars like Kershaw are not (and it is Kershaw who is currently named by the BBC as the world's foremost Hitler expert). The Goebells diaries too provide a wealth of quotes that should fit here.
• The THIRD paragraph is ok, except it minimises the list of sources of historians who have written that Hitler hoped for the destruction of Christianity. There is a considerably more substantial bundle is the most recent introductions I contributed to.
• OVERALL - the three paragraphs basically ignore or understate the explicit line from the Hitler biographers that he became hostile to Catholicism, that his public statements on religion were essentially perfidious and proven false by his ultimate policies (and longer term plans) for religion in germany. The sourcing is also considerably inferior both in terms accuracy, precision and volume compared to my latest additions. As soon as the more extended sourcing is re-introduced, the content must also be revised to actually match it. So the October edit can't stay as is. It is a pity you couldn't have worked through the updated versions and tweaked them, rather than wholesale reverting them. Ozhistory (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ozhistory, thanks for taking the time to read & review my version of the lede from so many months ago. In response to your points:

It gives to much weight to Hitler's dubious political statements and involuntary early initiation into Catholicism, when ALL the biographers I have read note that Hitler's personal skepticism and hostility to to Catholicism had already begun in his youth, and his public musings between 1920 and 1934 were motivated by expediency.

On the contrary, I believe that the basic facts that Hitler was raised Catholic and made many public appeals to Christians during his rise to power, deserve to be clearly stated. No historian disagrees with these facts, and my lede makes no attempt to hide the interpretations that historians have placed on the facts. It is not desirable to try to encompass our entire article's message, into each and every paragraph. The attempt to do so, causes a confusing muddle.

The paragraph presents as an uncomplicated "fact" that the Nazis "promoted Positive Christianity", without noting they clearly subordinated it to Nazi ideology, or that most historians (Steigmann Gall himself says "most" historians) consider it was a tactical ploy.

I don't agree that the "positive Christian" theme was subordinate to Nazi ideology, on the contrary it was seen as entirely complementary and consistent. Steigmann-Gall's opinions have attracted a significant following, and at any rate they deserve to be presented clearly in their own right, rather than as a confusing reflection of the opposing view.

*The SECOND paragraph in contrast presents the phrase that such explicit comments from Goebbells that "Hitler hates Christianity" have merely "been interpreted as evidence" of Hitler's anti-Christian beliefs. This sounds like weasel words...

Not all versions of this lede contained those "weasel" qualifications. I'm not attached to this phrasing. But, there was a significant talk page discussion about it, in light of skepticism about this evidence by Steigmann-Gall, Carrier etc.

Bullock (who was a fine scholar, but who wrote in 50s and 60s) is quoted, but more recent scholars like Kershaw are not (and it is Kershaw who is currently named by the BBC as the world's foremost Hitler expert). The Goebells diaries too provide a wealth of quotes that should fit here.

Considering WP:IMPARTIAL I'm not sure we should be quoting any historians at all, and especially not in the lede text. I wouldn't mind dropping Bullock, who I consider obsolete.

* OVERALL - the three paragraphs basically ignore or understate the explicit line from the Hitler biographers that he became hostile to Catholicism, that his public statements on religion were essentially perfidious and proven false by his ultimate policies (and longer term plans) for religion in germany.

Understated -- I don't agree, but I can understand your perspective. Ignored, certainly not.

The sourcing is also considerably inferior both in terms accuracy, precision and volume compared to my latest additions. As soon as the more extended sourcing is re-introduced, the content must also be revised to actually match it.

Beware of Citation overkill. Sources should be balanced to cover all points of view. Piling up quotations on one side of a controversial issue is a violation of WP:IMPARTIAL. JerryRussell (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My thoughts are:

I believe that the basic facts that Hitler was raised Catholic and made many public appeals to Christians during his rise to power, deserve to be clearly stated.

I agree, but would add that the fact of his hostility to this Catholic upbringing must also be clearly stated, as should fact of his duplicitous rhetoric in "appeals to Christians" which were followed by repression of their churches. The fact of this gap is noted in your intro, but separated from the relevant rhetoric.

I don't agree that the "positive Christian" theme was subordinate to Nazi ideology.

The Nazi Party Platform is explicit that religion should never offend against "the moral sense of the German race". What is your source to say this does not subordinate Positive Christianity to Nazi ideology? And who is Steigmann Gall's following on this point? Which historians? Given that he defines himself as in a minority, that is how he must be presented here where his views differ from the majority.

Considering WP:IMPARTIAL I'm not sure we should be quoting any historians at all, and especially not in the lede text. I wouldn't mind dropping Bullock, who I consider obsolete.

Normally I would agree, but in my experience, quoting historians precisely is the only way to stabilise content in this article. Bullock overall is far from obsolete as so much of his analysis is just public record of what happened and when. But he shouldn't sit in isolation when we have more recent authors like Kershaw who've had the benefit of sources like the Goebells diaries.

Beware of Citation overkill

Can you more specifically identify the lines that you see as controversial? Doesn't the line " or at least its distortion or subjugation to a Nazi outlook" cover Steigmann Gall's variation on the theme of the theme of "destruction of Christianity" in Germany?

You will note I have added a couple of lines to the intro about attitudes to minority religions. The article has suffered a little from an overemphasis on Christianity, to the obvious detriment of issues like Judaism, which preoccupied him far more. What do you make of these additions? Ozhistory (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ozhistory, as an example of a largely supportive review of Steigmann-Gall, see:

Doris L. Bergen, "Nazism and Christianity: Partners and Rivals?"

Also look at your very own 2nd quote from Goebbels Diary: "The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian." This seems to contradict the statement in the lede, that Hitler was purely skeptical of religion. I believe that the lede could develop a more nuanced view of Hitler's spiritual beliefs.

We do have a section on Hitler's views of Judaism, section 8.1 on "Hitler's Anti-Semitism". There's no particular reason why this entire section couldn't be moved higher in the article, perhaps into section 3. Indeed, I believe one could make a case that sections 6,7 and 8 should all be moved up into section 3. JerryRussell (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Well JerryRussel, the abstract of Bergen's article says she "accepts Richard Steigmann-Gall's argument that nazism and Christianity were less sharply opposed than popular and much scholarly opinion have assumed". So again, the author reinforces the point that Steigmann-Gall is against consensus, and only softly so. He/She do not contend that Nazism was not opposed to Christianity --- only that the opposition is "less sharp" than scholarly opinion generally holds. The abstract makes no claim about Hitler at all. In any case, until you have integrated your reading of Bergan into the body of our article, she wouldn't have a place in our intro. And furthermore, until either Bergen or Steigmann-Gall are referred to by the BBC or a similar source as "world leading Hitler experts" we should not give them precedence over Kershaw, Bullock etc, whose focus is more sharply on Hitler himself, and whose conclusion is that Hitler was fond of rhetorical flourishes about "destiny" etc, but was skeptical, anti-Christian, and politically cautious in relation to religion. That is the nutshell on which even Steigmann-Gall only differs "on degree and timing" and must be the firmest case put in our lede. Any minority contrary view must be identified as such. Whoever has arranged the current four paragraph model has brought the lede back towards this correct balance, although I still see some efficiencies of space we can find, and some better matching of citations that might be required. Here is a thought ---- why don't you create a new section towards the end entitled "debates" where Steigmann-Gall's writings about "challenging consensus" can fit, as can the agreements and counter-arguments that have flowed from them. Ozhistory (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ozhistory, I'm not disagreeing that Steigmann-Gall represents a minority view, although I have the impression that the field might be rapidly changing. At any rate, the organization we're developing is clear and reads well, even if from a storytelling perspective it feels backwards. Whoever has arranged the current four paragraph model has brought the lede back towards this correct balance -- glad you think we're on the right track. Steeletrap & I took turns cutting & pasting to bring it to the current condition, which I find quite satisfactory. I agree there's still room for efficiencies. why don't you create a new section towards the end entitled "debates" where Steigmann-Gall's writings about "challenging consensus" can fit, as can the agreements and counter-arguments that have flowed from them. -- yes, that would be a good project. It won't happen overnight, sigh... JerryRussell (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"I have the impression taht the field might be rapidly changing." To be honest, I think you just made that up. Can you name a recent major biography of Hitler that depicts him as a Christian? Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

These things change first in the journal articles. Major biographies tend to lag behind the forefront. But I don't deny that my view is based on a fairly quick scan through some Google Scholar results and reviews, which I read months ago. JerryRussell (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The book by Richard Steigman-Gall : The Holy Reich, Nazi conceptions of Christianity depicts Hitler as a Christian for the major part of his life. Hamstergamer (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hamstergamer, I agree that "The Holy Reich" depicts Hitler as a Christian, albeit a highly unorthodox one. But, the book isn't primarily a biography of Hitler. It's more about Steigmann-Gall's view that the entire Nazi movement had a complex inter-relationship with Christians, and the Christian churches. What I'm not sure about, is the impact Steigmann-Gall has had on the entire field. I know his book was widely reviewed, with many favorable reviews as well as stiff criticisms. It seems that Ozhistory and Steeletrap are basically asking for us to trawl through all that literature, and build a quote farm similar to what they've done for the BBC endorsed historians. JerryRussell (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussel et al "trawling through literature" is actually what a wikpedia editor is supposed to do, so yes you really do need to start presenting page specific verifiable content from reliable sources. Book reviews don't really cut it, though they may have a place in a section about "new scholarship" or "debate" provided they too are by recognised scholars. And vaguely remembered feelings about "something you read once" can't form the basis of edits here. My memory of SG is not that he is as categorical as you and Hamstergamer suggest, but by all means offer us some precise citations. It should be noted that SG's book is actually older than some of the works in this article by more established scholars who do not consider Hitler to have been been even vaguely Christian, so surely it is time for the strong believers in Steigmann-Gall's POV to actually take the time to work in some of his material into the body before they launch themselves on the introduction. The lede must, by definition, only reflect the scholarship outlined in the body of the article. Ozhistory (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ozhistory:, of course "trawling through literature" is what we're supposed to do, and I was meaning to be somewhat apologetic or ironic in what I said. We need more information in this article about reactions and follow-up to Steigmann-Gall's book, and I don't have that at my fingertips, or available at this moment to introduce into the article. Wikipedia editing is a volunteer activity, and this is not a research focus of mine. I'm just here trying to do a public service, advocating for neutrality in the article.

At the present time, the article contains various statements by and about S-G disbursed throughout the article in the appropriate sections. Some of that material might have been mine from last summer, but I'm sure most of it was here since before I came along. I believe it's more than sufficient material to merit a mention in the lede. Are you disagreeing with this?

While I like your idea of a section dedicated to S-G and his influence, I hope you're not suggesting that all the existing information needs to be moved? I feel this would be a detriment.

As to the question of whether Hitler was "even vaguely Christian", would you say that "Positive Christianity" was "even vaguely Christian?" Considering that the sect did not accept that Jesus was either divine or Jewish, I can certainly see why many historians aren't buying it. But apparently it was good enough that at least a few German Christians were willing to accept Hitler as one of their own. JerryRussell (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hitler a member of the Catholic Church until his death? Or, not?

Speer's memoirs contain the claim that Hitler "remained in the Church until his suicide." An IP editor today challenged this, showing that the Nazi leadership were excommunicated in 1931. I found more information here: [1]. The information seems to have been fairly recently dredged from the Vatican archives, as of 2010. Is it possible that the Reich Concordat of 1933 was interpreted as a reversal of this? Or, were the German bishops in sync with Rome on this question? Until there's further clarification, perhaps the entire sentence, whether claiming that Hitler did or didn't remain in the Catholic church, should be pulled from the lede? JerryRussell (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a better source than Speer is needed for the line that he "remained in the catholic church" and Speer makes no comment about "excommunication". Speer's words about Hitler's "catholicism" must be taken in their totality: he says plainly that Hitler had no attachment to that church, but was cautious for POLITICAL reasons of declaring this publicly at least until war's end - at at which point he would have the clerics "hanging by their necks" and such. But in any case, Speer makes no comment on excommunication, so that line cannot be attributed to him. And is it not the case that "excommunication" would only be brought against someone who was actually a "communicant" - that is to say, attending mass and taking communion -- which Hitler was not? Mit brennender Sorge indicates that the church had long declared Hitler's movement to be pagan. Kershaw too says the Catholics saw Nazism as "godless", so why would the Pope "excommunicate" a non-communicant head of a movement he saw as not remotely Catholic? These complicated questions are not even approached by citing Speer, whose comment may have related to taxation purposes under German law -to this day they pay a stipend to their nominated "church" which funds German welfare programs - but again -- was Hitler even paying taxes after 1933? I doubt it very much. All of this amounts to: We need a real source for any claims about excommunication, and we need Speer IN FULL CONTEXT if he remains at all. Ozhistory (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Unusual claims require strong sources, which this is not. It mentions that the document has been overlooked by historians and provides no details about the document. I tried to find further information online, but they can't find any reliable sources or more info. We don't know for example if the order named any individuals, or what effect it had under common law. And according to one source, the order was nullified when Hitler was appointed chancellor. TFD (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We have the full quote from Speer later in the article, in the Speer section. There seems to be at least reason to believe that maybe Hitler was excommunicated in 1931, so it would hardly be fair to state authoritatively that he remained a member of the Catholic church. The information's provenance involves the "Pave the Way Foundation", which has some publications and a website, and is potentially a reliable source. For now, I'm pulling that sentence from the lede. JerryRussell (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Speer's book is a primary source and not reliable. While experts may assess which claims are correct, what errors were made, and what was self-serving lies, we cannot. Fortunately, there are scholars who have studied Hitler and we can use their writings as sources. And they all say Hitler was never excommunicated. (See for example, John Pollard, The Papacy in the Age of Totalitarianism, 1914-1958, Oxford University Press (2014).[2]) TFD (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @The Four Deuces:, I'm confused about how to interpret the 'No Original Research' policy in this case. Aren't we allowed to notice that Pollard and others say that Hitler was never excommunicated, but PTWF says "Oh yes he was"? The next step would be to find what PTWF actually said, and determine whether they're a reliable secondary source about this alleged primary documentation. Then if this all checks out, can we decide -- Pollard says this and PTWF says that, so we mention both sides of the question in the article? Or do we have to wait to find a secondary source that acknowledges that a controversy exists?

Do you agree it's OK to collectively exercise our editorial judgment and say: this is controversial, so let's leave it out of the lede? JerryRussell (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with mentioning both sides is that we don't have secondary sources that say there is any dispute. We have mainstream sources that say Hitler was never excommunicated and on the other side the controversial journalist, Michael Hesemann, quoted in the link you provided, who says he was. (I don't read Speer's comments as saying he was excommunicated. Speer said, "[Hitler] remained in the church until his suicide.") Heseman used to write about UFOs, alien visitors and parapsychology, but now writes about Catholic miracles, such as the Three Secrets of Fátima and the Shroud of Turin, which he says is real. He made a film that is on YouTube that says that alien visitors were actually angels who took human form. I don't see his claims as reliable or significant and therefore they should be excluded. TFD (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know those things about Hesemann. I agree we can't use it. Yes, Speer is not a good reference about whether Hitler was excommunicated, but Pollard would be. JerryRussell (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Founded

When was the group "German Christians" founded and who founded them? I looked through the main article and found nothing stating it. I asked on it's talk page and received no replies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians 2601:982:8200:4790:F1D8:FA2B:B0FC:BC91 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I know it's not relevant to this article, I asked here because it is more active here and people here may be interested on it because it is a similar topic. Also I think my question may go unanswered indefinitely on the other article's talk page. 2601:982:8200:4790:F1D8:FA2B:B0FC:BC91 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead is becoming POV-ish again

The lead is not moving in the right direction and seems significantly inferior to the lead on Mar 27th. I want to remind everyone what the WP:Lead guideline says:

The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

The lead, as it is moving, forces a conclusion on the reader and ignores any controversy. It is also is becoming very problematic that the main writer looks like a WP:SPA and they never obtain any consensus, it is just machine gun edits. Please try to use other editors as a sounding board, not every edit needs to be done right now. The article should evolve over time and have the input of many editors. There is no rush. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

IP2602, Is this the March 27 lede you're talking about? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler&oldid=772407669

If so, I don't see how the new one is any worse. JerryRussell (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Because of garbage like this "In light of the absence of evidence that he ever attended church or participated in religious rites after leaving home at 18,[1] his rejection of the tenets of Christianity as a teenager" Absence of attending church or questioning as a teenager would never label another person as a non-Christian for life. It is absurd abd we would never allow this for any other person, its just because he is Hitler. One's *stated* beliefs would be enough for any other person, there is a serious bias issue here. Before anyone spouts nonsense and attacks me, I have reiterated the desire several times to only state the controversy and not push a particular point of view. "In light of the absence of evidence" are you kidding me? 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and now I found the evidence on the cover of "Holy Reich" showing Hitler at cathedral. I'll pull that. JerryRussell (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Anything else you see wrong with the current lede? It opens saying that Hitler's beliefs have been a matter of debate. So what is the debate? My impression is that the dominant view is that Hitler was a cynical racist nihilist, while the minority view is that he was spiritually an unorthodox Christian occultist, and perhaps even a Catholic collaborator. I think it's better storytelling to put Hitler's own statements first, and then give the historians' analysis in response. But I can see Ozhistory and Steeletrap's view that according to Wikipedia policy, the majority view should be given the highest prominence in the article, and thus should go first. It seems petty to me, and not worth edit warring about, much less any other DR process.

I feel that the minority view is indeed adequately represented in the lede as it stands, and also that this was not the case in the 3/27 version. JerryRussell (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead should say what the man said and what the man did. The speculation of various historians should be summarized with the details in the body. His religious beliefs based on his actions versus his words are very, very complicated. The lead should portray those complications and the contradictory nature between what he said and what he did so that the reader can come to their own conclusion. I believe the current version is inferior to the 3/27 version, but I am only one person with one view. We should solicit the views of many editors and drive towards a real consensus on the best encyclopedic article that we can create.

If you want me to give you another specific example, the article says he was irreligious in the first sentence, yet further down in the article notes he took the time to paint the "Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ" ref>http://archives.sundayobserver.lk/2015/09/20/spe-art-01.asp</ref> this is not something irreligious people normally do. Additionally in regards to him being irreligious from birth, he spent the time in young adulthood to advocate the Nazi party's very own version of Christianity in Positive Christianity. Again, this is not something irreligious people normally do. Finally, Hitler words and actions do match up when it comes to the treatment of atheist, which was harsh. Again, irreligious people are usually not negatively biased towards atheists.

I feel the majority of scholars have noted that Hitler's views on religion evolved over time, I think the previous version of the lead better portrayed that evolution and is superior to the current version, but again, I am only one person who brings their own biases to the table. I would like to have a great article with input from many editors. I won't be reverting or changing any of the text, just trying to add to the discussion. I appreciate everyone's efforts. It very much seems like all those involved are working with the right intentions. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Hitler doesn't seem to have been "irreligious", and the citations provided don't use that word. So, I removed it.

It's also true that other versions of the lede have done a better job of telling a story of the evolution of Hitler's religious views. At least some historians seem to think there was no such evolution, but rather that he was always a closeted cynic. There was definitely an evolution in the public manifestations of his views, though. JerryRussell (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The public manifestations of his views are the only things we can be certain of and I agree, those views seem to have evolved over time. The other thing we use is the opinions of scholars, but those are less valuable than the person's own words and actions. It is just that in this case, the person's actions are so horrific. The scholarly consensus is that his views evolved over time, his own words and actions lead credence to the evolution. I can't speak for anyone else, but I assume all people's religious views evolve over time, even if in only small ways. Thanks for your continued efforts. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"After leaving home at age 18, Hitler never attended Church again.[9]"

An editor has included in our introduction: "After leaving home at age 18, Hitler never attended Church again.[9]". This seems very important and pertinent,. Although I don't doubt it, do we have more sources for the line? Ozhistory (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Until recently, this same source was used to support this statement: Rissmann relates a story where a boyhood friend claimed that after Hitler had left home, he never again attended Mass or received the sacraments. Which is not exactly the same thing; and unless this unnamed childhood friend was able to follow Hitler around every day of his life, how would he know? JerryRussell (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking at Steigmann-Gall's book, and noticed that the cover photo shows Hitler stepping out of a cathedral. Cover of "Holy Reich" JerryRussell (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The Presidents of Islamic Iran, atheist Cuba and Jewish Israel attended Pope John Paul II's funeral at St Peter's Basilica. There are photos of them outside the Cathedral. It means nothing. Wikipedia requires verifiable content from reliable sources, not photos on book covers. Ozhistory (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Presidents of Islamic Iran, atheist Cuba and Jewish Israel attended Pope John Paul II's funeral at St Peter's Basilica. That means, in other words, they attended a Catholic religious ceremony. QED.

I agree that we can't and shouldn't use the photograph, in itself, as proof that Hitler also must have attended church. It would be more interesting to know where, when and why Hitler was stepping out of the cathedral. But I can use it to cast doubt on that questionable source that claimed Hitler never stepped into a church again after childhood (which, actually, the source didn't say.) JerryRussell (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

More ridiculous bias, bordering on lies and falsification

A couple users are engaging in OR and tendentious editing. For example, despite the fact that every major academic biographer of Hitler has concluded he was not a Christian, they are saying that only "some" have drawn such a conclusion. Moreover, they are attaching undue weight to comments made in Mein Kampf, a political tract, and inadequate weight to Hitler's private comments (which for obvious reasons are more likely to be genuine than political propaganda). Finally, they are engaged in moronic OR, such as the attempt to prove HItler's Christianity through the fact that "Nazi belt buckles" (that is to say, Wehrmacht belt buckles) had the insignia "God is with us" on them. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything you want to discuss other than making personal attacks? Calling the relevant quotes from Mein Kampf a "political tract, and inadequate weight" is speculation and an opinion. WikiEditor1993 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you have a history of personally attacking fellow Wikipedia editors, which is against Wikipedia's WP:CONDUCT. Continuing on this path may lead to a block in the near future. WikiEditor1993 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Steigmann-Gall argued that Hitler was a (highly unorthodox) Christian. Conway allowed as to how certain radical liberal Protestants might agree. So there are clearly exceptions to the rule, so "some" or "most" would be appropriate adjectives.

That other editor (who was not me) used "Gott mit ans" as evidence that Hitler was a Deist, not a Christian. JerryRussell (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Steeletrap's edits, I would say his accusations against fellow editors are psychological projection. Steeletrap is the one who is ignoring facts and misusing sources. He completely eliminated the statements about Hitler's deism, even though this is clearly supported in the Koehne article that was given as a citation. And he makes the remarkable and uncited claim that Hitler "took no actions against atheists or atheism when he came to power." Steeletrap, have you ever heard that Hitler went to war against Stalin? Did a few Jewish atheists, freethinkers and humanists die in the Holocaust? What are you thinking???? JerryRussell (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Atheists qua atheists were not persecuted. Many of Hitler's confidantes, such as Bormann, were atheists. Communistic and Jewish atheists were persecuted--because they were Communists and Jews. Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For both, you know; I've yet to see a single decent cite for real persection of non-believers. There aren't even any bad ones before, what 2000? 2010? Then, of course, a bunch of people begin muttering about belt-buckles.

Given the Teutonic habit of classifying everything, whether it needed organization or not, we should have a triangle color at least...what was it? Anmccaff (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Steeletrap, could you please source your content changes or present what sources you are going on here for many of your recent changes. I notice a few changes you have made that contradicted or were not mentioned in the sources, mostly the later. WikiEditor1993 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hitler was a (highly unorthodox) Christian aka, Teutonic loving pagan. L3X1 (distant write) 20:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly right, L3X1. Some Mormons say Jesus visited America after his crucifixion, and that he is preparing a separate planet for every good Mormon and all his wives. Docetists say Jesus was pure spirit, and not human at all. Arians (not the same thing as Aryans) say that Jesus was purely human. Who are we to decide which of these doctrines are truly Christian? Are we the Nicene Council? JerryRussell (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussell I think the Bible is pretty specific about doctrine. If you have to invent a story that Jesus is the son of a Germanic woman and a roman soldier, and then sanitise "King of the Jews" from the Gospels, you're on the road to ruin. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 03:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Which Bible? I assume you are aware there are many Bible versions and even more sects that have different interpretations and sometimes contradictory tenants. Also, there is the issue of Positive Christianity. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

d.g. L3X1, was Ludwig Müller, the German theologian, who studied Protestant theology at the universities of Halle and Bonn, and became parish priest in Rödinghausen, and as Navy chaplain in Wilhelmshaven, and joined the Nazi Party before it ruled Germany, a Christian?

"He had been associated with Nazism since the 1920s, supporting a revisionist view of "Christ the Aryan" (or a "heroic Jesus") as well as a plan of purifying Christianity of what he deemed "Jewish corruption," including purging large parts of the Old Testament.", according to Ludwig Müller Wikipedia article. WikiEditor1993 (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, the idea that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera seems to be an interpretation of the Jewish Talmud, which referred to Yeshu ben Pandera. I'm going to try quoting Conway directly in the lede statement about Positive Christianity, and see if that satisfies everyone. JerryRussell (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

How is this an improvement?

This isn't even grammatical now. Anmccaff (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Religious language =/= "attack on atheism"

Then find a citation that says his attacks on atheism were only while seeking elective office and only for political gain

Since the cites are not about "attacking atheism" but about lip-service for religion, that is not necessary. Please discuss this on the article talk page before reverting. Anmccaff (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff and IP2602 are both right up to the edge of violating 3RR. Yes, please, let's talk. Anmccaff's preferred version is As a politician attempting to appeal to the German masses and seeking elective office, Hitler sometimes made declarations in support of religion. I don't agree with Anmccaff's version, because even after attaining office, Hitler continued to make declarations in support of religion. For example, see the Nuremberg 1939 speech quoted in the article. JerryRussell (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That strikes me as a case for expanding, not removing the reference to mainstream thinking on this. Hitler's private speech was filled with indications that he needed to keep the church from interfering with him until he had the ability to suppress it. Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The situation is explained very precisely further down in the lede, where it says: While a small number of writers accept these publicly stated views as genuine expressions of his spirituality, the vast majority believe that Hitler was skeptical of religion generally, but recognized that he could only be elected if he feigned a commitment to and belief in Christianity. If we try to make every single sentence in the lede represent a complete summary of the entire situation in and of itself, we wind up with an unreadable mess. JerryRussell (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid generalization, but not applicable here. We have a person who has removed accurate, sourced information because they appear to feel -classic OR, by the way - that it is an "[attack} on atheism". Do you agree that this is not, in fact the case? Anmccaff (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Look it is simple and I don't know why people keep reverting this topic.

This --> "Hitler, as a politician attempting to appeal to the German masses, during his elective office run, and during his leadership, sometimes made declarations in support of religion."

Is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH in regard to this --> "In Mein Kampf, he promised to "stamp out" atheism (a concept he associated with Communism and "Jewish materialism"), and banned the German Freethinkers League."

Unless there is a citation for the first sentence. Anti-atheism is not support for religion, never was, never will be. This is the worst kind of OR. Please revert yourself or fix it. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Also isn't "stamp out" atheism" in a speech, not Mein Kampf?

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires 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."

Source:

Speech delivered in Berlin 24 October 1933; from Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Howard Fertig. p. 378. WikiEditor1993 (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, something appears to be a bit simple here, but it's maybe not what you think it is, IP Guy. I am sure there are some places where Put down your bias goggles passes for trenchant wit, and I suppose it might be a good thing that mainstreaming has progressed so far that they don't all require that in be written in soft crayon.

"Hitler, as a politician attempting to appeal to the German masses, during his elective office run, and during his leadership, sometimes made declarations in support of religion. is not intended to be merely linked to a single quote. It's meant to be a valid generalization, supported by a whole raft of references covering, and summarizing the paragraph following; the topic sentence. Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Except it doesn't summarize the following paragraph. Here is the list of wikiquotes where Hitler actually spoke about Christianity. [[3]] It is huge. How about we include some of that, instead of a single quote about atheism? The changes to the article since 3/27 are mostly terrible and Jerry spent months gaining consensus with many, many editors. Now we have two accounts, one an WP:SPA, that turn it into biased drivel with the occasional passerby with no clue of the topic Anmccaff reverting away from long standing consensus language. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Destruction of the Churches & Henry VIII

Hector Avalos rightly noted that the destruction and rebuilding of the political power of the churches as proposed by the Nazis is very akin to the same thing that was done by Henry VIII and yet few people argue that Henry VIII hated Christianity. It's a proper criticism by a proper scholar. The state of the article still seems to suggest that he wanted to destroy it because he hated Christianity. He wanted to rebuild it because apparently it was corrupted by the jews. It's weird but it's enlightening on the subject matter. Tat (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A rather specious argument, since various people can have various reasons for doing the same thing. Equivocating Henry VIII motives with that of Hitler seems a strawman argument. Henry resented the fact that the church was a big landowner (the biggest in Brittain at the time). He did not hate Christianity, he hated the influence of the RC-church, which was immense at the time. No such thing goes for Hitler, who stated on multiple occasions he held Christianity in contempt.

Besides, I do quite see how removing a cartload of referenced statements improves the article. Kleuske (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Table Talks is largely a hoax, and this article should reflect that.

There's a very interesting story behind this book. Uncovered by Dr. Carrier and Dr. Nilsson over the last decade or so. The latest version of this book adds a forward that attests to some of these facts. Nobody, thus far, has done the proper and correct thing which is to throw this book out and translate Monologue from the German version.

First off, these are not candid remarks. These were always intended to be turned into a book. They were not recorded at the time. They were remembered the night afterwards (sometimes later than that). There were no contemporaneous recordings at the time or notes taken at the table. This is completely different than what everybody had been saying, and these facts were testified to in court by parties involved.

Secondly, these notes may have been then edited by the Bormann which seems to add some information to one of the sets of notes but not the other.

After the war, these notes were acquired by a French con-man, Genoud, who, other than this, fabricated Hitler saying things that were easily shown to be categorically false, and admitted as much when confronted.

When Trevor-Roper went to translate these he signed a contract which allowed only access to the French versions of the pages as translated by the con-man Genoud. Trevor-Roper kept this agreement secret and claimed they were from the German versions. But, translations errors and the contracts (found after he died) reveal this to be completely false, and he agreed to something that a serious scholar should never have ever agreed to.

Trevor-Roper claimed in his foreword that he used the German Bormann-Vermerke. This is a lie. A lie he would have known was a lie because it was in his contract that he was to use the French version and the translators were never given access the original German pages in Genoud's possession.

In the time since, the German versions have been released in German and a quick translation and comparison finds that a lot of the quotes that certain people harp on are completely fictitious. Most of the glaring problems come between the German -> French translations by the con-man. The French versions say the same thing, whereas the German versions say something different. And the English version is not dishonest translation of the French.

For example, Hitler is quoted saying: 'Christianity is the invention whole sick brains' but that actually translates: "Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly."

This translation has been highly influential within English Hitler scholarship. Often portrayed as a the candid words of Hitler in private. But these are recollections, later, sometimes much later, that were intended for public consumption. They were then translated by a French con-man and a genuine historian who didn't outright refuse to translate from the French and hid the fact that he had, until after his death.

While it is possible to to read both Picker and Heim's German editions, these are not the result of direct recordings but recollections later. There's no clear provenance between what the text of Hitler's Table Talk says and what Hitler might have actually said. Even if we manage to avoid this flawed French translation by going directly from the German editions. These were intended to form the foundations of a book and the entries were things remembered much later. And that's without going into the oddities of Genoud inventing Hitler saying anti-Christian things like:

"Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity."

Which correctly translates from the German:

   "I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn't possible to maintain oneself in the world without force. Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself! 
   The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance."

That this doesn't mention Christianity is one thing, but Hitler compares himself to Moses unable to see the promised land. The omission of the first two sentences needed for context in true for the French and German versions. The actual comment itself is vastly different like beyond which anybody could conclude error and rather be forced to conclude hoax. Or the Christian lie quote which reads in the German (preceding sentence for context):

   "To do something false against one's own knowledge, that is out of the question! One should never personally fall in line with such a lie"

At least here one can see where Genoud came up with "I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie," as the original German there is "One should never personally fall in line with such a lie" -- but it doesn't mention Christianity. That was just made up by a French con-man.

We could perhaps avoid these errors by translating from the German version, but it still is not verbatim, but later recollections for a book. This book, sadly this serves at the basis for a lot of Hitler scholarship to insist that in private Hitler was candid about his hatred of Christianity. And so he was two-faced with one face for the public where he claimed one thing and another in private where he was a secret Christian-hating atheist. When the reality is he had one face, and the these weren't Hitler's private recorded words, and most of the quotes used to establish that point are fraudulent.

You might read the German version, or at a minimum check the German version to see if the quote is accurate. But, for now, Trevor-Roper's lie combined with Genoud's fraud has managed to render decades of Hitler scholarship generally worthless and based on a very bad source.

https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1429265963793.pdf http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10978

Tat (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the editors here want it to be reflected. If I went around saying that an evil man is an atheist, not many would disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:25E5:C7B4:9754:BD86 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The Table Talk stuff needs to be largely deprecated.

"transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded" -- This turns out to be false as testified in court. These were not transcripts, nor were they intended as private conversations, nor do the purported quotes even exist in the German. They were recollections sometimes much much later written down after the fact. The anti-religious quotes were added during the translation from English to French. But, it's certainly wrong to say false things like they are transcripts of recorded private conversations. They were intended for a book and later publication, and were recollections by Picker and Heim. Even if we ignore the stuff that French con-man inserted into the text. Tat (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC):

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Some of the Table Talks--the last ones--are inauthentic. The early ones--the ones cited here--are accepted as authentic by all historians. I have only heard their authenticity challenged by Holocaust deniers. Steeletrap (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, Carrier and Nilsson are challenging the entire set of Table Talks, including the early ones cited here. The biggest complaint is the translation process, but they also raise questions about the accuracy of transcription. The Nilsson paper is well worth reading, but the publisher unfortunately has hidden it behind a paywall. I found a new link to a preprint and updated it in the article. JerryRussell (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The following link might help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Table_Talk#Revisionist_views 2601:982:8200:4790:6C02:3133:447F:507A (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus" and "minority" are both modifiable words.

...and the modifiers used, "strong (consensus)" and "small (minority" are appropriate. Anmccaff (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not needed. Both words already concluded that. 2601:982:8200:4790:345F:8636:32F0:6C49 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Anmccaff in principle, although I think "large" might be more appropriate than "small""strong". There is a difference between a consensus vs a minority and a large consensus vs a small minority, and the latter is more reflective of this subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a large minority, except on Wikipedia itself, where SG's admittedly minority views are amplified, and Wiki isn't a suitable source. Anmccaff (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

My mistake: I meant to suggest substituting "large" for "strong", not "small". I agree that it is a small minority. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Although it's a little hackneyed, "wide consensus" has nuances which are appropriate; it correctly suggests that the idea isn't limited to a single school of thought.

Meanwhile, though, the less accurate, less nuanced anono-edit stands; would you mind...? Anmccaff (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wide" works for me; it doesn't have the... pushiness? of "strong". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in '45 Hitler Wikiquote is Xtian.

Those statements could be made by almost any theist, and a good many deists as well. Anmccaff (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So it's the sort of thing that says nothing about someone holding conventional beliefs, or, with only a little leap, religious beiefs at all. Khrushchev probably invoked God as much as some undoubted Xristians did: that doesn't mean he was a believer, or a believer at the time. Anmccaff (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Here, BTW, are the quotes:

God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work. Radio address, 30 January 1945; from Thomas Streissguth (2002). World War II. New York: Greenhaven Press, p. 118.

Hell, Paine could have written that.

Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me. In the years to come I shall continue on this road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my people's interests, oblivious to all misery and danger, and filled with the holy conviction that God the Almighty will not abandon him who, during all his life, had no desire but to save his people from a fate it had never deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor by way of its importance.

Again, completely consistent with a wide span of beliefs, including merely conventional usage by a agnostic or heathen. Anmccaff (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, for starters, there's no point to trying to identify a person's beliefs by their words. For example, I am an Atheist and I know that Jesus loves me and that I will be reincarnated after death as long as I make sacrifices to Odin and abstain from eating beef. Blessed be. One cannot look to public utterances (which, like my previous sentences were thought out in advance and designed in order to make a point or elicit an emotional response) of this sort and assign qualities to the person or phrase such as specific types of religiosity. Nothing Hitler said in public proves he wasn't an orthodox Jew; it certainly can't be said that a particular reference to God 'wasn't Christian', but was rather Deistic. We seem to be in more or less agreement on this, except that I believe you're missing out on my second point.

Said second point is: drawing a distinction between Christianity and Deism in the Western world is an exercise in futility. All Western Deism is based upon Christianity. Indeed, it is merely a particularly liberal version of Christianity, with relatively minor influences from other Abrahamic religions. This really looks like splitting hairs in order to distance Hitler from Christianity. I'm not suggesting that's what you are actually doing here, but that is certainly what it looks like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

All is a very big word for only three letters; I'd agree that most Western Deism has roots in Xtianity, but there are certainly other threads; Spinoza, Bacon at his most sufi-istic, to say nothing of greco-roman paganism and borrowings from Buddhism. Most is certainly on the continuum that goes from Unitarianism through nihilism, though, yes.

No, it's pointing out that using the language quoted by the resident sock-troll says very little about someone's religious belief, and claiming that it proves otherwise is nonsense, not about distancing Hitler from anything. There are plenty of idiots available to do that from both extremes already.

My apologies for the late reply, I ran into a bit of the Minneapolis School of Adminizing. Anmccaff (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that most Western Deism has roots in Xtianity, but there are certainly other threads; Spinoza, Bacon at his most sufi-istic, to say nothing of greco-roman paganism and borrowings from Buddhism. Spinoza and Bacon were influential thinkers in general, not particular to Deism. There are no "Spinoza" schools of Deism (Indeed, Spinoza's thoughts on divinity are often more influential among pantheists, as famously reflected in that Einstein quote). Bacon's writings might have been influential upon a number of recognizable Deists, but that does not, in any way, translate into him being even partially responsible for the development of any sort of non-Christian deism. The mention of Greco-Roman paganism is strange, as polytheism of the Greek and Roman varieties is about as far from Deism as one can get. Indeed, the only similarities are the acknowledgement that some form of divinity exists. They disagree on the number of gods, the nature of gods, the real-world effects of gods, etc, etc, etc. And of course, Buddhisms famously lacks any deity.

At their edges, some deisms, some theisms, and some pantheisms overlap; this isn't just about enlightenment rationalists jabbering about watchmakers. Given 'dolph's limitless capacity for muddled thinking, there's no reason to believe that his ideas here were any more organized or coherent.

In addition, modern Deism (the sort that was influenced the most by non-christian thought) antedates Hitler's death, and is generally held to be more a product of the 1960's counterculture and the resultant mysticism and influx of Eastern thought. Deism in the 1940's and earlier would have been markedly more Christian than the current (still highly Christian) Deism.

As an absolute, that simply isn't true, although I'd agree strongly it's a fairly valid generalization. It's also irrelevant; this thread is - or at least was, initially - about IPboy's claims that these '45 quotes...well, from the horse's mouth (or at least some end of the same canal):Wrong, he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity publicly even in his final year of leadership. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#1945. Anmccaff (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, I fail to see how statements made about God could possibly not be germane (pun intended, thank you) to an article about the subject's religiosity. The only change to the article I can glean from your comments is the implied removal of those quotes. I'm assuming you are, in fact advocating their removal, as otherwise, this discussion is a violation of our talk page guidelines. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

First; no. Discussing something beyond immediate use of a quote isn't making this into the hitler forum. This discussion is about whether the '45 quote conclusively proves that 'dolp then affirmed a belief in Christianity as he undoubtedly had prior to and in the early years of his rule Anmccaff (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Look, I agree that simply because Hitler made a reference to God does not make him Christian. But that cuts both ways: you cannot assert that a mention of God is a deistic mention (indeed, if anything, the reference to God creating Germany flies in the face of the most fundamental tenet of Deism), and then use that to suggest that he lacked Christian beliefs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to insist on arguing against points I haven't raised, I certainly can't stop you, but I'm damned if I have to participate. Anmccaff (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what points you are referring to. You haven't actually proposed a change, so I am left with assuming that your proposal is to remove the material you are objecting to. Everything else I've said has been in direct response to what you said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This section was opened in response to one example of IPguy removing prior to and in the early years of his rule, as a qualifier to to 'dolph's [affirmation of] a belief in Christianity, reponding to his assertion that the '45 speech conclusively disproved it. Several people...yourself included reverted his change to the article, although I was the only one who opened it up on talk. (Which is undoubtedly why some &*^%$ blocked me, alone, for it...) Anmccaff (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, well in the future, you might want to make note of that when you comment at talk. Also in the future, if you expect people to read your comments, you would do well not to cut them into other editor's comments. I didn't revert because I didn't even notice until after I responded to the last part. I'm not responding to the rest because I honestly can't be bothered to read comments that aren't formatted with respect and consideration of others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You know, I've seen a number of people here on Wiki who responded to the words "good faith" as though it were a deadly insult, in the way that that some southerners respond to "bless their heart" as though it meant "and your little horse, too." This is to be expected, because "assuming good faith" is a Wikipedia "Sunday truth", something everyone shakes their head in agreement with, but seldom puts in practice; the term is often used as a cloaked insult.

We have a case in point here; you appear to have no possible explanation for interlaced editing than lack of respect and consideration of others; you might want to reconsider that. If it makes it easier for you, I can re-edit this so it's a lengthy sea of quotes; but I find that needlessly unwieldy when the indents shows who said what. Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You should, perhaps read WP:TPO before you presume to lecture others about failing to assume good faith in your editing of their comments. It makes the thread more difficult to read, and regardless of your intentions, is rude and disrespectful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I've read it before, and re-read it now; not only does it say nothing against the practice, it specifically approves full sectioning, a rather more dramatic change. As I said above, I can use the more mainstream formatting if you like, but I think it makes things harder to read, not easier, in this case. This is all getting a little too meta; if you want to address the stuff above, I'll re-edit it; if you want to just drop it -and it is bordering a general discussion rather than specific discussion of potential edits, so you may want to - then I'll drop it; either way, I'll try to keep in mind that you prefer what, to me, is a rather bloated way of keeping continuity is a discussion, so I'll use {{tq|talk quote}} here more, but you might want to stop seeing disrespect and lack of consideration under every rock. Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That is the single most blatantly obvious example of full-on bullshit I've seen in a very long time. Congrats. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

New lead

People keeping changing the lead to make the first sentences of the first paragraph redundant. I am not arguing the irreligious point, but would you please take the time to actually read what was added Sep 12th in the context of the paragraph? It is totally redundant as written.

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian, while a small minority have claimed he was a Christian. In light of evidence such as his rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[1] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition, and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity. Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church"

Thanks 2602:304:788B:DF50:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Irreligious" and "Anti-Christian" are not synonymous, by any stretch. Extremist Muslims are, to a large degree, anti-Christian and extremely religious. Many irreligious people are not at all anti-Christian. The repetition of the phrases later in the paragraph is done in the context of outlining the reasoning, and doesn't represent a further conclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm with the Pants on this one. General Ization ^Talk 17:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not talking about that sentence, I am talking about the first sentence saying "the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious" and the very next sentence saying "Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious" that is totally redundant. I have no idea why someone would not remove one of the two instances of "irreligious" for readability, I don't care which one. Or just use a different word so that it seems like people took a writing class before editing WP. 2602:304:788B:DF50:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me that's already been addressed above: "The repetition of the phrases later in the paragraph is done in the context of outlining the reasoning, and doesn't represent a further conclusion." General Ization ^Talk 17:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

And I very much doubt that any reader will wonder if someone needs to take a writing class as a consequence of reading that paragraph. There is no rule against using the same word twice in a paragraph, especially when the meaning of the word is specific and precise. General Ization ^Talk 17:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the only way to avoid repetition of the phrases would be to fall back on indefinites; saying that's how Hitler's major biographers came to "their conclusions" could be illogical, as the very first sentence indicates that the consensus is not universal. Some Hitler biographers have concluded that he was Christian, but they certainly didn't do so due to his "...rejection of the tenets of Christianity, numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition, and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

There has been a long-standing version of the lede that points out that a minority of historians still say Hitler was some sort of Christian. Yes, a very bad Christian. So now there's an edit war trying to get rid of it. My position: the view that Hitler was a Christian is held by a significant minority, not a tiny minority. Therefore it should get representation under NPOV, and summaries that simply describe a consensus position as if it is unopposed are violations of NPOV. Also, FWIW, I agree that the lede has now evolved to the point where it is too long, and absurdly redundant. JerryRussell (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There isn't an edit war per se, there's a failure on your part to follow BRD. That's make a Bold change, watch it get reverted, and then discuss it; you seem to have inverted the order of this. Major mainstream historians see Hitler as essentially anti-xtian, digging up more fringy sources doesn't change that. Anmccaff (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, I disagree with your interpretation of BRD. Steeletrap made the initial bold move by deleting the wording of the longstanding compromise lede. And yes, there's been an edit war, and you won. Congratulations. We're both right up against the bright red line, three reverts each in 24 hours. I'm copying my new content here so that others can review.

Looking at the relevant edit history, User:JerryRussell, it suggests you added two thousand, four hundred and thirty-six characters in response to 'Trap removing fifty-six, and you are seriously suggesting that this is merely restoration of a longstanding compromise lede? If you can do that with a straight face, there's a career for you in confidence games, the law, politics, or diplomacy. ("...but I repeat myself.") Anmccaff (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at the relevant editing history, Steeletrap deleted the longstanding lede phrase with a challenge: how big is the minority? So I elaborated and explained. You deleted again, wanting to know how big the minority is. As far as I can tell, the minority currently consists of three academics; I supplied references. Are you accusing me of bad faith? Do you want to go straight to AN/I? Because I'm pretty sure my conduct here is OK. JerryRussell (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm, no. Where did I ask "how big is the minority?' exactly? I asked...no, stated They aren't the one who needs to clarify. If by "minority" you mean a single source, you need to say that, and expect it to be rightly cut out as fringe. Given the fawning acceptance of SG in one of these sources, you produced, essentially, one additional source, and used Conway, who vociferously disagreed with SG, as if he were supporting him. Counting a source twice by quoting less expert supporters is dirty pool; using a source in direct contradiction to its thesis is incompetent or dishonest....and either way, an opinion held by so few, and denounced by so many, does not belong in the lead. Anmccaff (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So you are still accusing me of bad faith? Conway's statement was not exactly supportive of the statement, but not contradictory, either. A source that "fawningly accepts" another does not count? Do you not believe I could find literally hundreds of non-academic sources saying that Hitler was a (very bad) Christian? We need more eyes on this, I'm posting to WP:NPOVN. JerryRussell (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's something gone wrong with your contributions here; what exactly it might be isn't really that important. Yes, when a less-expert source takes another's work as a given, that adds very little to the cited work. If Joe Schmidlap quotes Samuel Elliot Morrison, that's one supporting cite, not two. No one gains credibility from their lackeys.

You actually read Conway, and you claim his thesis is not contradictory?

Do I believe you could find bad sources supporting you? Of course, anyone can, but they are still bad sources. The goal is not to Google-dredge for crap that tells us what we want to hear, but to seek out expertise, and see what it has to say. Anmccaff (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"Lackeys"? Is that what they call a professor's students here? "Crap", is that what they call non-historians like Dawkins and Hitchens who dare to comment? Mind your manners, Anmccaff. This position is held by a significant minority, not a tiny minority. JerryRussell (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Another one who thinks someone died, and left him schoolmarm.

Significant minority? You've made this claim several times, yet you haven't presented -any- new examples of serious scholars of the topic who agree with you. Anmccaff (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN discussion

JerryRussell, for asking What kind of a Christian was Hitler?

In an edit summary.

Regarding this page.

At WP:NPOVN. Anmccaff (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've edited the title of this thread to comply with WP:CIVIL. Anmccaff, consider who this is coming from. I'm a sarcastic and hyperbolic ass. If even I feel this title is uncivil, that's got to count for quite a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere the changing of the subject also affected the body, making it kinda ungrammaticizistical. I think the strike above might fix that, but only partway. The real problem, the begging the question in the NPOV noticeboard section still needs to be highlighted, or better still, struck. Anmccaff (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've altered the title in that thread as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)