Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Totalitarian, not Authoritarian 2 Proposed Changes in Links 3 Hitler & USA 4 kidnap link 5 Category:Military leaders 6 Changes in Links 7 Was Hitler Alexender the Great in one of his former incarnations? 8 "Vegetarianism" of Adolf Hitler 9 Over-linking 10 End of the War 11 Image 12 ROHA's back. 13 Citations needed in trivia section 14 Templated infobox created 15 Dates 16 Gott mitt Uns 17 a hitler biography 18 Catholicism again 19 World Of Biography 20 Assuming Good Faith

Totalitarian, not Authoritarian

I can't believe we actually need to be having this discussion. Hitler was clearly totalitarian--there were no autonomous institutions in Germany that in any way inhibited his absolute power, as there was a strong Catolic church in Chile that hampered the absolute rule of Pinochet. Describing Hitler's regime as "authoritarian" is just plain wrong. Stanley011 18:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This was a topic of a long disucussion recently. One side wants to describe it as a fascist regime, and the other protests saying that Nazi's and Hitler were not fascist, but totalitarians. I suggest you go back can read over the arguments. The language that is being used is a result of compromise. I don't no one is fully happy with it but its something all sides can live with. MikaM 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Stalin's rule with that of Hitler's might be helpful in this regard. For example, a general who disagreed with Stalin would likely end up with a bullet to the back of the head; a general who disagreed with Hitler would more likely be given a gold watch, a pension, and shown the way to the door. Stalin's power over the Soviet people was a lot more "total" than Hitler's was over the German people. Also, people obeyed Stalin usually out of the fear they'd end up dead otherwise; but Germans, except for those who plotted against him, obeyed Hitler more out of a traditional deference for their recognized leader -- and also due to their belief in Hitler's insane ideas. Even Hitler's generals who weren't hard-core Nazis, when asked to carry out military operations they protested were ridiculous and insane, nevertheless carried them out because of the traditional German military ideal of following orders (ie. Paulus refusing to go against Hitler's crazy order to remain in Stalingrad). The Webster's definition of "authoritarian" is as follows: "characterized by or favoring the principle of following in blind obedience to a leader". That sounds an awful lot like the German people's relationship to Hitler.J.R. Hercules 20:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

? Where? It seems to me that the only objection is they don't like the subject matter. Since they don't like admitting that Hitler was a Christian, therefore certainly would hate to see all the evidence given for this fact. But, to suppress it on the grouds that its a "hate site" is a bit of a stretch and points the the weakness of any legitimate grouds to suppress it.

Curiously, the link that I then removed, was restored. The link states as a matter of fact that, "Hitler planned to kidnap the Pope and abolish Christianity." It links to a news article that quotes this alleged plot from an Italian Catholic newspaper. I guess when it comes to their POV, its not considered pushing a "pet theory," eh? I do note that even the Jesuit Father Robert Graham, who is a big Piux supporter and expert in the subject argued in 1998 that "the evidence of an alleged plan to kidnap the Pope is, at best, mixed." Seems like double-standards here informed by POV pushing. I asked them to take it to talk page, but since they didn't, Im here asking for them to support their claims. Giovanni33 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing a link and replacing it with another giving a total different POV is clearly POV. Why can't both be there? Agathoclea 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Agathoclea, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be NPOV. External links certainly can be POV...that's a good reason to link, if the website does a good job of presenting a certain view. Furthermore, I think it rather suspicious when two editors who both proudly state on their user pages that they are Catholics who follow the Pope, insist on removing from the Hitler page a link to a website that espouses a view that Christians may not like. They then turn around and insist that a link to a news item favorable to the Catholic Church be restored. Now, I'm not saying the two editors in question are biased or did not have perfectly legitimate reasons for their actions; all I am saying is there is the appearance of bias in their actions. One would think that they would go out of their way to support the inclusion of viewpoints hostile to their religion, so as to demonstrate their complete fidelity to making Wikipedia articles give all points of view according to the NPOV policy, but I guess that didn't happen in this case. In any event, it certainly seems like there is an effort here to prevent linking to a website that does a good job of presenting a point of view, simply because that view is offensive. This is the honest perception of an outsider, who doesn't know any of the editors in question, and who does not have a firm opinion one way or another about the issue in question, that of Hitler's religious beliefs. I feel that in the interest of fairness to all viewpoints, that the websites in question all be linked to, both the one favorable to the Pope, and the one that says Hitler was a Christian or influenced by Christianity. Drogo Underburrow 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Drogo. I can understand your reaction, and I have no doubt at all that it's an honest one, but please bear in mind that not all editors display their religion or atheism on their user page, but that doesn't mean they don't have one. I would not be less loyal to Pope Benedict if I removed that user box from my page, and Giovanni would not be more eager to show Christianity in a bad light if he added a box saying, "This user is totally committed to discrediting Christianity." His contributions since he arrived here have a far greater indication that he's here for that purpose than mine or Str1977's indicate that we're here for the opposite purpose. As I said elsewhere, the average edits per page can give an indication that someone is here with an agenda. I have 2.25, Str1977 has just over 5, and Giovanni has nearly 12. Str1977 and I both have a large number of edits that are not in any way connected with our POVs — just adding information about books, films, pieces of music, etc., archiving pages, working on templates and infoboxes, etc. Giovanni's contributions have been almost exclusively anti-Christian, and he has violated various policies and guidelines in his determination to get his way. I bring this up only because you have suggested that there could be a problem with the motivation of the Christian editors, and in fact, it was not mentioned in the post I was about to make when I got caught in an edit conflict with you. Since Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, I don't think links should be added without some kind of consensus that they are reasonably reliable and that they contribute significantly to the article. A link should not get added simply because it's a favourite link or promotes a favourite theory.

Just for the record, Giovanni added one, which I found to be extremely biased; it supported his favourite theory. I was looking at it, when Str1977 removed it. Giovanni promptly restored it, and I removed it. I had had time to examine the site at that stage. Giovanni restored it, calling the removal "suppression" — a word he always uses when people find his edits too POV — and Str1977 removed it again. Giovanni then removed a link to a website which apparently claimed that Hitler planned to abolish Christianity, and then restored his own link. I reverted to Str1977, but my reason for removing Gio's Hitler-was-a-devout-Catholic-and-his-behaviour-is-reflective-of-Catholicism suggestion was that I found that link completely biased, and saw it as yet another attempt by Giovanni to edit article in such a way as to suggest that evil people who happened to have been baptized would not have done such evil things if they had not been Christians. With regard to my re-insertion of the other link that Gio removed, I restored it because it had been there for at least the last 500 edits (I didn't look any further back than that), and nobody had objected to it, so I thought it was possible that its removal was an instinctive they've-removed-mine-so-I'm-going-to-remove-theirs reaction. I was reverting anyway, as I was removing the biased link that Gio added four times. I haven't examined in detail the link about Hitler wanting to abolish Christianity, and I don't know who added it. I do feel, though, that in a page with so many editors as this one, anything objectionable would be spotted and removed (or at least objected to on the talk page) before five hundred edits had gone by. If there is a good reason not to have that link, let's look into it. My main objection was to Gio's addition, rather than to his subtraction. And I think it's a little odd to flag an external links section with the POV tag. I've never seen that done before. It's quite bizarre.

Also, Gio, you say, "I asked them to take it to talk page, but . . . they didn't. Please note that you made that request in an edit summary at 10:50 (UTC). Str1977 last edited at 10:43. He presumably is not at the computer at the moment. I can't think of anyone who goes to more trouble to answer your points. Str1977 has explained to you again and again and again that Hitler did not believe the things the Church taught, was not a practising Catholic, and resented Catholicism. With regard to Hitler's references to God — God is not a peculiarly Catholic or even Christian concept. If Hitler said he was a follower of Jesus (or whatever you say he said), I can only remind you of something I read in Professor Bradley's writings on Othello that we must remember never to believe any statement that Iago makes, even in soliloquys, unless there is other evidence for it. I don't think there's any reason to think that Hitler was such a fine, moral, outstanding man, full of integrity, that he would never have claimed to believe something unless he really did believe it.

Back to Drogo — They then turn around and insist that a link to a news item favorable to the Catholic Church be restored. Str1977 had nothing to do with restoring the link favourable to the Pope. I don't think he was online at the time. I restored it, for the reasons given above. I don't insist that it be restored. If it's unreliable, it should go as well as the one that Gio is trying to insert. I just felt that it was probably okay since it had been there for a while without drawing objections, and its removal was probably a reaction to the removal of the other link. AnnH ♫ 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain why I deemed "nobeliefs" a hate site. The title already suggests that it has an agenda and more specific: a negative agenda: NO beliefs - it sets to discredit all kinds of religions (that the argument used in this particular case is a non sequitur is another issue). It uses sensationalist presentation of dubious facts and opinions. There are scholarly treatments of that matter and it comes to different conclusions (I have repeatedly pointed to a book called "Hitlers Gott - Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators" by Michael Rißmann", unfortunately to my knowledge not yet translated into English).

The equivalent Christian (or religions, some people don't seem to see differences) website would be: "Nodoubts.com" or "Noinfidels.org" which has a section on every prominent atheist proclaiming how bad they were, even including those whose atheism (which is, in a turn around from above, not the same as not being a Christian or Jew or Muslim) is dubious or to whose outlook there is more than just atheism (atheist repeatedly point out, quite correctly, that Lenin and Stalin and Mao became mass murderers because of their Communism (apart from lust for power and megalomania) and not merely hecause of their disbelief in God (which is just a negative, a void to be filled be something/someone else).) If such a link (assuming they exist) appeared on an article about Stalin or Mao I would advocate its removal just as much.

I also had a look into the article called "Jews" and found no (endorsing or not) links to sites promoting the Protocolls of the Sages of Zion. Rightfully so!

Quite apart from the mere content, Gio added it as expressly "informative" - which is POV pushing again (and Gio, no, that is not encouraging you to add it with a different wording).

Why did I deem Nobeliefs worse than the Hitler-Museum. The latter page is undoubtedly more sneaky, since it hides its background and claims impartiality. However, part of its sneakiness is not to hit readers over the head with its message. Don't get me wrong, both are unacceptable websites and both should stay removed.

The "Pope kidnapping" I did not provide and I did not restore it - however, it was a news item a couple of months ago and hence it has been added. I am not familiar with these dealing but I can state, having "met" Karl Wolff before that his reported behaviour fits with the rest of him. Finally, I want to note that this link was no hate site with an hatefilled agenda.

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You are laboring under the mistaken impression that a website that Wikipedia links to, should strive to follow the rules Wikipedia does in its articles. This is not the case at all. An external website could well be biased; it can have an agenda; that doesn't matter. What matters is if it does a good job of presenting its case. Its supposed to have an agenda, that's why we link to it, to give one side a chance to present its case better, to have more material, or something that we can't do in the article. To me, the website you deleted does a good job of doing that, its a quality site, in terms of presenting one side of a story. That is all that you can ask for from an external site.

You are censoring the opposition here, whether you realise it or not, which is why Gio gets so upset, no doubt. He wants one side of a story told, and you won't let him, and thats wrong, NPOV demands that he get his say, just as the other side gets its say, too. Stop deleting this link, stop not letting the other side get its say, just cause you think they are wrong, biased, not factual, etc. Even if they are, its their side of the story, and they should get their say. Drogo Underburrow 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So should we link to the "sages of zion" and other stuff like that, including "no beliefs". I don't mind if a wesite has an agenda but it shouldn't be demagogy. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Drogo, they censoring a link that is valid, pertainent to the subject, and really an excellent discussion--one of the best I've seen so far on the net--- without any valid reason, other than a Christian may find it offensive. They have failed to give any good reasons or even back up their claims, i.e. not accurate, a "hate site" and other unsupported nonsense. All they are saying is that they don't agree. Well, they don't have to agree with that POV. The website gives a good argument, and that is probably why they hate it. As to the diversionary tactic of Musical Linguist about my pushing a POV, I'd only respond, no more than you. I also edit on all kinds of articles, such as Vitamin C and Anal leakage, which has nothing to do with putting Christianity in a bad light. In articles, I've seen a lot of white-washing and suppression of valid information that could be seen by Christians as putting them in a bad light. However, since I'm not pushing a POV, this does not concern me as it does them. Everone has bias, but the bias is put in check by having many editors of different POV's working to balance the other out. The problem comes in when the other side's intolerance acts to suppress their opposition from effecting such a balance, and not allowing the presenting of the other side. This is a case in point. I will restore this valid link (but not vio the 3RR rule), and I encourage all other fair minded editors who value the principals of Wiki guidlines to do the same. Giovanni33 05:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of the editors here against the actions of supressing the opposition and removing Giovanni's link that, i think, proves Hitler was a Christian. Its a big topic and we could even have a whole article in Hitler's religion. This link is very good at presenting that POV. Its obvious to me that the self professed conservative Catholics here simply don't want to let the other side speak. External links are supposed to push a POV; or at least if they do that is prefectly fine as long as it does so openly, honestly, and does it well. Gio's site clearly does that. I'm restoring it. Kecik 05:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kecik, I wondered when you would appear. Anyway, you are completely mistaken (but understandbly so): external links are not "supposed to push a POV", they are meant to present and illustrate or elaborate a perspective of this article, which might be a particular view. External links cannot be subject to the NPOV policy as WP has no control over the editing of these links - however, external links are not supposed to push a POV (which is not the same as to present a POV), nor are they allowed to spread bigotted and hateful messages, except when these messages are the subject of the article (quasi as documentation, as Mein Kampf is here). So if we had an article called "atheist bigotry", your link would it perfectly as an illustration. Here, it doesn't. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling a link an example of "atheist bigotry" would be POV - you think it is bigotry - the atheist doesn't. To be nPOV you would need to call it "Atheist views on $SUBJECT" Agathoclea 08:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what is the difference between an article that "pushes a POV" and one that "presents a perspective, a particular view?" Seems to be the same to me. Your comment that "external links are not supposed to push a POV (which is not the same as to present a POV)" doesnt make any sense to me. What is the difference? Its just a matter of semantics. If a link presents a certain POV, and argues for it, provides the evidence, etc.---is it not pushing a POV? Is not "pushing" the same as presenting? Again, just semantics. And, I disagree that the link I provided was in any way bigoted or hateful. You have failed to show that in the least, although you are entitled to your own POV, however flawed I happend to think it is. You dont have a right to impose your POV to the extent that causes you to censor and suppress the other POV (mine). Giovanni33 08:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That you cannot see the difference says a lot about your approach. "Pushing a POV" is to push a certain POV towards prominence, to give it undue weight, to include it where it shouldn't be included. Presenting is legitimate, pushing is illegitmate. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so the link is too good then, gives its POV promience. Well that is what is should do. Your point is only valid if ALL the external links were to have a simliar POV--then that would be POV pushing as you define it. To give a single site that presents its POV very well, is not. Your wanting to silence this POV is not legitimate. Giovanni33 11:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Agathoclea, it wouldn't be a fitting title for a WP article. However, it would most clearly reflect what the link in question is about. Browsing through these pages I cannot see what other editors have seen: scholarly, evidence, proof - yes, it has quotes, but these quotes are clearly chosen according to one criterion: "is this quote useful to somehow link Christianity/religion with Hitler/Nazism", mixed with the usual fallacy of saying religion = Christianity = Catholicism, so if Hitler says "I am doing the work of the creator" this is read as a Christiain statement (which is it not) and if he's speaking about Christianity this is read as speaking about Catholicism, despite his known anti-Catholic views (prevalent among German nationalists, not just Nazis). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not true Str1977. The quotes are not selective, but rather comprehensive dealing with the subject matter. The site even has an excellent discussion of other sources, including sources that Christian apologists tend to use, its limitations, but that even using these sources and the quotes found in them, it clearly still establishes Hitler well within the tradition of Christian thinkers. And, no, the article does not make the sloppy argument that saying anything religious=Christianity=Catholicism. This is a straw man fallacy you are creating here, and its you who is using selective quotes to create a false argument which the article never does. How ever much you'd wish it were that simplistic and thus easy to dismiss, the truth is otherwise. I don't need to present the complelling evidence, since its all in these sites it links to below, which any reader can take the time to look over the merits of the argument. Everyone from Hitler's Christian Bible, with his notes in it, to his professions of following Jesus, etc. Infact, I don't think you evern bothered to look at the arguments of this site, because it doesn't specifically argue that Hitler was a Catholic, just a Christian, and talks reports what kind of Christian he was, by looking at what he wrote and what he said, along with other sources of documentation, i.e. his "positive Christianity." The link does a nice job of getting any reader informed about Hitler's religion and convincingly argues that he can not rightly escape the title of being a Christian.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm ttp://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm ttp://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm Giovanni33 08:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes true. If the quotes are not selective, show me one quote that doesn't help that view, that doesn't link Christianity/religion with Nazis? Of course, you will say: that's because they were all such devout Christians and they never said anything bad about Christianity or the Catholic Church. But that is you blind faith to your "spiritual leaders" or should I say mis-leaders.

A few notes on source criticism (excellent discussion? how many discussions have you read? I presume anything coming from the mouth of that site is excellent) does not make the website scholarly. They use these notes to knock down a couple of well known quotes - but that doesn't mean that they'd be using anti-Christian/anti-Catholic quotes/infos from credible sources. No, that wouldn't fit with their objective, clearly visible in the website title.

Straw man? Well, wasn't it you who quoted any reference to God as indicating Hitler's Christianity and any reference to Christ as indicating his Catholicism (quite in contrast to the discrepancy between Hitler's views and Catholicism, which is not defined by private judgment).

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided the links above. You are free to show yourself. It quotes all the known quotes used by Christians to try to show Hitler was not a Christian and discusses them. Most of your message above is hard to respond to because its full of so many wrong assumptions, forming a diatribe, so I don't think its worth a serious response. But, if you challenge the source of any of the quotes as non-credible, then please show which source is not credible. From what I see they are all rather mainstream and well known credible sources. That is whta I look at, not what website it comes from. And, yes, you have a classic straman fallacy on your hands, and trying to swtich subjects about what I have supposedly argued in the past. Well, another strawman, since I did not quite say that (but I'm glad at least you are not saying that is what this link says--did you confuse what you thought I said with what this link argues?). As to what my arguments are or were, that can be seen from the previous history of the talk pages, but lets stick to the subject of what the link argues and why you feel it should not be allowed to speak for itself. So far your arguments have failed. Giovanni33 09:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to censor the opposition, Str1977. I don't even agree with the views of the website in question; but I recognise that they are doing a good job of making their case. Note that doing a good job does not mean they are being fair, scholarly, factual, or anything else. What they are doing is making an argument, and you don't want their argument to be heard. That is a violation of NPOV. If you don't like this site, find a better one that makes a stronger case that Hitler was a Christian and/or the product of Christianity and Christian beliefs. So far, this site is the best I have seen at making that case. You want to replace it with nothing, silencing this viewpoint, and that is not right. Drogo Underburrow 09:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I am going to add a link to this website, on the grounds that it is a site dedicated to giving a point of view, and is the best example on the web of presenting this POV. Therefore, this site falls under Guideline #4 of the Wiki style guide on linking, which calls for linking to sites that present POV's. Removing this link is censoring this POV, unless you replace the link with a better one giving this same POV, that Hitler was a Christian or the product of Christianity. It is not ok to remove this link, as without it the article does not properly present the POV given in this link. I want to remind editors that NPOV is about presenting all sides, without taking sides. It is not about presenting a consensus view of the editors. -- Drogo Underburrow 05:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this passage, Drogo:

"4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first."

However, I don't think this actually fits our situation, as we don't evenly depict both "sides" (one of which, BTW, is factual - and it's not the currently linked one). Also, consider the following:

Avoid

"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view."

And also "Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?"

IMHO, a hate-spilling side is neither proper nor tasteful and useful only to certain ends (which are not the ends of WP).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look through, and the claim that it is "unverified original research" as it in fact is a secondary source referenceing its sources. It then draws conclusions we could not draw here as they are POV. We could reference them as existing conclusions in contrast with POV conclusions that portray the other side. You are welcome to find an equally researched site that presents a different POV. Agathoclea 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Str1977's assertion, http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm is not a "hate-spilling" site. Moreover, its not a fact that the site contains factually inaccurate material, it is simply asserted by Str1977. But even if it was a fact, the site meets the exception clause, since it is a notable proponent of a point of view dealt with in the article. The site definately "is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view." which means it meets the standard of exception to the rule of not including sites with factually inaccurate material. The Hitler article better have multiple points of view, or its in violation of NPOV. This site meets exactly the reasons given in the Wiki style guide on linking for sites that should be linked to. Drogo Underburrow 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes in Links

I've been making occasional changes in links on this page, but perhaps it would be best to consider the whole collection. I think it is generally agreed that links should be from credible sources. Linkspam is a bad idea. But beyond that, shouldn't links be considered in terms of the reader? That is, links often get added that have no particular connection to the preceeding article. They may display POV, or take up some issue that 99% of readers simply aren't interested in.

That being said, here's my evaluation of the existing links. The "Portrayals of Hitler Project" is run by a credible German historian, and provides lots of information (and some documents) on how Hitler has been perceived over the years. I just added this one, and obviously think it valuable. There are two timelines. Surely we need only one? But more than that, the article itself is chronological, and why would most readers be interested in a long list of dates? I think both should go. The "Hitler and Mussolini" link is credible, and probably worth keeping — but I'm not sure how many readers are interested. Thje "extensive site on Adolf Hitler" does have a lot of information, even if it is not always reliable in details, and is worth keeping. I'd strike "Answer.com." It is Wikipedia once removed, with some links. Why link to ourselves? I'd strike "Hitler's Genealogy." It is in German, which most readers won't be able to handle. "Mein Kampf" is worth keeping as a prime source on Hitler, but there are two veresions listed. Let's eliminate one of them. The "photographs of Hitler" site happens to be mind, added before I got involved in Wikipedia. It draws several hundred hits a week from Wikipedia, and provides useful pictures. The "25 point program" is important for the history of Nazism, but might better by in the Nazi Party article rather than here? The "Hitler's Family Tree" probably isn't of great interest to most readers, and a bit hard to understand for those not up on genealogy. Cut it? "Hitler's grandfather" seems to me of marginal interest to most readers. The "Assessment of Adolf Hitler" site looks designed to sell the guy's book, and strikes me as marginally valuable. I think it should go. That brings us to "Hitler and the pope," the topic of the above lively discussion. It think it should go, since it is not central to Hitler's biography, and most readers are not likely to want to investigate that matter. The "psychological profile" is a fascinating historical document — but is it a good link for a general encyclopedia article? I think not. I'd like to replace the "comprehensive account of Hitler" link with a better one: http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/hitler/lectures.html. It includes the texts of lectures by a good German historian. I'd drop the "NS-Archiv," given that it's in German. The link to pictures in color probably is interesting for lots of visitors.

In sum, I think most existing links should go, and what remains should be useful to someone wanting to go beyond what Wikipedia says on the large issues. There are 57,000,000 Google pages that mention Hitler. If people slip in whatever appeals to their particular interests, as had already been done to some extent, I think the list becomes less useful.

What might others think? Bytwerk 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody objects, cares ... until WP:BRD :-) Agathoclea 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I care! Don't delete any of the links. :-) Drogo Underburrow 08:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I care too. Please keep the links. Im not opposed to adding other links, even replacing ones with others that make the case better than the one given does. But, until then, lets keep these links. Giovanni33 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The two version of "Mein Kampf" seem to offer two different translations, unless one can be shown to be perfectly accurate which would you delete? The family tree is the uniquely interesting feature to me. Doesn't help much I know. PhilipPage 00:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler & USA

Those are helpful articles. Please consider adding information about the following:

1. Adolf Hitler’s notorious salute originated from the USA’s early Pledge of Allegiance and a (rexcurry.net/USA-pledge-of-allegiance-rexcurrydotnet.jpg) shocking photograph is here. The original Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag and a (rexcurry.net/USA-pledge-of-allegiance2-rexcurrydotnet.jpg) photograph is here. In actual use, the (rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html) second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by disinterested children perfunctorily performing the forced ritual chanting by extending the initial military salute, as shown by Professor Rex Curry. Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the (rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-german-connections.html) military salute led to the hard, stylized salute of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute via the USA’s Pledge.

2. Adolf Hitler’s symbol (the swastika), although it was an ancient symbol, was used sometimes by the National Socialist German Workers Party to represent overlapping “S” letters for their “socialism,” as shown in (rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html) Swastika Secrets by Dr. Rex Curry. The same symbolism is shown in Hitler’s own bizarre signature, which Hitler alter to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist," and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on (rexcurry.net/bookchapter4a1a2a.html) Volkswagens.

3. The Hitler-style salute in the USA pre-dated the Nazis by 30 years and was created by Francis Bellamy (author of the "Pledge of Allegiance"). Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy (author of the novel "Looking Backward") and Charles Bellamy (author of "A Moment of Madness") and Frederick Bellamy (who introduced Edward to socialistic "Fourierism") were socialists. Edward, Charles and Frederick were brothers, and Francis was their cousin. Francis and Edward were both self-proclaimed National Socialists and they supported the "Nationalism" movement in the USA, the "Nationalist" magazine, and the "Nationalist Educational Association." They wanted all of society to ape the military and they touted "military socialism" and the "industrial army." Edward’s book was an international bestseller, translated into every major language (including German) and he inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists worldwide (including Germany) via “Nationalist Clubs.” Many of their policies were followed in the USA and still are followed in the USA and caused the USA’s big, expensive and oppressive government.

The Nazi salute was far older, originating with Roman soldiers and Hitler got it through Mussolini, not the USA. Also, I see your links as an attempt at search engine optimization so I delinked the multiple links to what (I assume) is your own site. Apart from that misinformation, I don't see much new or enlightening in your post. --Golbez 07:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

kidnap link

I wonder if anyone took a closer look at the article. Apart from reporting on a report from a catholic source it said "But the reports also of Hitler’s contempt for Pius have contrasted with other versions by historians and authors who have depicted Pius as being pro-German and have accused him of intentionally turning a blind eye to the Holocaust." In the light of this the linktext needs to change to reflect the content of the article. Agathoclea 14:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Military leaders

Is there a reason why he is not in the above mentioned category? I think I put him in there a couple of weeks ago.

Of course I might be missing something. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Links

I've made most of the changes in links I proposed above. I kept the links some people are enthused about. The result is, I think, more useful to the average visitor -- but we shall see what happens. Bytwerk 10:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the link to the .ws forum as it is a forum site. Did you get mixed up and wanted to include another link? Agathoclea 11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The forum section is a relatively small part of that site, but I'm not inclined to defend its inclusion too strongly. Bytwerk 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It just stares into the face when you go to it. On the basis that we like verifyable content - or at least would like to verify who placed the content I feel uncomfortable. Agathoclea 11:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Hitler Alexender the Great in one of his former incarnations?

I have very interesting information about Hitler. Paramahansa Yogananda had revealed to some of his disciples that Adolf Hitler was Alexander the Great in one of his former incarnations. Before dismissing this idea as totally absurd, let us look at the similiarities of these two personalities. Alexander the Great had a great desire for conquest; so did Hitler. Alexander's spiritual teacher was a Hindu (infomation available in Autobiography of a Yogi) and Hitler had a sub-conscious liking for Hindu thought. For example, the Swastika is a Hindu symbol and Hitler believed in the superiority of the Aryan race. Should we include this controversial information in the article?

On a side note, in Conversations with God Book One by Neale Donald Walsch, it is revealed that Hitler went to heaven (as there is no such thing as hell according to the book) after his suicide! Should this small piece of information be included as well into the article? Of course, many people would strongly disagree about these two bits of information about Hitler. The world views Hitler as a totally evil man in absolute terms but the above mentioned book has a different view about this misunderstood personality. Any constructive feedback and comments would be appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What kind of a nutcase can this man be?If Hitler went to heaven,so should virtually everyone get there.Whatever.Alex lost his father when he was young.I read a book of Walter C Langer in which the Author claimed that Hitler lost him "spiritually" according to the analysis to his own writings,which seems flawed when talking about him.I also read an interview with Hitler's relatives that he constantly fought against his father and had a deep bond to his mother.AFAIK Alex had the same,but may have not fought against his father.So far there aren't too many interesting things,all generic Freudian stuff.Other than that,i don't know anymore.--CAN T 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem with these new age fake 'love' philosophies. If Hitler got into Heaven (however abstract the concept), it means that what you do in this life doesn't matter. You can be as evil, cruel and tyrannical as you like. You can murder as many people as you want. You can steal, cheat, lie your way through life and it won't matter. --Stevefarrell 10:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue with that! Even the thought of Hitler going to heaven is a laughable notion (to most people) which we may NEVER be able to completely prove. However, heaven (if it exists at all) can be a very, very, subjective concept. For example, if a good person is passionate about golf and after his death, enters heaven, he could be disappointed to find that golf does not exist in heaven. Then, heaven could be a hell for him, right? Earth is like a heaven for some and hell for others. In the same reasoning, perhaps Hitler's "heaven" is filled with torture and war and Adolf would feel right at home in this kind of an atmosphere. Anyway, if life exists after death, I wonder how Hitler is doing right now. Will he be reincarnated again (if this exist) on earth? And why did God (if that being exist) allow Hitler to set up concentration camps? Any strong comments are highly encouraged as I have more thoughts about this subject. As for the comments made by Stevefarrell, what if I gave you a higher concept that murder, theft, etc does not exist? What about the possibility that all the people Hitler killed went to a great place of love and understanding? That the 6 million Jews that have been ruthlessly killed went to heaven? What if I told you that the concept of evil is totally relative? That Hitler felt that HE was doing the right thing and had a sincere desire to see Germany prosper? Let us all view the bigger picture of this war. Remeber, if WW2 did not happen, many countries could still be under colonial rule. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Vegetarianism" of Adolf Hitler

I removed the incorrect and misleading category link Vegetarianism because historical evidence does NOT support the claim that A. Hitler was a vegetarian, on the contrary. There is a lot of evidence that A. Hitler continued to eat dead animal foods throughout his life. Indeed, the "evidence" cited in support of the vegetarian hypothesis is almost always of a form like this (see Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler):

• "Hitler was indeed, for the most part, a vegetarian — though he did occasionally allow himself a dish of meat."
• "From that moment on, she [Frau Hess] said, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings."
• "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar ..."

The deliberate consumption of foodstuffs derived from animal corpses such as (muscle) meat, liver dumplings, ham, and probably even caviar is, however, incompatible with vegetarianism, as defined on Wikipedia. This is tantamount to saying that someone is an avowed celibate with the exception of sometimes having sex with Russian prostitutes. I therefore removed the incorrect category link and will continue to remove it until there is some real evidence that Hitler was a vegetarian in the same sense as that used by Wikipedia and other english-language encyclopedias and dictionaries. Or maybe people want to suggest that he was a vegetarian only in between non-vegetarian meals. As Mark Twain said: "Quitting smoking is easy. I've done it a thousand times." Aragorn2 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

See also Category_talk:Vegetarians#Hitler. Aragorn2 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That same article states in its lead "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his death in 1945" - if you want to look at the matter as NPOV and WP:NOR you have to classify him as vegetarian for search purposes. People make POV fights over Categories because THEY dony don't want to be associated with Hitler. You all are associated with Hitler - Hitler had a nose - you all have noses - it follows that all of you are evil. Agathoclea 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler liked dogs, too. Goes to show that dog-lovers are just like Hitler. I notice that no mention of Hitlers dogs is made in the article. The evil dog-lovers have no doubt censored it out. Drogo Underburrow 09:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced that I looked at the matter NPOV because the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian despite his continued, deliberate consumption of ham, liver, sausages and poultry (e.g. squab) directly contradicts Wikipedia's definition of vegetarianism. If Wikipedia is trying (as I assume) to limit the publication of contradictory information, either the categorization must be removed, or WP's definition of vegetarianism has got to change (which would you prefer?). This is not a case of "No Original Research" in any way because I have merely reproduced material from published sources (entire books have been written on the subject).

It seems questionable whether people would find your nose argument convincing. Having a nose is, contrary to vegetarianism in most cases, not a conscious lifestyle choice, after all. Anyway, if you consider my objections to be primarily a case of not wanting to be associated (as a vegan) with Hitler, you might want to take into account that I removed André 3000 (again) from the List of vegans (see Talk:List of vegans#I_deleted_Andre_3000), and suggested the removal of the "Category:Vegetarians" link from Alec Baldwin, two famous personalities I would emphatically not mind to be associated with, for the sole reason that the categorizations are (rsp. seem) incorrect. I did both of this, by the way, before even stumbling upon A. Hitler in the vegetarians category. Aragorn2 17:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a question of WP:NOR#Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position when you claim AH was not a vegetarian based on definitions found elsewhere while historians claim that he was. Now you mention some books written on the matter. Again a) WP:NOR will ask how reputable these sources are b) if they are in contrast to the majority of published works they have to both be mentioned. It is then to the reader to make up his own mind. You might want to solve the problem by creating a subcategory of "disputed vegetarians" Agathoclea 17:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Over-linking

The introduction to the article is badly over-linked. The wiki style defines overlinked as having more than 10% links, having more links than lines, and low added-value items are linked without reason, i.e. plain dates like 1933. Ordinary words should not be linked. Furthermore, one of the links is even misleading, "facing crisis" takes the reader to Weimar Republic. The intro is ridiculous, just about every noun is linked. Links are footnotes. They call attention to themselves. Anywhere you see a link, ask if you would find acceptable "See (link)" inserted into the text. If not the item probably should not be linked. The rest of the article is badly overlinked as well. Drogo Underburrow 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Why not eliminate a bunch and see if anyone yelps? Bytwerk 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And the photo and biog box intrude too much on the text.--shtove 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

End of the War

The article mentions that near the end of the war, it was Hitler's stubbornness that had Germany continue to fight. From what I've gathered in different history books, however, states that surrender wouldn't have been realistic for Germany, since the Allies had called for an unconditional surrender on Germany's part. Thought I might mention it to help reach the NPOV standards 67.142.130.41 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

The new image (16 April 2006) is much better - the editor was an IP but I agree with his comment that the previous image was propaganda-esque and the new image is more neutral. T. J. Day 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ROHA's back.

You know what to do. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not know what to do. Someone who calls himself "Linuxbeak" says that we should know what to do when we read "ROHA's back". But I am new to this Wikipedia and do not know what "to do" at all. Sorry if I am not understanding what "Linuxbeak" means. Best regards, Lothar.

ROHA is someone who has a dynamic IP and pops up every once in a while trying to replace the pic we have of Hitler in the intro with a lower quality, "less propagandistic" one. Since he has a dynamic IP, the only way to stop his vandalism (yes, it's vandalism, as he's never managed to communicate why the one we have is so evil) is to semi-protect for a time. --Golbez 22:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed in trivia section

I'm tempted to remove a few of these "trivia" items without references-- specifically the flatulance one. I've no idea where one would even look to find that kind of reference, and it seems kinda childish anyway to include it. Anyone else think it should be cut? Fieari 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen mention of his flatulence problem. A source will probably turn up. Mattergy 09:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Kershaw mentions the flatulence. O'Donnell mentions the severe halitosis, also.Michael Dorosh 14:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Templated infobox created

I created a clone of the infobox of Hitler and protected it. This is to prevent ROHA from continually changing the picture as he has been doing since 10 November, 2005. I'm sick of seeing changes to this article that say "ROHA: removed propaganda" and "ROHA: note that so-and-so reverts back to propaganda without discussion." As such, I'm going to prevent ROHA from "removing propaganda" from this page. If people really want to/need to change the contents of the infobox, then they can discuss it here. Otherwise, that's the way it's going to stay.

By the way, I compiled/am compiling a list of ROHA's activities. This is located at User:Linuxbeak/Hitler article and ROHA. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

All academic, if the picture gets deleted on commons for lack of copyright status. Agathoclea 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That ROHA activity list (i.e. the stuff ROHA has been doing) is insane. The infobox shouldn't need editing very often, so protecting it with technical measures is reasonable given the revert war. Phr 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Under the Day of Potsdam section I noticed that only partical dates were given without the year part. So when I jumped into that section it was not clear to me in which year the day of Potsdam happened. This should be improved, or not?

Gott mitt Uns

Please stop edit warring over this picture and start talking. Please explain here why (or why not) the picture should be added. Some information about the picture's origin would also be helpful - currently it is completely unsourced. DJ Clayworth 19:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of the picture is to prove either Hitlers religious affiliation or his connection (or blame) of the church. It is not possible to come to NPOV article without overloading it with pictures trying to portray both sides of the argument. The text can do that quite easily as seen in the section which describes his religious affiliation. As far as the question goes if the church (local or the Pope in Rome) is to blame for Hitlers rise to power or his remaining in power - again that cannot be proven by just one picture and the issue is far too complex to be part of the biography of the person Hitler. If and when someone decides to write an article that describes the various theories and arguments that historians have brought forward (again NPOV without jumping to conclusions) then that picture would be well placed to portray one side of the argument. Copyright apparently is another issue - fair use would only apply to an such an article and not to his biography.

To sum up: Although I personally do not think str's trying to whitewash the church's active or passive involvement in the Third Reich is acceptable, I equally find that the use of the picture is inappropriate in the current context. Agathoclea 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea, I am not trying to whitewash anything. However, this picture is just an example of the questionable tactics used to push a certain POV. It is effective since a picture sticks better than thousand words. Also, we don't have reliable info about the origin of the picture yet, was it Nazi propaganda or was it created later? Unless we know this, we cannot place it in context and write an accurate caption. So before we can answer this, the picture definitely should stay out. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

a hitler biography

how did the death of hitlers niece/lover changehim as a person

Catholicism again

We currently have "However, as an adult he stopped attending mass and therefore was not a practicing Catholic.". Have we any evidence that Hitler did any of the other things a practicing Catholic does, such as go to confession, fast on Fridays, give to the poor etc.? If not then is it not simpler to just say "he stopped being a practicing Catholic"? DJ Clayworth 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be simpler, but it would be a violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Example_of_a_new_synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, unless there are reputable quotes for that. "stopped in this way" does not imply an all-out removal from Catholizism that is not provable. Ideally there would be some quote directly about Hitler that $INSERTNAME thinks his action/non-action made him $INSERTCOMMENT. Agathoclea 07:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise we have "in public discourse he continued frequently to proclaim his Christianity". The citations give only two mentions. I realise that we would have to have hundreds of references to back the claim of 'frequently' up, and that would not be practical, but maybe we can find a respected author who also says that Hitler 'frequently' said this. DJ Clayworth 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The site on Hitler's Christianity that the two of our devout conservative Christian editors here keep taking out supplies such documentation, from respected Hitler biographers. For instance, just form his speeches alone, we can see the term "frequently" is accurate. http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm Giovanni33 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not a violation of WP:NOR to say that he wasn't a practising Catholic, unless the claim that he stopped attending Mass is original research. You simply can't be a practising Catholic if you don't practise. It's impossible, and it makes Wikipedia look silly to imply that you can. It's like claiming that if we have a source saying that someone was naked we can't say that he wasn't wearing clothes unless we have another source saying that he wasn't wearing clothes. There may be a Wikipedian who doesn't know what "practising Catholic" means; there may be — in fact there are — Wikipedians who are anxious to insert things that will make the Church look bad, and who show a pattern of that across various articles. But the fact is — if someone does not attend Mass when it is possible for him to do so, he is not a practising Catholic. He may be a good person and a nice person and a clever person and a spiritual person, but he is not a practising Catholic. To attempt to redefine the traditional meaning of "practising Catholic" is original research. Please note that the attendance of Church services for many Protestant denominations does not have the same level of obligation. You can, as far as I know, stop attending Protestant churches without violating your Protestant religion.

I'd like to point out also that it's original research to say that he received Communion "as a devout Christian". Many Catholics reveive Communion in a very casual way. I've seen children chatting and giggling on their way back from the altar rails to their seat, with the Host still in their mouths. I've seen adults stopping to talk to friends just before or after receiving Communion. I have no idea whether little Adolf chatted and giggled, or whether he longed for the Eucharist like Blessed Imelda Lambertini. I somehow doubt that either is the case. I've never heard that he was pious as a little boy, though I confess I know little about him; and giggling in Church would probably not have been tolerated back then. However, I will say that although I have been a Catholic all my life, and have never dissented from any official teaching and have never lapsed, I certainly do not think that I received Communion "devoutly" as a chlid, and would be very hesitant to say that I do so now. We do hear stories of people getting up before daylight, and walking for two hours in bad weather in order to hear Mass and receive Communion, because they have so great a longing for it. But going to Mass and receiving the sacraments is a normal part of a Catholic upbringing, and does not in any way imply that one is or was "devout". I have changed "as a devout Christian" to "as a child", since it's not original research to say that he received the sacraments as a child. To say that he received them devoutly is POV, original research, and almost certainly inaccurate.

I also agree with DJ Clayworth that evidence of Hitler having claimed something twice is not enough to say that he "frequently" said something. I think that Str1977 would agree as well, as he said elsewhere: If AH always professed to be a Catholic, we would need a series of trestimonies through his entire life, right up to April 1945 (when his life ended after a non-Catholic marriage to his long-term concubine with a non-Catholic murder of her and himself). Even if we take his "always" statement from the 30s at face value, it cannot support Gio's POV.[1]

On a less important matter, I've also changed "took" to "received". The sacraments are meant to be gifts, not self-service help-yourself things. Even with Communion in the hand, which was strictly forbidden when Hitler was a child (and was only permitted eventually because so many people were defying the Vatican on this matter that Pope Paul VI gave in and changed the rule), Catholics are not allowed to pick up the Host themselves; it has to be given to them by a priest or extraordinary minister.

I see that Agathoclea added the {{unfererenced}} tag after He was baptized, served as an altar boy, sang in the choir, and received the sacraments as a child. However, as an adult he stopped attending mass, and was therefore not a practising Catholic. I think it looks rather odd there. First of all, if an article or section doesn't have sources, you don't put that template in the middle of a sentence; you put it at the beginning of the article or sentence. Secondly, it looks as if the disputed claim is that he stopped going to Mass. I don't think there is any dispute over that. It just seems that a few Wikipedians want to redefine the age-old definition of "practising Catholic". That is where the original research lies, not in the perfectly logical and reasonable claim that if you don't practise, you're not practising, if you don't eat, you're not nourished, and if you don't sleep, you're not rested. AnnH ♫ 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

{{unfererenced}} was a mistake - it should have been {{fact}}. I have not checked, is the devaut gone now? I have changed the frequently part in the sentence in question. To come back to the practising Catholic part, if - as you claim - anybody not attending mass is automatically not a practising Catholic then the mere fact that the article mentions that stopped going would suffice. It is your insistance at putting in print that he was not a Catholic despite being unable to provide a citation for such a statement, is pushing a POV. Which then gets all sorts of other people trying to prove the opposite POV. Why not stick to the basic verifyable facts and create some peace around this article. As pointed out further below it would show some good faith on your part if you could do the needed edits yourself. Agathoclea 14:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Agathoclea. The idea that one must go to Mass as a determinative and crucial ritual, and that without practicing this, one cannot be a Catholic is an assertion of fact that needs to be established by a reputable reference. I don't think its true. I know many Catholics who never go to Church, but they consider themselves Catholic. There are many requirements that various Christians’ faith require for their members, but the majority of those normally counted as Christians for all practical purposes, do not strictly follow such requirements of the faith---yet they are still considered to be Christian. If AnnH wants to authoritatively assert that some actions must be done, then she needs to prove this is true, otherwise it’s just original research and her own POV. I think we should stick to describing basic verifiable facts and not place POV interpretations on these known facts. Giovanni33 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

World Of Biography

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?--59.144.96.118 04:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I object. World of Biography meets none of the reasons to have an external link as given on the page Wikipedia:External links. -- Drogo Underburrow 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

A link was removed without talk here; in the edit summary the reason given was that the website was biased. That a website is biased is no reason to delete it. Just the opposite. As I mentioned on this page before posting the link, this is a link to a site dedicated to giving a point of view, and is the best example on the web of presenting this POV. Therefore, this site falls under Guideline #4 of the Wiki style guide on linking, which calls for linking to sites that present POV's. I'm going to assume in good faith that the person who removed the link was unaware of this guideline. Now that it has been explained, the reason for the removal is invalid, and I'm going to ask the person to show good faith by putting the link back. -- Drogo Underburrow 09:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. However, your assumption of good faith carries an implication that the only possible "good faith" reason for removing that link would be ignorance of the external links guide. You did not seem to consider the possibility that someone might be familiar with the guidelines, and still think that it was inappropriate to add that link, and might disagree, in good faith, with your interpretation. For the record, I am familiar with the guidelines.

Number 4 of "What should be linked to" says, "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." However this is not an article about Hitler's religion. It's a very minority, fringe view that Hitler was a devout Catholic. And it is completely inaccurate. I see that guideline as meaning that on a subject such as abortion, or euthanasia, it is appropriate to have some websites that are pro and some that are anti. As far as I can see, there is no website linked to that is devoted to promoting the mainstream view that Hitler was not a devout, practising Catholic. Nor should there be, since the article is about Hitler, not about his religion. By the way, have we any external links to websites that argue that Hitler was a good man and that his extermination of Jews was a good thing for humanity? I don't think so; nor would I under any circumstances support such an addition. Yet such an addition, while outrageous, would be less peripheral to the topic of Adolf Hitler than a website claiming that he was a devout Catholic. And unlike the Hitler-was-a-Catholic website, it would be balanced by external links that gave the opposite point of view.

I fully endorse the removal of that link, and do not in any way consider that its restoration is required in order to show good faith. AnnH ♫ 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH (a.k.a MusicalLinguist) and Str1977 both are active in suppressing any information that could cast Christianity in a bad light, so I’m not surprised to see them tag-teaming again to push their POV by censoring the opposing view. Much of my time here so far is just trying to balance such bias. Now, to answer the arguments posed above, which are based on several faulty premises, and thus creates a straw-man fallacy in her argument.

• 1.Claim: AnnH characterizes this links as a “Hitler is a Catholic” site. That is not true. I wonder if she even bothered to read it? What the site does is presents a lot of the historical documentation and evidence that exits, which proves (or supports) the claim that Hitler was a Christian. It talks about Hitler’s particular conception of his Christianity, his “Positive Christianity,” and argues that alleged anti-church quotes are consistent with past Christians who were critical of the elements in the hierarchy and structure of the religion but not of the Christian relgion itself. It’s informative, scholarly, and well documented.

• 2.Claim: A Fringe view? This is not a fringe view or even a minority view. It’s is a common view, often talked about and found in many places. It might be disputed, but as far as I know, I have not read in any reputable academic circles where the case was made against this evidence or argument. In anycase, it should not matter. Its a legitimate real POV and should be allowed to have its voice as a single link for those interested in reviewing the evidence and see the argument. AnnH tries to make this claim that its "fringe," but its clear she doesn't even know what the view is! Thus, by distorting what the website is about, she creates a straw-man that she can then knock down with the “fringe-view” argument. If anything, the real extreme fringe view is the idea that Hitler was not a Christian of any kind. If she finds a site that does a good job at presenting such a POV, I would not try to censor it.

• 3.Claims: relevance-- it is not about Hitler, and therefore not relevant. Not true. It’s all about Hitler with an emphasis on his religious beliefs. It’s a specialty study/focus on Hitler’s religion, that argues the case that he is a Christian by any interpretation of the known facts, including the questionable “Hitler’s table talk quotes.” It fits perfectly here. Ann’s argument would be valid if I tried to insert this link into the Christianity article page, since this is not about Christianity per se, but rather Hitler’s religious beliefs (which happen to be Christian, and an important area of interest and debate). As such it certainly belongs here. Those wanting to know about Hitler want to know his religious beliefs. Giovanni33 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it is pretty clear that AnnH (Musical Linguist) hadn't really studied the website she was opposing linking to, and really didn't know what is on it. She thought that it argued that Hitler was a devout Catholic, when it doesn't say that at all. While its message on the connection between Hitler and Christianity may be obnoxious to a partisan Catholic advocate such as she is, to equate it with hate speech as she does, and Str77 does elsewhere on this page, is an extreme, and completely false comparison. Musical Linguist's opposition to linking to this site is in opposition to Wikipedia guidelines on what sites should be linked to. NPOV as well demands that all viewpoints be presented, and linking to this site is an appropriate way of presenting the viewpoint argued on this site. I ask other editors to help replace this link, www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm each time this self-proclaimed partisan Catholic editor, and her cohorts, remove it. - Drogo Underburrow 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I have not been in a position to give lengthy replies. I am away from home, and have been for the last few days. My hotel room has internet access that comes and goes, and there is no mouse pad, and I can't get the mouse to get a proper grip on any surface. So I will make this brief. "Self-proclaimed partisan Catholic editor and her cohorts" is a rather nasty choice of words — one which I would have hoped you would not stoop to. I openly proclaim my Catholicism on my user page, just as Giovanni openly proclaims his atheism on various talk pages. However, it is clear from my contributions that I am not on Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting my POV. I edit many articles that are completely unconnected. I fix formatting. I do RC patrol. I archive talk pages. Unlike Giovanni, I waited six weeks and nearly 200 edits before I made my first revert (other than a few reverts of vandalism or of deviations from the Manual of Style). Unlike Giovanni, I have sometimes reverted to something that was contrary to what I had voted for, in order to uphold consensus, even against my own wishes. (I can say the same for Str1977.) Unlike Giovanni, I have an edit history which shows an extremely low average number of edits per page — generally considered an indication that an editor is not on Wikipedia with a particular agenda. Unlike Giovanni, I have often stopped at two reverts, even leaving a page in the version I didn't like. Unlike Giovanni, I have never used socks to get my own way, taking extra votes and extra reverts. Unlike Giovanni, I do not have over 90 percent of my contributions promoting a particular agenda. I would say, in fact, that well under half my contributions are in any way connected with Catholicism. Your insinuations and accusations are therefore uncalled for and offensive, considering that you are siding with someone who has broken more rules than any other new editor I have come across, in his determination to get his way.

You say that I had obviously not studied the website. In fact, I had a good look at it when it was first linked to, and I found it highly partisan, and rather shabby scholarship. I fully agree with what Str1977, DJ Clayworth, and Bytwerk have said about it. I am aware that it does not specifically say that Hitler was a Catholic. But it is certainly designed to give the impression that he was a Christian. And my use of "Hitler-was-a-Catholic" was part of a hastily-written post and referred more to what the editor who is pushing this link is constantly arguing on this page and elsewhere than to what was actually on the website. Based on what Giovanni has tried (by fair means and by foul) to do ever since he joined Wikipedia, I have no doubt that his addition of that link is for the purpose of showing the Church in a bad light.

It is rather unfair that you seem to think that my open acknowledgment of my Catholic Faith is a reason not to take seriously my reasons for objecting to a biased, shoddy, inaccurate, mileading website. Believe me, if Giovanni33 were to put an honest userbox on his page, it would have to say, "This user is fully (and joyfully) committed to undermining Christianity on Wikiepedia." His contributions, his revert warring (he likes to use that word about his opponents who have reverted twice, or three times, or even accidentally slipped into a fourth revert, but he reverted four times, six times, five times, eleven times, AFTER being warned that he had already violated the rule, and even if we don't count the combinations of reverts with BelindaGong), his arguments on the talk page, his violations and false claims of consensus all show that he is here for that purpose. In fact, if you are honest, you'd have to agree that he has far more of an agenda than I have, even if he doesn't put it on his user page, as I have not used socks to get double votes and six reverts, nor have I ever continued to revert in full knowledge that I had gone over three in 24 hours. I would ask you to be less hasty in judging people's motives based on their user boxes, and more inclined to judge people from their edit histories. Any article that Giovanni has edited more than three times is connected with his agenda. I have absolutely no POV about Wikipedia, Michael Jackson, Wiki, Anne Frank, George H. W. Bush, Salem witch trials, Anne Frank, Human feces, Constantine I (emperor), Newbie, or Gillian McKeith, which can all be found among the 21 articles I have edited most frequently. AnnH ♫ 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of your most recent post is arguing that you do not have an agenda in your overall Wikipedia actions, and that Gio has one. Both arguments are beside the point. The issue here is whether we link to www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm or not. In this argument, you appear to be a Catholic partisan joining up with other partisans for the purpose of keeping the presentation of a POV that is unflattering to Christianity out of the Hitler article, which is a violation of the NPOV policy. If you put on your user page that you are joyfully obedient to the Pope, then you insist on removing a link to a website that the Pope probably wouldn't like, teaming up with another self-professed Catholic editor, you are going to create an impression of being an editor with an agenda.

I take your objections seriously, by responding to them at length. I feel you are making very bad arguments in support of your case. For one thing, you keep repeating that the website in question is biased. I keep pointing out that bias in an external site is not a reason to not link to it. I keep refering to the Wikipidia guidelines, where it specifically states that external sites may indeed be biased. What makes this website worth linking to, is that it does a good job of presenting its "biased" views. The purpose of linking to it is to make sure those views have a voice in the article; that is what NPOV is all about. Now, an external link is a very modest way of presenting a view. It hardly takes any room, and many people won't even go to external links for various reasons. So to insist that the only link on this issue be removed is a pretty extreme form of censorship. Instead, may I recommend you find a website that has an opposite view, and add it, which is what NPOV is all about? -- Drogo Underburrow 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it disturbing, and saddening, that you continue (having said that it's beside the point) to speculate on my agenda, while making absolutely no comment on Giovanni's, even when you have been made aware that his contribution history (unlike mine) show that he is on Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting a particular POV, and that he has used very unscrupulous means of pushing for what he wants. All decent editors, religious or not, have a certain disgust for the use of multiple accounts for the purpose of vote rigging and/or evading blocks and 3RR. Yet, while continuing to make remarks about my Catholicism, you give the indication that you don't think Giovannni's behaviour matters in the least. Sockpuppetry, massive edit warring (and again, I don't mean just a fourth revert after losing count), numerous lengthy talk page posts criticizing Christianity, and POV edits that even his own side (excluding the puppets) sometimes challenges, obviously does less to undermine someone's credibility in your eyes than a simple statement of obedience to the Pope. As regards removing a link "that the Pope probably wouldn't like", I assure you that the Pope has more important things to worry about. His wishes were not remotely on my mind when I was removing that link. The website promotes a fringe view that is peripheral to an article about Hitler (as opposed to one on his religion). It is not tasteful or accurate. It's shoddy scholarship. Wikipedian editors, when they're not pushing a particular agenda, generally do oppose linking to poor quality websites. This one was created with an agenda, and was certainly added with an agenda. We don't to the best of my knowledge have any links to websites arguing that Hitler and his policies were good. I endorse what DJ Clayworth said elsewhere that we don't put in a link about aliens taking over the White House, just because we haven't found anything better.

Finally, although this may not be the right section for this point (remember that I'm not editing from home, and have less time to make careful replies, correctly placed and formatted), I would like to point out that there is some inconsistency in this "Catholic" versus "Practising Catholic" business. To say that Hitler was not a Catholic because he voluntarily stopped going to Mass completely (and it wasn't that there was no Mass within reasonable distance) is not original research, as many people would make the argument, in print as well as orally, that you are no longer a Catholic if you stop practising completely. It would, however, be POV, as others would argue that you're still a Catholic in some sense. It would also, of course, be POV to say that someone is a Catholic, when that person has completely abandoned the practice of his faith, especially since Catholicism is not an ethnic thing like being a Jew, and since it would give the impression of attending Mass. However, I am accused of trying to redefine "Catholicism", when all I am trying to do is give the standard definition of "practising". We can argue about whether or not someone is a Catholic if he doesn't practise. But there shouldn't be any argument about whether or not someone is a "practising Catholic" if he doesn't practise. That's not POV; it's not original research. It's simply the standard definition. And to put in things like "he was not in this way a fully practising Catholic insinuates that he was partly practising, or that he was fully practising in some other way. It is a preposterous, original-resarch, and POV attempt to redefine "practising Catholic". AnnH ♫ 09:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection, and that of most others, I think, is not that the web site in question takes an objectionable view, but that it is a shoddy web site. I've challenged Giovanni33 to come up with single reputable scholar who supports the argument made on nobeliefs. So far, that has not happened. Quality is important. Amassing quotations isn't an argument. As I pointed out elsewhere, one could compile dozens of quotations in which Hitler spoke eloquently of his devotion to peace. A web site that provided those quotations would certainly have a POV, but not one many would think much of. Ditto here. Find a good way to make the point rather than supporting a weak site. Bytwerk 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Others on this page have stated just the opposite, that the website was convincing. Whether it is "shoddy" or not is in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, that without this site the argument won't be made at all, so this is the best there is, and belongs. Saying the argument gets no coverage until it comes from a source you approve of is your way of keeping the entire POV from being expressed. We are not talking about huge resources and space here...just one link. Drogo Underburrow 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that I've pointed out why the site is shoddy, and challenged those who like it to find any reputable source that makes the same argument. There are, in fact measures of shoddiness, and this site meets them. If your argument is that it is simply a matter of the beholder, then anything goes on Wikipedia. My point is not that the support has to be from someone I approve of -- it has to be from someone who builds a case that can meet the standard expectations of truthfulness, reliability, etc. So, for about the fifth time, a challenge. Find any reputable scholar who makes the argument. If you can't do that, guess what, it's a shoddy site. Bytwerk 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's cut the games. Are you putting your academic reputation on the line here, and asserting that all scholars agree that Christianity had no influence on Hitler? The nobeliefs site's thesis is that it did. Are you asserting that no scholars think that Hitler was a Christian? Are you asserting that the issue that the nobeliefs site addresses is not a real issue, because no significant source advocates it? Or are you simply confusing the issue here, taking attention away from the question of whether this one site gets deleted and replaced with nothing, which is what editors keep trying to do? Drogo Underburrow 23:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that I know of no reputable scholar makes the case in a way consistent with nobeliefs. Now, there are thousands of books and articles on Hitler, and it's quite possible there's something out there I don't know. But I've challenged people to find a significant scholar who makes the argument that nobeliefs make. No one has done so thus far. I happen to be interested in the quality of sources on Wikipedia, and I think nobeliefs is a poor quality site. I therefore think it should be removed. If you disagree, please find find a reliable source that supports the nobeliefs argument. Bytwerk 23:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You say "no reputable scholar makes the case in a way consistent with nobeliefs" Are you saying that you know of no scholar that thinks Christianity had an influence on Hitler? Are you saying that you know of no scholar that thinks that Hitler was a Christian? Or are you saying you don't know of any scholar whom argues these ideas by putting up a website and presenting a lot of primary source material? If its that latter, then so what? Scholars don't write that way. Nobeliefs is writing for the general public, and scholars write for other scholars. If they are arguing the same thesis in different ways, then the Nobeliefs site is actually better to link to, as its free, and geared towards being understandable to the average person. Scholars publish in journals, which limits access to non-scholars, and requires a Wikipedian to hunt down the material, then try to get it into the article, with other editors trying to delete his addition every step of the way. Also, did you see my comment about the book review? I ordered that book. You ready to back me up when the time comes for me to insert the views of this scholar, as his views, into the article? -- Drogo Underburrow 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean what I said. Nobeliefs says this: “Hitler's own words reveal his feelings for God, Christianity and faith. Taken from speeches made by Hitler from the 1922 to 1939” Just as no scholar would draw conclusions on Hitler’s attitudes toward peace based only on his public speeches, no one who knows anything about Hitler would draw conclusions on his attitudes toward Christianity based only on his public statements. To do so is simply wrong, and any scholar who did so would have a short career.

That does not mean that there is no connection between Nazism and Christianity. I’ve written about that connection myself. And although I happen to be widely published on matters relating to the Third Reich, I, like many others, also write for a general audience. Ian Kershaw’s magisterial two-volume biography on Hitler is widely read by non-scholars (and, by the way, will provide little support for the Nobeliefs argument). A good web site “translates” scholarly discourse into more readable style, which Nobeliefs does not do because it has no scholarly foundation, simply a naive faith that Hitler meant what he said in public.

An article or web site on Hitler can reasonably take into account religious influences him. I would not have recommended Steigman-Gall’s book, which makes the case a little more strongly than I would make it, if I didn’t think it a good book. And I’d certainly support referencing it in the article, assuming the material cited fairly represents the book’s argument (I wasn’t too enthused about Giovanni33’s post which turned the argument of “Hitler’s Pope” 180 degrees — so I’ll have to see what you do with it before leaping to your support….). Bytwerk 01:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of misrepresenting Steigmann-Gall. What do you think of John S. Conway's The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-45? Does it offer any insights into Hitler's attitude towards Christianity? -- Drogo Underburrow 01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I know John Conway. In fact, I maintain the web site for his monthly newsletter on German church history (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/akz/). His book is a bit old by now, though still good. As the title of the book suggests, he's not inclined to consider Hitler much of a Christian. Bytwerk 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1. By "old" does it mean material in it has been found to be false? Is there a newer book on that topic that is better? 2. What books are there that address the topic of Hitler's religious beliefs? What scholars are the 'big names' in this sub-field? -- Drogo Underburrow 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that in that part of the world, Catholic upbringing was all but compulsory. I don't understand belaboring this point, obviously Hitlers actions were not consistant with Catholicism. Must it be stated that genocide is not permitted in the Church? This arguments seems to smack of a atheist agenda. Dominick ^(TALK) 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Conway's book was published in 1968, almost 40 years ago. It remains a good book, but not the "latest" on the subject. I'd say Stegmann-Gall is the best recent book in English on the subject. There's some stuff in German, but we don't want to go there. As Conway's review that I linked to elsewhere points out, he makes part of the argument you're looking for, I think — the relations between Nazism and Christianity. What S-G doesn't do is take Hitler's public statements as a sufficient guide to his thinking on Christianity. As I've said before, my main concern here is the quality of the web site in question, not the argument that Nazism, Hitler, and Christianity had something to do with each other. Bytwerk 11:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)