Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 36

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 Cross Of Honor (Hindenberg Cross) 2 Assassination attempts? 3 Hitler's religion as an adult 4 Restored religion section 5 Nickname 6 State What Sources Say, Not What Is 7 Make my case on talk page 8 Goebbels quote from Steigmann-Gall 9 Heiden should be removed 10 Pan-German Nationalism 11 Pomp and Circumstance 12 Hitlers mention at Göring article 13 Table Talk again 14 Totalitarian 15 Hitler's Catholic upbringing 16 Repeated Question 17 Taunting in the introduction 18 Complaints 19 "Practicing Catholic" 20 "rv" 21 You don't get to pick and choose the scholars 22 Enabling Act addition 23 Removal of tag 24 Rewrite 25 Choice of Mein Kampf Sites 26 Kershaw 27 Original research 28 WP:3RR evasion through puppetry 29 Compromise? Majority? 30 Protected page

Cross Of Honor (Hindenberg Cross)

As a veteran of World War I, Hitler was authorized this decoration in addition to his 2 Iron Crosses and the Wound Badge. Since the page has been protected from editing, please include this in the paragraph about his World War I service.

Assassination attempts?

I think something should be added to this article, even if just a link, to the assassination attempts on him. 64.16.162.161 14:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)FactFreak

It should be added, that Adolf Hitler was Austrian not German!

Hitler's religion as an adult

I have merged the Catholic upbringing into the "religious views" section, as we shouldn't separate the two. I have also added information on his adolescence, based on Michael Rissmann's book Hitlers Gott. The following is the chapter "Catholicism" from Part III. "Origins" - a translation will follow in time:

1. KATHOLIZISMUS

Was die Quellen über frühe Berührungen Hitlers mit dem Katholizismus berichten, ist schnell erzählt.452 Die Familie, der römisch-katholischen Kirche zugehörig, führte kein ausgesprochen religiöses Leben. Nur die Mutter Klara besuchte regelmäßig die Messe, Vater Alois hingegen verstand sich als »Freigeist« und nahm am Gottesdienst nur an Kaisers Geburtstag teil, um seine seit der Pensionierung nicht mehr genutzte Beamtenuniform vorzuführen.453 Nach einem Umzug der Familie besuchte Hitler die Volksschule von Lambach und auch die dortige Sängerknabenschule des Benediktinerstifts. In »Mein Kampf« berichtet er knapp: »Da ich in meiner freien Zeit im Chorherrenstift zu Lambach Gesangsunterricht erhielt, hatte ich beste Gelegenheit mich oft und oft am feierlichen Prunke der äußerst glanzvollen kirchlichen Feste zu berauschen. Was war natürlicher, als daß, genau so wie einst dem Vater der kleine Herr Dorfpfarrer, nun mir der Herr Abt als höchst erstrebenswertes Ideal erschien.«454 Auf väterlichen Wunsch hin wechselte Hitler 1900 auf die Linzer Realschule, unter deren Schülern ein weltanschaulich-politischer Kampf zwischen klerikal gesinnten »Kaisertreuen« und den »freisinnigen«, Georg Sch6nerers DVP anhängenden Deutschnationalen herrschte - Hitler sympathisierte mit letzteren. Dieses Umfeld, besonders aber der Religionslehrer dürften eine zunehmend antiklerikale Haltung des Knaben verursacht haben. An dem streng dogmatischen Katholizismus des Sales Schwarz störte sich der alldeutsch denkende Hitler und reagierte mit Streichen und kritischen Fragen, von denen man allerdings nur aus seinen Berichten weiß: Vor

94

What the sources report about Hitler's early contacts with Catholicism is quickly recounted. The family, members of the Roman Catholic Church, was not leading a particular religious live. Only mother Klara regularly attended Mass, while father Alois considered himself "free spirit" and took part in the Church service on on the Emperor's holiday, to show off his uniform, unused since his reitrement. After the family had moved, Hitler attended primary school in Lambach and also the choir boy school of the Benedictine monastery. In "Mein Kampf" he reports simply: "Since in my spare time I received singing lessons in the monastery at Lamabach, I had ample opportunity to frequently indulge in the celebrative pomp of the very bright church feasts. What was more natural than that, as the village priest had to my father, now the abbot seemed to me the ideal most worth to aim for." As his father wished, Hitler in 1900 switched to the secondary school in Linz, where a ideological-political struggle between the clerically-minded "Kaisertreue" and the "liberal" nationalist, allied to Georg Schönerers DVP, was raging among the pupils - Hitler sympathized with the latter ones. This environment, especially the teacher in religious studies, resulted in an increasingly anti-clerical stance of the boy. The pan-german thinking Hitler objected to the strictly dogmatic Catholicism of Sales Schwarz and reacted with pranks and critical questions, which however are only known from his accounts. In front of ...

den Bunkerinsassen des Weltkriegs gefiel sich der Diktator in der Rolle des aufgeklärten »Freidenkers«, der schon als Schüler die Lügenmärchen einer bigotten Kirche durchschaut habe. Besonders die Diskrepanz von Darwinismus und christlicher Schöpfungsgeschichte sei ihm aufgefallen:

»Ich habe als Schuljunge den Widerspruch empfunden und mich darin verbohrt und habe dem Professor der zweiten Stunde vorgehalten was der der ersten Stunde gesagt hat, so daß die Lehrer in Verzweiflung gerieten!«455 Die jüngst vorgetragene These, Hitlers religiöse Anschauungen seien bereits in Linz entscheidend durch Ludwig Wittgenstein geprägt worden, beruht hingegen auf allzu kühner Spekulation.456

Nur unwillig ließ Hitler die Firmung im Linzer Dom über sich ergehen. Sein Firmpate Emanuel Lugert und dessen Frau berichteten später von einem »mürrischen und verstockten« Firmling, dem weder die Zeremonie noch das teure Firmgeschenk etwas zu bedeuten schien;457 in das Reich der Legende gehört freilich der angebliche an anderer Stelle bereits erwahnte »Hostienfrevel« Hitlers.458 Auch der Jugendfreund Kubizek portratierte einen Hitler, dem alles Kirchliche fremd war. An einen Gottesdienstbesuch Hitlers konnte er sich nicht erinnern, allerdings ebensowenig an antiklerikale Polemik. Hitler versuchte nie, den Freund vom Kirchbesuch abzuhalten, wenngleich er aus seinem Unverständnis kein Hehl machte: Seine eigene Mutter sei auch eine fromme Frau, »trotzdem lasse er sich von ihr nicht zur Kirche nötigen«.459 Niemals jedoch, so berichtet Kubizek, habe Hitler »über diesen sonntaglichen Kirchgang abfällig gesprochen«, nicht einmal eine Streitfrage daraus gemacht. Lediglich Hexenverbrennungen und Inquisition früherer Zeiten empörten Hitler - wie

95

the inmates of the world war bunker the dictator liked to play the role of the enligthened "freethinker", who had already as a pupil seen through the fairytale lies of a biogotted Church. Especially the discrepancy of Darwinism and the Christian creation account had caught his attention.

"As a school boy I have felt the contradiction and digged into it and have confronted the teacher of the second lesson what the one of the first lesson had said, thereby driving teachers insane!" The thesis recently put forth, that already in Linz Hitler's religious views had been decisively shaped by Ludwig Wittgenstein, however rest on all too bold a speculation.

Only unwillingly Hitler endured the confirmation at Linz Cathedral. His sponsor Emanuel Lugert and his wife later talked about a "grumpy and stubborn" confirmand, to whom neither the ceremony nor the expensive present seemed to mean anything; Hitler's alleged host desecration, already mentioned elsewhere, however belongs into the realm of legend. Kubizek, Hitler's friend, potrayed Hitler as someone, to whom all ecclesiastical things were alien. He could not remember Hitler attending a service, but neither anti-clerical polemics. Hitler never tried to keep the friend vom attending church, though he didn't hide his lack of comprehension: His own mother were a pious woman, but "nonetheless he would not be pushed into Church". However, Hitler never, according to Kubizek, spoke disparagingly about his going to Church on Sunday, and didn't even start an argument about it. Only witchtrials and inquisitions of former times outraged Hitler, as ...

später im Weltkrieg - schon in Linz.460 Zu einer Berührung mit kirchlichem Zeremoniell kam es lediglich bei der Beerdigung der Mutter.461 Im ganzen Iäßt sich an Hitlers religiöser Sozialisation nichts Ungewöhnliches feststellen: Als Sohn eines »freisinnigen« Vaters, geprägt durch das all-deutsche Denken einiger Klassenkameraden, erscheint die Lösung vom Katholizismus nicht ungewöhnlich. Eine Totalerklärung Hitlers aus einer österreichisch-katholischen Mentalitat, wie Friedrich Heer sie vorschlägt kann aus den vorliegenden Quellen der Jugendzeit jedenfalls nicht abgeleitet werden.462 Der Diktator Hitler neigte zum Ritual, zu gottesdienstähnlichen Inszenierungen, er bewunderte die jahrtausendealte Tradition der Kirche, suchte aus ihrer Struktur für seine politischen Unternehmungen zu lernen -ansonsten haßte er sie. In seinen Reden knüpfte Hitler zwar an Sprachformen des Christentums an und übernahm von dort einzelne Denkfiguren wie »Heilsgeschichte«463 und »Vorsehung«,464 verknüpfte sie aber mit Inhalten, die allen christlichen Traditionen widersprechen: Der christliche Gott und Hitlers Gott haben nur den Namen gemeinsam.

96

later in the world war, son already in Linz. The only contact with church ceremonies was at his mother's funeral. All in all, one cannout detect anything extraordinary about Hitler's religious socialisation: as the sone of a "liberal" father, formed by the pan-german thinking of some of his classmates, his dissolution from Catholicism does not seem extraordinary. Explaing the whole of Hitler from a Austrian-catholic mentality, as Friederich Heer had proposed, can not be deduced from the sources about this youth. The Dictator Hitler was inclined to rituals, to liturgicy-like stagings and admired the millenia-spanning tradition of the Church, tried to draw lessons from her structure for his political enterprises - in all other respects he hated her. In his speeches, Hitler alluded to linguistical forms of Christianity and introduced from there some thinking patterns like "salvation history" and "providence", but he combined them with contents contradicting all christian traditions: the Christian God and Hitler's god have only the name in common.

452 Die bekannten Hitler-Biographien informieren auch über die österreichische Kindheit und Jugend Hitlers. Daneben liegen eigene Monographien vor, vgl. zuletzt Brigitte Hamann: Hitlers Wien. Lehrjahre emes Diktators. München/Zürich 1996. S. 11-64. lhre quellenkritische Darstellung erganzt und vertieft zahlreiche altere Arbeiten, so v.a. William A. Jenks: Vienna and the young Hitler. New York 1960; Bradley F Smith: Adolf Hitler. His Family. Childhood and Youth. Stanford/California 1967. Stark populärwissenschaftlich und ohne quellenkritischen Anspruch J. Sydney Jones: Hitlers Weg begann in Wien. 1907-1913. Wiesbaden/München 1980. Quellenkritische Anmerkungen zu den wenigen Zeugnissen der osterreichischen Jahre Hitlers bei Hamann: Hitlers Wien. S. 77-86.

453 Den Bericht des Heeresadjutanten Engel über elne entsprechende Äußerung Hitlers (Heeresadjutant bel Hitler 1938-1943. Aufzeichnungen des Majors Engel. Hg. u. kommentiert v. Hildegard von Kotze. Stuttgart 1974. S. 22) bestätigt der von Franz Jetzinger befragte Bauer Josef Mayrhofer. der zeitweilig Vormund Adolf Hitlers war. Franz Jetzinger: Hitlers Jugend. Phantasien, Lügen - und die Wahrheit. Wien 1956. S. 70).

454 MK.S.3f.

455 Tischgespräch. 24.10.1941. Picker. S. 147.

456 Kimberley Cornish geht davon aus, daß beide dieselbe Klasse der Linzer Realschule besuchten und sich persönlich gut kannten; als Beweis dient ihm ein Klassenfoto, auf dem er Wittgenstein erkennen will. Außerdem konstruiert er Parallelen zwischen Wittgensteins Philosophie und dem Weltbild Hitlers. Dabei überschätzt er die intellektuellen Kapazitäten des Diktators und greift. um

241

Hitlers angebliche okkultistische Interessen zu beweisen, auf die erfundenen Gespräche zurtick, die Hermann Rauschning mit Hitler geführt haben will (vgl. zu diesem unten S. 163-166). Kimberley Cornish: Der Jude aus Linz. Hitler und Wittgenstein. Berlin 1998.

457 Jetzinger: Hitlers Jugend. S. 116.

458 Jetzinger: Hitlers Jugend. S. 105.

459 August Kubizek: Adolf Hitler. Mein Jugendfreund. Graz/Göttingen, l953.S.114.

460 Kubizek: Adolf Hitler. S. 114.

461 Kubizek: Adolf Hitler. S. 170.

462 Heer: Der Glaube. Vgl. zu Heers Thesen die Bemerkungen in der Einleltung dieses Buches.

463 Zu Begriff und Denktradition Karl Löwith: Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschehen. 8. Aufl. Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln 1990; instruktiv in diesem Zusammenhang auch Romano Guardini: Der Helibringer in Mythos, Offenbarung und Politik. Eine theologisch-politische Besinnung. Stuttgart 1946.

464 Vgl. zur christlichen Tradition des Begriffs Richard Kocher: Herausgeforderter Vorsehungsglaube. Die Lehre von der Vorsehung im Horizont der gegenwartigen Theologie. St. Ottilien 1993; zur begriffsgeschichtlichen Herleitung: Rudolf Meißner: Vorsehung. In: Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm: Deutsches Wbrterbuch. Bd. 12.11. Abt. Vesche-Vulkanisch. Bearb. v. Rudolf Meißner. Leipzig 1951. Sp. 1547-1553.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the new section. It still needs more work, and I have the references for all the quotes, if needed. I'm not sure how to add in citations, yet, either. Giovanni33 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Str77, you are presenting what is in this translated article as fact in the Hitler article. That is wrong. The material is the opinion of the source, not fact. You need to re-write the Hitler article so that is reports what this source says as coming from that source, not as objective fact. Furthermore, just who is Michael Rissmann and why does his view rate inclusion in the article at all? -- Drogo Underburrow 17:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, we can still take care of the language.

Michael Rissmann is a young German historian who has written the most recent and IMHO most comprehensive and scholarly study of Hitler's religious thougt. It was reviewed laduingly by Frank-Lothar Kroll ("first comprehensive, truly source based narration and interpretation of the phenomenon ... a groundworking book") and Ian Kershaw ("combatting abstruse theories about occultism ... critical approach on fashionable interpretations ... important contribution to NS-research"). In fact, I did not delv much into Rissmann's book (I'd have to reread it entirely for that and it would bloat the article) and only included basic things. Rissmann even opposes the term "political religion" - but it should be included anyway. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You've had time, Str77, and still the article is written as giving the 'truth' rather than telling the reader what scholars say. Michael Rissman's opinions are his own, not the truth. Just as you keep deleting or changing Steigmann-Gall's opinions from the article, I'm going to start removing material that is presented as fact, when its Michael Rissman's opinion. Please re-write it so that views are clearly indicated as the opinion of who says them, not written as the way things are, then footnoted. And stop removing the views of other scholars.Drogo Underburrow 18:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought we should do it together. Could you please indicate which parts seem to be "questionable" to you. You know, sometimes Steigmann-Gall and Rissmann agree (the former does not appear in the literature of the latter, so he hasn't used him).

Note that Rissmann's are not mere opinions but the result of historical research and interpretation (don't get me wrong, there is a measure of opinion included, of course).

However, I don't think the "when Hitler said Christianity he meant Catholicism" is anything more than speculation. When he said Christianity he meant traditional or (pre-Higher Criticism deconstruction) mainstream or (as I would call it, but that might be seen as POV:) orthodox Christianity. He had no objection to a reinvented ("positive") Christianity. His preference for Protestantism derived from various factors: Protestantism was organized nationally, the Reformation already had a nationalist element, Luther was (is) a national hero to some Germans (among other things, for his Bible translation), Protestant Churches always were close to the governments, Protestantism was much more open for such reinventions (the RCC had only recently cracked down on "Modernism").

But again, my question is: what passages need to be de-POV'ed. I agree that everything should have a reference and I will add them in time. But in which casesshould I add, "according to Rissmann...", since serious disagreement exists. Your call.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss and work with you on this issue. You should add a form of "according to Rissmann" where ever you feel the need to have a footnote noting he is the source. If you like, you can combine his views into separate paragraphs where you note the opinions given are his so you don't have to repeat "according to Rissmann" excessively. There are also various ways you can point to Rissmann as the source without repeating any one too much. But simply tagging a footnote to a declarative statement isn't one of them, as to the reader, the statement is being said to be fact, backed up by a source. What will evolve is probably paragraphs devoted to Rissman's views, and ones devoted to Steigmann-Gall's views, and ones devoted to other views as editors add them. If the material gets long enough, it can be moved to the main article and replaced with a summary of what is said.

What do you mean that what Rissman says is not an opinion? Of course it is, it is Rissman's opinion. Just as Steigmann-Gall's opinion is his own, and you should stop removing the material I insert giving his opinion, as its clearly marked as being his opinion. Its speculation perhaps what Goebbels meant when he said "Christianity"; but it is a fact that Steigmann-Gall suggests he meant "Catholicism" by it. Remember, the key is we should be reporting what the scholars say, not writing about what is. Drogo Underburrow 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strikes me that, having reported a statement referring to "christianity", a historian who speculates that what was meant was "catholicism" is writing like a newspaper columnist. Strike it out.--shtove 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That is against the spirit of NPOV, to delete something that a source says because an editor thinks it is wrong. Now you are setting yourself up as the judge of who is right and wrong in matters of opinion, and deleting the "wrong" opinion. NPOV is about presenting what valid sources say, and taking a neutral position as to whether what they say is truth or nonsense. Drogo Underburrow 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah. There is good history writing and bad history writing. This is an example of the latter, and it's unacceptable by the criterion that divides fact from speculation. Opinion is welcome, so long as it's neutral and based on fact. The Hitler/Nazi/WWII market is the largest in non-fiction publishing, and a lot of material is passed off there as credible work when it's no more than the rehashing of established facts, but with the enthusiasm of a cross-eyed lunatic. Having said that, I don't know about the writer in question - but quoting Goebbels with this twist betrays a certain waywardness. Hitler's minister said what he said - that's all that should be allowed in a WP article.--shtove 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to read NPOV. Source's opinions certainly do not need to be neutral; its editors who must be neutral. Articles are kept neutral by using all relevant sources; the sources arguments are not neutral in themselves, but each has its own POV. Steigmann-Gall is not "rehashing established facts" nor is his work of questionable value. Instead, it is cutting-edge work that is respected by the top names in the field, including the historians his work challenges. Read the book review link in the external links section, which is written by a top historian in the field whose work Steigmann-Gall challenges. Steigmann-Gall's challenge of Goebbels statement represents the opinion of a leading researcher in this field, and hence belongs in the article. Drogo Underburrow 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo,

• I know about referencing and including "according to ...". The things is I will, in time, reference all these statements but I don't think all these statements are controversial enough to deserve an added "according to ..." And this is were those of a different stance come in.
• However I must agree with Shtove that the Steigmann speculation is not includable - it is really mere speculation of putting words into someone's mouth. There are valid and serious things to say about Hitler's relative preference for the RCC and the Protestant Church and which reasons lie behind that. I explained these above. The thing he preferred was "Positive Christianity".

So I am asking you again to state your objections and not simply delete stuff. Most of all don't insert unsubstantiated changes like that Hitler's mum was a "fervent" Catholic - there is absolutely no basis for that (if she was such a fervent Catholic, why was she one of Alois' parallel girlfriends for some years?) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I oppose the insertion of statments like "What is certain is that he was neither an agnostic, nor an atheist." - While that's certainly true, it is also just as certain that he was not a Catholic and not a Christian in the sense of traditional Christianity. Of course, he didn't reject all of his upbringing and rather reinvented than rejected Jesus (which isn't uncommon even nowadays). For H's belief in the afterlife we have no references at all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, I will try to get an assessement about Steigmann-Gall's book. As I said, the scholarly Rissmann does not discuss it anyway - which is not necessarily a bad thing: he did discuss Rauschnigg with the fitting result: fiction! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We as editors are supposed to take a neutral point of view; editors deciding when Steigmann-Gall's views are wrong and arn't going to be allowed in the article is hardly being neutral, it is deciding the issue. As for my objections, I voiced them already, and told you I would start deleting Rissman's views if they were stated as fact and not as his opinion.

Influenced by pan-german nationalism and social darwinism, he began to reject the Church and Catholicism as an adolescent, and after he had left home, he stopped attending mass and receiving sacraments altogether, thereby ceasing to be a practising Catholic. - did Rissman say everything in this sentence? Or did Rissman just say that pan-German nationalism and social darwinism made Hitler reject the Church?

You give in a footnote Cornwell's use of material that Steigmann-Gall says is false; but you delete Steigmann-Gall's saying it, again deciding the issue for the reader. Drogo Underburrow 10:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, no you were not yet commenting on anything specific, but now you are:

• The quoted bit is what Rissmann says based on Hitler's own account of his school years. Hitler's environment in secondary school was pan-german nationalist (hence anti-Habsburg) and he also came into contact with Darwinism, which he considered to be incompatible with Genesis and hence rejected the Church connected with that biblical account. That's not all that outrageous. But, since you insist, I will add a disclaimer saying "according to Hitler's account" or the like. PS. This is actually the one that is already referenced.
• Re the footnote: where does Steigmann-Gall says that the material is false? I have seen some discussion up there (involving Bytwerk and Giovanni), with wrong perceptions about that reference (that it was from Table Talk (appearently wrong), that Table Talk is fraudulent (definitely wrong, though it should be treated with caution). Please enlighten me.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

According to John Cornwell: Hitler, in fact, had two views on the churches — public and private. In February of 1933 he was to declare in the Reichstag that the churches were to be an integral part of German national life. Privately, the following month, he vowed to completely "eradicate” Christianity from Germany. "You are either a Christian or a German,” he said. “You cannot be both.” from John Cornwell, Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII], New York: Viking, 1999, pp. 105-106) ISBN 0670886939. However, historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, in his book The Holy Reich p.28 (see book review in external links section) says that Hitler said no such thing; the quote comes from a fraudulent primary source. - Drogo Underburrow 11:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing me to the link. I will read it carefully.
• However, repeating this text does not help at all. I had read it, but the question is whether it is correct. Did St-G call the quote fraudulent? Or just the source? (I assume the latter) What did St-G actually say ("fraudulent" or more "treat it with caution"? Is that source he thinks "fraudulent" "Table Talk"? (In that case St-G's view is hardly universally accepted) Is Cornwell's quote taken from "Table Talk"? (Bytwerk seemed to contradict this above) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Cornwell's quote comes from "Hitler Speaks" by Hermann Rauschning. Steigmann-Gall (p.29) says: "Hitler Speaks is now considered to be fraudulent" He also quotes Eckhard Jesse, who says that the conversations are "far-off fantasies". Steigmann-Gall notes that despite the "highly questionable" nature of this source, church historians in particular still use it. Yes, Bytwerk used it. Here's the thing...I don't care if Rausching is used. I only care if its stated as fact. That's what gets me, is that editors keep trying to write what is, rather than what sources say. NPOV is about presenting what sources say, and being neutral about who is correct. The wrong way is to try to state what is correct, and then footnote it. That isn't how its supposed to be done. Use Rausching if you want, but don't treat it as fact, and include Steigmann-Gall's opinion that its fraudulent. Right now, the article is saying a conclusion as fact, and using this material as source, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. Drogo Underburrow 12:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Cornwell's citation, which is from Rauschning, is that he doesn't cite Rauschning, but rather someone who does cite Rauschning (without noting the original source). Since Rauschning is unreliable, he shouldn't be cited. Bytwerk 13:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, if it is taken from Rauschnigg I will instantly remove it. I only gathered from above that it wasn't from "Table Talk", as Gio orignally claimed, and Gio was very inimical towards Table Talk. Rauschnigg is indeed fraudulent.

Drogo, please don't propagate unwarranted accusations - not only "church historians" (whatever that is) use it (see Cornwell's sloppy citation), while many church historian recject it just as much.

But anyway, thanks Drogo and thank Bytwerk for responding so quickly.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a scholar in the field, I have no idea who uses Rausching's material. What I said was that Steigmann-Gall notes that despite the "highly questionable" nature of this source, church historians in particular still use it. Complain to him, Str77, if you don't like what he says. Drogo Underburrow 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Than I do apologize. But I don't think St-G's call in this is very accurate. But we needn't concern ourselves with this issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Restored religion section

Large chunks of this section were removed on the basis that they were non NPOV. The section was well written and sourced, but I guess the new editor perceives some pro-Rome bias. And the cheesy description of Hitler's mother as a fervent catholic is the first thing that gets put in by way of replacement. Tiresome Tiresome. Bring back EffK.--shtove 08:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It proves, that every strong POV produces an equally strong counter POV. The matter could have been stopped a long time ago. Agathoclea 11:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Tell me - how stopped? I could do with a good laugh. Sob!--shtove 00:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"he stopped going to mass" - nobody had a problem with that statement. The problem started with someone simultatiosly claiming that that statement implied he not a practising catholic, while claiming that it is not enaugh to imply that and that statement needs to be added. Agathoclea 07:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

A nickname for Hitler used by German soldiers was Gröfaz, a derogatory acronym for Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten ("Greatest War Lord of all Time"), a title initially publicized by Nazi propaganda after the surprisingly quick occupation of France.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how this can be considered "derogatory", does the acronym word mean something in German? Clarification would be useful. --Black Butterfly 10:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is derogatory since the grand-style laudatory tone is abbreviated into a short word, souding rather funnily. It does not mean something which is part of the funniness. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I could hear a "Fratz" in it :-) -- Agathoclea 07:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

State What Sources Say, Not What Is

I have to make a big deal over this, cause I don't see much attempt in this article to be NPOV. Ordinary encyclopedias simply tell you what is. Academic papers tell you what is, and footnote it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be like either of those. We have this wierd rule called NPOV, and it requires something you don't see other places. It requires that in writing about anything where there is more than one side, that we simply report what the sides say, being absolutely neutral about who is correct. There is another rule that says "No original research"; this means that even if you know what the truth is, you can't say it. All you are allowed to do is to tell people what a published source has said. Combine the two rules, and it boils down to almost never telling the reader what is, but always telling them what somebody says. Its wierd, and perhaps that's why editors seem to not do it. But its the rules here. Look it up: NPOV. Drogo Underburrow 14:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing "influenced by pan-german nationalism and social darwinism he began to reject the Church and Catholicism as an adolescent, according to his own accounts" - this is not a self-evident fact but needs a specific citation. Drogo Underburrow 12:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already referenced. It is taken from Rissmann (see above), based on Hitler's own accounts. Have you any reference which contradicts this? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"After he had left home, he stopped attending mass and receiving sacraments altogether, thereby ceasing to be a practising Catholic" - This needs a specific quote in the footnotes where the author literally said that Hitler was not a practising Catholic, or used words to that effect. Drogo Underburrow 12:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

On the second point, I disagree completely. It's almost like saying that if we have a source saying that Prince Philip is married to Queen Elizabeth then we are allowed to say that he's married to her, but unless we also have a source where a published writer says that he's her husband, we can't say that he's her husband, because it would be original research to say that if a man is married to a woman he's her husband. I've already provided links showing definitions of "practising" (or "practicing") Catholic. If you want more, here's the definition of "practise" from the twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary:

b. to practise religion [after F. pratiquer la religion]: to perform the religious duties which the Church requires of its members; to be a practising and not merely a nominal member (esp. in R.C. Ch.).

The smaller (1083 pages) Oxford Dictionary of Current English (third edition, 2001) gives

5. follow the teaching and rules of (a religion).

In case there's any doubt, attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days is one of the "religious duties which the Church requires of its members", and it is one of the "rules". It's not optional or even strongly recommended: it is obligatory. Need a citation? Look up the Precepts of the Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (sections 2041–2043). Attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days is the first precept.

The original research, as I have said repeatedly, is on the part of those who are trying to redefine the established, traditional, normal meaning of "practising Catholic".

To clarify something about a comment Giovanni made, which has now been archived. I do not claim that if you're not fully practising, you're not practising at all. There can be a stage between being fully practising and completely lapsed — for example, when young adults leave home for the first time, and start missing Mass occasionally (a good football match on television, tired after the party last night, etc.) but go three weeks out of four, then go twice a month, then once a month, then finally not at all. What I am stating is that if you do not ever, ever, ever, ever, ever go to Mass or receive the sacraments as an adult, you cannot be a practising Catholic. Nor can you be a Catholic who "at least in this way" is not a "fully" practising Catholic.

It just seems very odd that people who happily put in what seem to be unsourced, POV, OR statements that Hitler received the sacraments "devoutly" as a child, or that his mother was a "fervent" Catholic have problems with the standard traditional meaning of "practising Catholic". AnnH ♫ 16:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you disagree. But Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Example_of_a_new_synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.

As long as something is uncontended like your above mentioned marriage nobody will complain. But here you ARE presenting a point of view that is not shared by 99% of the population - therefore you are bound to stick to quotable facts. Agathoclea 16:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

May I add - on matters of faith it seems that even various bishops can't agree what is what (see communion without mass). You actually have proven the point with your insistance of adding the concluding statement. If "not attending mass" was sufficiantly clear to everyone you could have left just that and there would have been no need for editwaring over an unsourced conclusion. Agathoclea 17:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Search for Common Ground: What Unites and Divides Catholic Americans by James D Davidson page 178: "Some insist you can be a good catholic without going to mass". Agathoclea 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what "some" think, even when they reside in Amerika. The Church insists on the obligation to attend Mass, and it is up to the Church to decide what to demand of her members. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me reword that: "It is irrelevant that there is another POV, what I believe to be the case is the only way to word it" - I think that is what you are trying to tell us here. Agathoclea 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all you are either misreading NPOV or don't understand Catholicism. But maybe you do understand a more "secular" example. If the law in a country states that people with income must pay income text, you cannot insist on including an alternative view saying "No, they only need to pay when they feel like, or only every third year, and they can chose how much", based on someone's opinion. Taxation doesn't work like this, neither does the Catholic Church. To reword your post: "It is írrelvant what the the facts are, if it goes against the POV I want to push." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good example. I have income ... I don't pay taxes (just for arguments sake). Does that mean that in my wikiarticle you can call me a taxevader? No - that would be judging the facts accourding to your POV. You could quote a business magazine that calls me a taxevader or make reference the taxoffice doing whatever they do in such circumstances. But I might just have legit reasons for not having to pay income-tax, despite having income. Or my accountant might be so good, that it is possible for me to "only need to pay when they I like, or only every third year, and they can chose how much". And I know this to be possible - I worked at the taxoffice - just a few month ago spoke to one of my old colleques there who was mighty annoyed at how the rich can get away without paying any taxes. To come back to the matter on hand ... Hitler was known not to pay any taxes on the royalties of "Mein Kampf" - a debt that was canceled when he came to office. -- Agathoclea 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I only gave a very rough account of the law (which is different from country to country) - if you don't pay because of the rules of taxation (notwithstanding the principle I wrote about), e.g. because your income is too little, or for this or that reason, you are not a tax evader - if you simply lie to the tax office, or don't bother, you are one. However, that changes neither the principle, nor the rules of taxation. You cannot make up you own rules of taxation like, say, I have an IQ of 190 and hence I am not obliged to pay taxes. If you are found out you are a tax evader nonetheless. Along the same lines, you cannot make up your rules of what constitutes a practicing Catholic or when you think it optional to attend Mass - there are conditions on which one needn't attend, basically if it is not possible - be it because of persecution, geographical distance (thinking of some congegrations in China), or due to illness. But it is up to the CHurch to lay down these rules, not to you or Hitler. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Regarding the No original research link, a little essay-like paragraph where the editor comments on Harvard and Chicago manuals and inserts personal opinion is not the same as a standard, traditional, understanding of "practising Catholic". I very much doubt that one percent of the population would claim that if you never ever ever go to Mass or receive the sacraments you are still a practising Catholic. Nobody has come up with any suggestions of the ways in which he was a practising Catholic, just with some quotations from his speeches about being a Christian, etc. Nor has anybody argued that Hitler was such an admirable man that we know that anything he said in public would have been sincere. I don't know what you're arguing with the link from American Catholic. Nowhere does it mention a Bishop who says you can be a practising Catholic if you don't attend Mass when it would be possible for you to do so. Note that I have on a few occasions clarified by saying that you are excused if you live in a place where it would not be possible to attend Mass. (That's the whole point of the communion services mentioned in your link. It's not possible to have Mass within travelling distance, because of a severe shortage of priests, so they have communion services instead. That did not apply to Hitler.) The conclusion you refer to is not unsourced. And the quote from Davidson doesn't say "Some insist you can be a practising Catholic without ever going to Mass." AnnH ♫ 18:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, different universities have different understandings and policies on what constitutes plagiarism. There is no reputable definition of "practising Catholic" that would include someone who, while able to do so, never went to Mass. Give five hundred lapsed Catholics who never go to Mass a form to fill in where they tick a box saying whether or not they are "practising" Catholics, and I can promise that not one of them will be in doubt. AnnH ♫ 14:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable people have different opinions as to what it means to be a practising Catholic. Therefore, the statement needs a source, so we can say, "Scholar X wrote that Hitler was not a practising Catholic", which will then be a fact, Scholar X really did write this. Whenever you start trying to claim something is, and another editor disputes it, arguing your case is pointless. Wikipedia is not about presenting what is, its about presenting what valid secondary published sources say. The solution is to find a valid secondary source that makes the claim, then quote it. If this fact is indeed a fact, then it should be easy to find a valid secondary source which says it. Others are also free to find valid secondary sources which disagree, if they can find any. Do things the NPOV way, not the "state what is, and argue over it" way. -- Drogo Underburrow 13:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I think you're starting to get a bit legalistic here. There is variation on what people consider to be a practising Catholic, but not that much. I don't think anyone here has turned up anything Hitler did that indicated he was a prctising Catholic; we've no indication that he went to confession or fasted on Fridays or prayed regularly. And of course many people would contend that one of the conditions for being a 'good Catholic' is not committing genocide. DJ Clayworth 13:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Reasonable people" may differ as to whether you're a practising Catholic if you attend Mass once every two or three weeks when there isn't an interesting programme on the television. I dispute that they would claim that you can be a "practising Catholic" (not just a Catholic but a practising Catholic), if you don't ever go to Mass. Praying regularly (even if he did) doesn't make you a practising Catholic. Many non-Catholics pray regularly. And I'm afraid there are some practising Catholics who only pray when they go to Mass on Sundays. AnnH ♫ 13:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be that hard to find a source that says "Hitler was not a practising Catholic" if its true, right? One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. - from WP:VERIFY. For crying out loud, the policy is clear. Why are we even discussing this? Quote a valid source, correctly, properly, one that really says this, literally, no games. Should be very easy, much easier than arguing at length on the talk page why you don't need a source. If you have to argue that you don't need a source, it means that you need one. -- -Drogo Underburrow 14:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I isn't hard as it is already there, albeit not yet translated into English. I will translate it before the night is through. Above it says based on Kubizek, Hitler's best friend in his Vienna years, that "anything ecclesisiastical was foreign to him". And thus far neither you, Drogo, or anyone else has provided any element which might suggest that Hitler practised the Catholic faith in any way. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be petty, and I realize any good editor can make a sloppy edit from time to time, but you really are starting to sound as if you are the authority on NPOV and NOR, etc., having to explain these policies to other editors who are either ignorant or in bad faith. So could you please explain the edit in which you said the Hitler's mother was a fervent Catholic? If you had a reliable source saying that she went to daily Mass, read the Bible for half an hour a day, said fifteen decades of the Rosary each day, wore lots of scapulars, went to weekly confession, fasted well beyond the actual requirements of the Church etc., I'd allow "fervent Catholic"; I wouldn't argue that we need another source that actually used those words about Klara Hitler. You didn't have any such sources, as far as I can see, but yet you made that edit. And both before and after that edit, you continually made remarks about how the other side was out of line with Wikipedia policies. We are allowed to use our own words, to let the prose style flow naturally, rather than having a series of individual quotations joined together. If Klara went to three Masses a day, carried out great penances, fasted rigourously, said three rosaries a day, and carried her Bible everywhere (which she didn't), then she was a fervent Catholic, regardless of whether or not a source actually uses those words. If Adolf never went to Mass as an adult, he was not a practising Catholic, regardless of whether or not a source actually uses those words. AnnH ♫ 14:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I no longer have access to the references, so I can't quote them. I used to, and it's in my memory that she was, and I think Smith in particular talks about it, but I believe that most detailed sources do as well. It is one of the few things known about her. It is really easy to verify, and if you have done some reading about Hitler, I'm surprised you haven't come across it yourself. If I had access, I'd give you the exact pages, but since I don't, I've had to accept it being deleted or watered down. Drogo Underburrow 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have the references anymore than reclaim them and quote. According to my references, Klara was not in any way more "devout" than any other woman in Braunau or wherever the family stayed at a time. Given the fact that she was Alois' girlfriend when his 2nd wife was still alive (parallel with the woman who Alois' 3rd wife - Klara would become #4), it seems more likely that she was even less devout. Granted, this is no hard proof - she might have been deeply remorseful about all this and said the Rosary thrice a day as penance - only we have absolutely no evidence for this. But if you accept the insertion of "practicing" I won't bother you anymore about this, Drogo. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it irked me so to be challenged on the issue of Klara's piety, that I took care of some matters and got ahold of a copy of Smith's book (which is not so easy to get) and some other sources, including Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler. Smith's work is dated, but he is frequently used as a source by Ian Kershaw. Kershaw says in his biographical work Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris (p.12) that Klara was "a pious churchgoer". Its statements like this one, which I assumed that AnnH has read, that made me express surprise that she hadn't come across this sort of statement before. Kershaw does not say where he got his information, there is no footnote. Smith (p.42) himself says that Klara was, quote, "completely devoted to the faith and teachings of Catholicism". Now, one who is devoted to something, is "devout", and my memory was correct. In fact, putting the two sources together, we can now say that in the opinion of these leading historians, Hitler's mother was a "pious churchgoer completely devoted to the faith and teachings of the Catholic Church". -- Drogo Underburrow 20:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

All right. But I don't think that this warrants calling her "devout", certainly not "fervent". "devoted" to certain beliefs is not the same as "devout", which is more something about practice. But anyway, I think devout definetely overused ... and don't think there's any harm in calling her just what is clear, that she was a practicing Catholic. You probably agree that it'd be overdoing things if we included a passage like, some call her devout, some merely practicing. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it improper to call her devout, I have no objection...as long as you agree to the inclusion of statements that in the opinion of Smith, she was devout. -- Drogo Underburrow 20:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I grant you that Smith has that opinion. But I don't know how to balance this with contradicting information. We certainly should not "report the controversy" in this article. A basis for this anyway would be thorough information about how Klara's (religious) life actually looked like. But I have neither the time nor the interest for that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Make my case on talk page

Gio has demanded that I make my case on talk page (though he hasn't bothered making one himself):

• "Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and his own Christianity, which appealed ..."

This sneaks in a factual assertion that Hitler was a Christian - as the whole section shows, it was much more complicated. Hence it was problematic, but I will not remove it again, but reword it.

• I revert the deletion of Hitler's never officially leaving the Church placed in context.
• "The collection called validity of the heresay sourceTable Talk ..." is not only ghibberish but inaccurate and POV pushing in the most extreme of ways. TT is not a hearsay source - it was written down by two adjutants of Bormann after they had dined with Hitler - they could not take notes during the dinner, of course, and only wrote down from memory after having returned to their place, so the probably don't contain the talk verbatim. Albert Speer said the text straigthened out and elevated Hitler's language but the content was accurate. Apart from these observations, historians use it, albeit with caution, so no need to included unwarranted, POV-driven disclaimers.
• I moved the "No matter ..." quote up, since it said the same thing as that paragraph above (... far from being irreligious). The quote supports this statement and we shouldn't be repeated the same stuff all through the section.
• Another double is the paragraph beginning "Although he accused organized Christianity ..." - we have mentioned all this before and hence I included some wordings further up and deleted the rest.
• the spelling and capitalization "God" implies that this god is the same as God in whom Christians believe. Which is POV, hence the change to "this god".
• Hitler demonstrated a preference for the Protestant church, but he did so for a reason. It was not the Lutheran doctrine of justification. Hence the addition stays.
• "Despite his rejection of the Catholic Church ..." adds no new information but connects the last paragraph to the rest of the title. It is needed to create cohesion.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You object to the POV of spelling "God" instead of "god". Have you got any sources that Hitler shared your POV?. -- Agathoclea 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the context of the sentence God is pushing POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo added a paragraph which contains info already mentioned elsewhere, hence I move it to the talk page:

"Although he accused organized Christianity of being Jewish and Bolshevik, Hitler carefully exempted Jesus from his attacks. According to Hitler, Christ’s teachings could be separated from what was later called Christianity. Hitler's belief was that the ideas of Christ were different from the ideas of the churches. Hitler was remorseful that the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped, but he put limits on his apostasy.^[1] Hitler never formally or publicly left the church.^[2]"

Compare the existing passages:

• Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that Hitler found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself, but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus^[3], who Hitler thought of as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.^[4] In 1927 he said: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."^[5] ...

• ... According to Steigmann-Gall, Hitler was remorseful that "the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped."^[6], stating according to Albert Speer: "Through me the Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England”.

If you insist on including your wordings, or see info that's missing in the existing paragraphs then do discuss this and try to integrate it into the existing text. Thanks. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And one more time, you have done it. Include some stuff already covered as a new paragraph instead of integrating it into the text. Please don't do this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Goebbels quote from Steigmann-Gall

If you are going to use the Goebbels quote from Steigmann-Gall, his statement that Hitler meant Catholism and not Christianity must also be used, otherwise we are guilty of lifting the quote out of context from Steigmann-Gall's book. Also the footnote needs to be moved to the sentence it references. - Drogo Underburrow 12:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Hitler's own religious views underwent significant change in the latter half of the Third Reich. He gave up on the Protestant Church after three failed attempts to achieve unity within its ranks. It is only in the period after this failure that we begin to see some of the anti-Christian remarks for which he is so famous....In December 1939, for example, Goebbels noted in his diary that "The Führer is deeply religious, but entirely anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." As unambiguous as this statement appears, it raises an important question. What was Hitler's religion by this time if not Christianity? Had Hitler converted to Himmler's paganism? Just the day before, Goebbels wrote: "The Führer rejects any thought of founding a religion. He does not want to become a Buddha." On the one hand, Hitler professed to reject Christianity: On the other, he was still religious and adamantly opposed to a replacement faith. Ir could be that Hitler was no closer to finding a religious home than he had been all those years before in conversation with Ludwig Müller: But it is also possible that he meant "Catholicism" when saying "Christianity". - Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, p.252-3

It is POV to take the Goebbels quote out of the context of this argument, and use it by itself to make your own point about what Hitler was thinking. If you do that, you are expressing your own views, not Steigmann-Gall's. -- Drogo Underburrow 14:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. That's an interesting passage and worth including, but the final sentence is unacceptable speculation. By the same token, it's also possible that Hitler/Goebbels meant eastern orthodox/quaker/celtic christianity etc. Plus "entirely anti-Christian" is as plain as a pikestaff - it is really poor form to load the phrase with a significance that the plain words do not bear, and to do so with the weasel words "it is also possible". Plus, the final sentence leaves some doubt as to whether "he" refers to Hitler's original comment or Goebbel's reporting of the same.--shtove 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The final sentence is the point of the paragraph, and its not for us to decide if its acceptable or unacceptable; it's Steigmann-Gall's argument, and NPOV calls for telling the reader what valid sources argue. Don't bother to debate whether Steigmann-Gall is right or not, or whether his speculation is warranted or not. He did say it, and he is a valid source, and that is all that matters. You arn't being neutral when you start picking and choosing what valid sources can say or not say. Drogo Underburrow 12:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The final sentence contains no fact. The point of the paragraph is to show that Hitler's profession of his religious beliefs was vague and unfocused.--shtove 19:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Steigmann-Gall is asserting it. That he says it, is a fact. What he is saying, is his opinion. NPOV and WP:VERIFY are about stating what sources say, their opinions. You are confusing what is, with what sources opine. Its our job to state what the sources opine, not what is. Drogo Underburrow 20:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

He's not asserting anything in the final sentence - he's speculating! Assertion requires a foundation in fact - speculation only requires you to tap your heels together three times and say, What If? It doesn't amount to an opinion. No doubt this is a difficult article, because so many have written so disparately on the subject and - regrettably in many cases - published with an ISBN. You're right about stating what sources say, but this applies only to fact and fact-based opinion - otherwise you end up with any number of fancies/prejudices introduced with the weasel words "X/some/many believe/guess/reckon(s)that..." A WP editor may make no original contribution, but must in the editing process be allowed reasoned discretion in sifting fact from speculation. And I think this discretion also extends to drawing from the sourced facts inferences that are necessary.--shtove 19:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Steigmann-Gall is citing Goebbels' diaries, then commenting on them. Cite the diaries rather than Steigmann-Gall in this case, perhaps?Bytwerk 20:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if Steigmann-Gall is howling at the moon; if he does, I'll report on his baying, if its published. You both need to get on the NPOV bandwagon. Its not a negotiable policy. Steigmann-Gall is a noted source; therefore its proper to report what he says, wether you think its true or false. I'm going to repeat over and over until people stop contradicting it, that editors are supposed to present only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by peer-reviewed secondary sources. It is not ok in Wikipedia, unlike in academia, to engage in original research, and take information from a primary source like Goebbels, then present conclusions from it, or use it to support ideas. - Drogo Underburrow 00:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem then becomes interminable articles, since one can generally find a source of at least some repute who says almost anything about Hitler. So when we have Hitler talking about his religious views, should we add someone who says that he lied a lot in public? No problem finding sources to say that. And of course, there are often more than two sides. The section has now expanded until it significantly exceeds the space given to World War II, because every time someone adds something, someone else adds something else. The section now, I think, says more about Hitler and religion than Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography....

And, if you will review the "no original research" page, you will note that it specifically recommends the use of published primary sources. As that page says: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Bytwerk 01:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Read further on the page. It explains: In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. So again, if you are going to make comments based on Goebbels diary, those comments have to have been already published somewhere. Its not acceptable for editors to draw their own conclusions. Drogo Underburrow 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Visit a library. The Goebbels diaries are published. 24 volumes last I looked. Or a 5 volume condensed edition. The publisher happens to be reputable. Bytwerk 01:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you feigning to not understand? Yes, the diaries are published. However, using the diaries to make or illustrate an original point is not allowed. Drogo Underburrow 03:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

First, you say: "editors are supposed to present only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by peer-reviewed secondary sources." I then cite the NOS section that encourages editors to use printed primary sources. Next you assert that if one makes comments based on a primary source like Goebbels diaries, those comments have to have been published somewhere else. If that is the case, it would be peculiar for Wikipedia to encourage the use of printed primary sources, since they could be used only if one then found a secondary source that quoted the exact passage, and apparently said something about it.

In this case, Goebbels is expressing his opinion, based on his conversations with Hitler. To suggest that Hitler and the Nazis had difficulties with the Church or Christianity is not a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." It is, in fact, the most common interpretation. As the introductory comment to Steigmann-Gall's book notes, for example, his book "argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it."

Now, maybe I'm not understanding, but I'm not feigning not to understand, I'm going by what seems to me the import of the policy. Perhaps someone with more experience could help D-U and me out by commenting on the matter? Bytwerk 11:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are selecting out the one portion of material on the policy page that seems to make your case, and ignoring the rest of it where its explained and clarified, which is why I asked if you were feigning to not understand. I'll sum things up again. First of all, the No Original Research (NOR) policy in a nutshell:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

Now, yes, primary sources may be used in articles...if they have been published. But it is not allowed to make comments or conclusions based on those sources, that have not been published. There is no contradiction here. Quoting Goebbels from a published source is fine. Saying anything about that quote is not allowed...unless it too has already been published; in which case, it can be used and should be cited so the reader can verify it. When I said the use of secondary sources was required I was refering to the guidelines page where it says that. I agree that at times using a published primary source is permissible. Are we agreed now? Drogo Underburrow 14:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no question, Drogo, that the final sentence could be included as the opinion of St-G on the Goebbels quote. However, in St-G's text it looks like a speculation of might be, so including it as St-G's opinion might overstate (and hence misrepresent) him. Also, it definitely casts bad light on all of St-G's scholarship - quite unfairly I suppose. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Steigmann-Gall certainly doesn't seem to be saying that his opinion is that by "Christian" Goebbels definitely meant "Catholic," just that this is a possibility. Beyond this, I'm sure this quote by Goebbels has been cited by other authors than just Steigmann-Gall, so I don't think the OR complaint will prove valid. john k 05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Heiden should be removed

I've posted this before but it hasn't been removed. There is no verifiable evidence that these statements were made, or at least in the article. (Heiden 1937) tells us nothing and it would be nice if the original contributor told us where these statements were from. Furthermore quotes such as "His commander at the time said, "I will never promote this hysteric!" (cited from Heiden, 1937)" makes me question for what reasons they were included in the first place. Volksgeist 20:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the comments if nobody can back them up. I originally posted a comment about this eariler where nobody knew where they came from eariler. They also seem to go against a NPOV, especially if they cannot be backed up.

Pan-German Nationalism

Removed "influenced by pan-german nationalism and social darwinism he began to reject the Church and Catholicism as an adolescent, according to his own accounts" - before, and will do it again; this is not a self-evident fact but needs a specific citation. "according to his own accounts" is not a valid source; if Hitler said this, then we need to know exactly what he said and where and when. Drogo Underburrow 12:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed mentioned in Rissmann's book but it is not his discovery or his research. It is included in one of the early chapters, which give an overview of what scholarships has been able to find out. So it wouldn't be right to say "according to Rissmann" (while it is all right to put him into the reference, since I take it from his books). Do you have any scholar who contradicts this? If not, there is no controversy and no need for a disclaimer. Please reconsider whether NPOV demands that every sentence begings with "X says" or "according to Y". If it does, WP is not following this precept. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW. Why post "citattion needed", when there is a citation present, only separted from the text by your breaking up the paragraph. Also "No sources discuss Hitler's taking the sacraments" is clearly in the wrong: he was baptized (which is a sacrament), he was confirmed (another sacrament) unwillingly (see the quoted text and translation above) and at that day at latest received the Eucharist (another sacrament) and before that had to go to confession (another sacrament) - so we have evidence for his receiving four sacraments, while it is clear that he did not receive the other three (marriage, holy orders, last rites). What more would you want? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to be correct in what we claim secondary sources say. If Rissmann doesn't assert what is said, we need to say what he does say. It is wrong to state as fact matters of opinion that is asserted by secondary sources, removing the attribution to them. I don't care if most of Wikipedia does things the wrong way, for example, as does Golden Party Badge. What secondary sources say in matters of opinion is still their opinion, even if nobody else has a different one. Finally, I do not recall that any of the books that I have read on Hitler's youth say anything about his receiving the sacraments, not even as a child; it seems to me to be original research to write that he did receive them. Drogo Underburrow 17:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding negative, that explains a lot of your recent editing and commenting here. I don't think you have understood the NPOV policy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand it quite well. Why don't you tell me how you think I'm wrong. Drogo Underburrow 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Drogo, I will try:

The policy promoting Verifiability and the one against OR requires that all info should be sourced by a reference, except for the really obvious things. It doesn't require us to start every sentence with a "X states ...".

The NPOV policy requires WP not to decide between one view and another, not to take sides (with all due respect to how greatly a POV is held or rejected). However, when there is no dispute about a certain topic - among serious experts - I don't think we should have to start all sentences with a not who said it (which still should be included as a reference in the footnote.

Now, if there is disagreement on the content I have posted it should be prefaced by who holds such a view (e.g. Rissmann - or whoever - says ..), but if there is no disagreement, no dispute I consider the prefacing bloating. If you can show out to me that other serious (!) authors contradict what I put in, then I will not object to such a disclaimer. But honestly I cannot see where any serious historian disputes what I wrote about stopping to attend mass etc. or his rejection of Catholicism as a pupil.

The political religion bit, to wrap things up, is already disclaimed, as it says "some ..." - we could add "while others doubt the usefulness of such a category" - my reference gives a discussion of the issue, not an endorsement. Rissmann actually rejects the characterisation given by Voegelin (who is the originator of the term).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of good academic writing is knowing when to say "X said", and when not to. When there is no dispute about something, then it's not only unnecessary; it's actually unscholarly to keep doing so. AnnH ♫ 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I"m not insisting that every sentence start with "X said" or that non-controversial passages be footnoted, so both of you are barking up the wrong tree. I am questioning though, whether Pan-Germanism had much to do with Hitler's attitudes on religion. For example, Bradley Smith, "Adolf Hitler: His Family, Childhood and Youth'' p.84 says that the Los von Rom movement made little impression on young Hitler. So once again, I'm asking for specific, detailed citation on the passage, with page numbers and direct quotes, explaining who is arguing what is put in the article, so that its perfectly clear who is saying what. -- Drogo Underburrow 22:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pomp and Circumstance

Hitler admired the pomp of Catholic ritual and the hierarchical organisation of the clergy. Later, he drew on these elements, organizing his party along hierarchical lines and including liturgical forms into events or using phraseology taken from hymns. Because of these liturgical elements, Hitler's Messiah-like status and the ideology's all-encompassing nature, the Nazi movement is sometimes termed a "political religion". - These sentences need to explicitly give sources so we know who is making these claims. These are not facts. What is the basis for stating as a fact that Hitler admired the pomp of Catholic ritual? Next, stating that he drew on these elements is definately someone's opinion: whose? Who says that the Nazi movement is sometimes termed a political religion? Who says that Hitler had Messiah-like status? Drogo Underburrow 13:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem if you wanted to remove that paragraph. DJ Clayworth 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not too difficult to find support on those questions. There is recently Hans Maier, "'Totalitarismus'und 'politische Religionen': Konzepte des Diktaturvergleichs" (Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1996-2004). Göring wrote in 1941: "We National Socialists declare with complete conviction that for us, the Führer is infallible in all political and other matters that affect the people's national health and social interests." There were thousands of poems to Hitler resembling Christian hymns (e.g,: "There are so many people who bless you / Even if their blessing is a silent one — / There are so many who have never met you, And yet you are their Saviour. / And when you speak to your Geman people,/ The words go across the land / And sink into countless hearts, / Hearts in which your image long has stood. / Sometimes the vision of you brings life / To those in the midst of hard labor and heavy obligation . . . / So many are devoted to you / And seek in your spirit a clear light." Or as a book of praise of Hitler published by the Nazis in 1941 put it: "Our Führer is the most unique man in history. I believe unreservedly in him and in his movement. He is my religion." Bytwerk 11:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This information belongs in the article either as footnotes or as text. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources, and those sources need to be cited. -- Drogo Underburrow 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitlers mention at Göring article

[1] smells of sneaky vandalizm. Can anybody check the facts? Agathoclea 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to look. But take a look at Golden Party Badge - no references, no sources, no footnotes, no talk page. We supposed to take everything on faith? This is the ultimate example of editors with no clue that Wikipedia is supposed to be about telling what published sources say, and citing those sources, not editors telling what is. -- Drogo Underburrow 23:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems all right to me. Göring was very much fishing for decorations and titles, down to being "Reichsjägermeister" (chief hunter of the realm), while Hitler always was simple in his appearances and after the beginning of the war only wore the simple Wehrmacht uniform with his Iron Cross. But that is nothing new: rulers often were the ones dressing simply, while their servants wore pompous uniforms. my great grandmother as a child confused the Emperor Francis Joseph with his carriage driver because the Emperor wore a simple blue uniform, while the carriage driver was decorated with a feather on his hat etc. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Table Talk again

Could you please stop inserting the totally inaccurate and POV motivated statement that Hitler's Table Talk is a) "an exclusively hearsay compilation of private conversations" (it is not, as I have explained before, regardless of some concerns) and it is neither b) "where virtually all Hitler's anti-Christian quotes come from" - there are other sources for such comments, such as Speer, Goebbels etc., not counting the fraudulent Rauschnigg. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian Kershaw says that Table Talk must be 'treated with due caution'; show me where he uses it in his biography of Hitler. You arn't using it with caution; you are using it without informing the reader of its questionable nature, and boldly. Drogo Underburrow 13:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)::Let me amend that...I don't see it used in your latest edit. Drogo Underburrow 13:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not using it at all. In my contributions here I am leaving the "Quellenkritik" bit to the people I (and others) quote. Of course, we should be cautios. However, what I oppose utterly is the inclusion of disclaimers which bascially say "don't worry about anti-Christian statements by Hitler - they call come from a worthless source" - when the soure is neither worthless (and it is, despite all problems, neither worthless nor hearsay) nor it is the source of all anti-Christian statements. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Kershaw doesn't use the Table Talk at all in his biography? To say that it must be "treated with due caution" is not the same thing as to say that it is completely unreliable. john k 05:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

John, are you addressing Drogo or me? I completely agree with you! Quellenkritik is a difficult business and WP-wise I prefer to leave it to the literature we are referring to, e.g. Kershaw or Rissmann or Steigmann. I also don't mind including a sentence about the dispute about Table Talk (though it makes me think that we should include a sentence on Rauschnigg as well - maybe as a footnote to the "not occultist" passage - , to avoid readers confusing the two books). What I object to is this know-nothing addition cited above which only serves to eliminate not just Table Talk but all anti-Christian statements by Hitler (supposedly only taken from Table Talk). Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing Drogo, who seems to be implying that Kershaw does not ever cite Table Talk in his biography. This seems unlikely to me, although I cannot disprove it. That is, I fully agree with you. john k 14:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I used Table Talk once, but it has nothing to do with the religion part of the article and is listed in the references. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian

And again Gio has struck, changing the consensus "authoritarian" to "fascist" - I never was completely happy with authoritarian, as it is a bit weak for Hitler's regimee and hence have always preferred "totalitarian", despite the controversy the term sparks (which should be covered on the wikilinked page). However, I can live with either word, as they are descriptive terms, talking about some characteristics of Hitler's regime. "Fascist" on the other hand is merely labelling him politically, using a misused political label, but tells us nothing about the character of Hitler's rule. I reverted to the T word, but don't mind reverting to the A word again. But not the F word, ever! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true. I never changed the consensus "authoritarian" to "fasicst." I only changed the hightly contentious and loaded theory of "totalitarism" to the completely accurate, useful and descriptive "fascist regime." I was never completely happy with authoritian either, as it is a bit weak for Hitler's regime and hence I preferred the more precise "fascist,' despite that there is a tiny minority that feels that it only applies to the Italian model (really a fringe within academia). However, I can live with either word (authoritian or fascist), as they are descriptive terms for Hitler's regime and the nature of its system of reactionary control. "Totalitarianism" on the other hand, is merely politically labeling based on a highly disputed organic theory of the state that tells us nothing about the real workings of Hiter's rule. I reverted to the F word, but I don't mind reverting to the A word. But not the T word, ever!Giovanni33 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While "fascist" is certainly a term which has been misused, it is not a misuse to use "fascist" to describe the Nazis. I do think it is problematic to refer to a "fascist regime," though. While I think there's a fair degree of consensus among scholars that Nazism was a fascist movement, I'm not sure that there's ever been any real consensus about what a fascist "regime" is. That said, fascist is clearly better than "totalitarian," because the latter is a term whose general usefulness and validity is in serious dispute. The narrative voice of wikipedia should never refer to any regime as "totalitarian." Use of the term should always be attributed - "Some scholars have described the Nazi regime as totalitarian," not "The Nazi regime was totalitarian." john k 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the word "fascist" here, is not so much its misuse or that I cannot debate the F vs. T thing (and I have mellowed down a bit recently), but that using the F word in the intro makes it meaningless, merely stating H's political affilitation, and that only by stretching it to a an umbrella term. We could be more precise than F and state he instituted a Nazi regime, which makes the emptiness of Gio's version utterly obvious. What I want is a descriptive term for Hitler's regime: F doesn't do that, authoritarian (which BTW was the consensus before Gio and someone else starting to revert again) is a bit weak, totalitarian in my book does the trick, despite the dispute. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In a recent edit, Gio claimed "Totalitiarianism is not an accepted theory." It is a disputed theory (as are almost all attempts to explain the subjects under discussion), but it is a theory many accept. It would not be difficult to list a lot of recent books that accept it as a useful theoretical approach (and lots that don't like it). I will settle for mentioning the Hannah Arendt Institute for the Study of Totalitarianism at the University of Dresden (http://www.hait.tu-dresden.de/ext/homepage.asp). It accepts the theory to the extent that it is part of the institute name. Bytwerk 10:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse Hannah Arendt would accep the theory, she is one of the main developer of the disputed theory. When I say its disputed, I mean within the larger academic conesnsus of political scientists, and therefore any usage of the term has to be sufficiently problematized, qualified, and not stated if it were were a theory that was well established and accepted by consensus (as the theoretical understandings of fascism is). Infact, if I recall correctly, even Arendt backed off on major points regarding the theory of T herself, leaving it to any last surving cold-warriors who still want to cling to mistaken conceptions of a cartoonish description of a society. Giovanni33 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt was dead long before the institute was named for her, so her sentiments are irrelevant to the point I was making. Do a search on amazon.com or amazon.de for the term. You will find numerous recent books that take the term seriously. People disagree on the subject. The theory is well established, and has significant proponents. It is not the consensus. But guess what — authoritarian doesn't have consensus either. To term those who like the term "cold war warriors" simply won't pass muster. In some ways, this mirrors the discussion on Hitler and religion. Perhaps a brief paragraph outlining the debate might be in order, rather than edit-warring back and forth. Bytwerk 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Authoritarian may be weak, but it is a term which everyone agrees is appropriate. Totalitarianism is a term whose validity is disputed. Wikipedia's editorial voice shouldn't be using terms whose very validity is disputed as though they are unproblematic. john k 14:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And I agree that fascist is pretty useless as a term to describe the regime. john k 14:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to support Str on this because I quite honestly haven't a clue about whether the regime was fascist, authoritarian, or totalitarian, and contrary to what Giovanni says about me, I don't exist for the purpose of reverting to my buddy's version. But if Giovanni can accept A but not T, Str can accept A but not F, John has problems with T and F, and finds A weak but appropriate, why is there still an edit war going on? Can we just leave it as authoritarian, and hope that Kecik doesn't show up to make his 28th revert out of 30 article edits later today? AnnH ♫ 15:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain my recent edits in this matter: I can live with A (though I think it to weak) and not with F (which is in my book non-descriptive) and in my first few reverts I revert to the A word again, after someone else had changed it to T and Gio then changed it to F. Later, I revert to T, since Gio kept on inserting his beloved F word over and over again, even revert a removal (not by me) of a superfluous category. It was a reaction out of annoyance. However, I will not revert the A word ever and since John K approves of the A word too, I am inclined to revert further F pushing back to the A word. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain my recent edits in this matter, too: I can live with A (though I think it to weak) and not with T (which is in my book non-descriptive). I revert to F, since Str kept on inserting his beloved T word over and over again. It was a reaction out of annoyance. However, I will not revert the A word ever and since John K approves of the A word too, I am inclined to revert further T pushing back to the A word. Giovanni33 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Very clever, but the potential problem with fascism and that with totalitarianism are not the same. Fascism is arguably non-descriptive in that the term "fascist regime" arguably doesn't mean anything - there's never been any clear definition of what a "fascist regime" consists of, and what its defining characteristics would be. The term "totalitarian regime" is certainly descriptive, in that several scholars have given very detailed descriptions of what the term means. What makes it inappropriate is that many scholars don't think that the totalitarian model actually applies to any real world cases, and that others think it, at least, doesn't apply to Nazi Germany. john k 02:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you say that in your own words too, Gio, or do just want to do a parody. The T word is hardly non-descriptive and it was not me, in general, who changed A to T. However, it was always you who changed T to F. You could have changed it to A as well, but you refused to do so. This POV pushing on your part was what annoyed me. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are my words. And, no, no parody. The F word is hardly non-descriptive, and it was not me who changed A to F. However, it was you who changed F to T. You could have hcanged to to A. This POV pushing on yoru part was what annoyed me, too. Good day. Giovanni33 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. BTW, that parrot is dead! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I assure you, sir, that parrot is not dead. It's sleeping.Giovanni33 19:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Time for me to stick in my two cents. First of all, I think there is no right or wrong here, word definitions are a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that all of you are partially correct. All the words apply. Hitler's regime was authoritarian, totalitarian, and fascist. This matter is a good illustration of the folly of trying to state what the facts are, rather than stating what sources say. If you would quote sources, then everybody is more likely to agree on the fact that the sources say what they say. The article is supposed to be reporting what major scholars think, not what editors think. Drogo Underburrow 02:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed "authoriatrian" to "totalitarian" so as to distinguish Hitler's regime from Pinochet's. Under Pinochet, there were strong social institutions, such as the Catholic church, which inhibited his power. There were no such institutions in Nazi Europe, partly because the Nazis were so successful in dismantling the churches--so to be as accurate as possible, totalitarian should be used Stanley011 05:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

Hitler's Catholic upbringing

He began to reject the Church and Catholicism as an adolescent. Where does it say this literally? Please give the exact words and page number.

"After he had left home, he stopped attending mass and receiving sacraments altogether, thereby ceasing to be a practising Catholic." Same here. Is this said literally, or are you interpreting it to mean this? Please give the exact words and page number, in German if need be.

Also, in the guidelines on using sources, it says to use English sources whenever possible, in fairness to English speaking readers who want to look up material. Drogo Underburrow 17:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

For someone like Hitler, English sources should be adequate. I'd suggest that Ian Kershaw's biography should be able to clear this issue up. john k 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a single word about Hitler giving up his Catholic upbringing as an adolescent in Kershaw, which is why I asked. Drogo Underburrow 06:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should use English books whereever possibly, but we cannot and should not ignore research just because it was done in another language and hasn't yet been translated. It is unfortunately not always the best books that get translated the fastest. And the fact that Hitler didn't go to Church is really uncontroversial. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So that's your answer? I ask for your source, and you tell me you don't need one because it's "uncontroversial"? If you don't have a source, you can't put it in the article, hows that for controversy? Drogo Underburrow 09:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Hitler did go to church? I don't have any sources available to me, but I feel like this is pretty clearly uncontroversial - I've certainly never read anywhere that he did go to church. The issue about when exactly Hitler lost his faith should definitely be cited, though. john k 14:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was known to continue prayer, even if not in a Church. So, claims that not going to Church is indicative that he lost his faith, should be cited, as well; otherwise it may be original research. Giovanni33 14:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Hitler went to church or not; but I'm not the one who is making claims. whoever puts in the article that he didn't go to church starting when he left home, or that Pan-Germanism made him lose his faith, or that he wasn't a "practising Catholic" has the burden of proof to cite a published source which says these things specifically. - Drogo Underburrow 20:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting this material. I believe that Rissmann says that many authors say that Pan-Germanism had an influence on young Hitler. However, that influence has nothing to do with religion, as the away-from-Rome movement (los von Rom) was not embraced by young Hitler according to Smith (p.84) The rest of the material on religion is not supported by the sources given, in my opinion. Show me proof, give direct quotes and page numbers. Kershaw, one of the sources cited, nowhere says that Hitler wasn't a practising Roman Catholic, for example; neither does he say that Hitler stopped going to church. Drogo Underburrow 20:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And I will be restoring it. There's no disagreement that we need a reference and I have referenced some and will reference the rest, if other things on this talk do not prevent me doing it). However, the disclaimer "according to X", we only need if there is a serious controversy about the statement. If there isn't it bloats the article. Since you want the disclaimer it is up to you to provide the controversy. So far you haven't.

Hitler didn't join Schönerer's movement as we was too young (later he stated that Schöner was right on ideology but wrong on propaganda, while Lueger was right on propaganda but wrong on ideology), but the climate in his secondary school was influenced by it. I have sourced this and you deleted without a valid reason.

Your "Kershaw, one of the sources cited, nowhere says that Hitler wasn't a practising Roman Catholic" is really hilarious - so "non in Kershaw, non in mundo"?

Gio, don't try to change the issue again. Whether Hitler acctually prayed and to whom I don't know. It certainly has nothing to do with whether he was a practising Catholic or not!

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some notes on your changes:

• You changed my "As Protestantism was more open to such views" first to "As liberal Protestantism also had similar views", but then you realize that it is rather a sweeping statement to say that liberal Protestants in general were racists etc and put in a disclaimer. This is why I wrote "was more open ..." in the first place: liberal protestantism was and unfortunately still is more open to redefinitions of Jesus or Christianity and this was the hole Hitler got enter. Nothing more, nothing less.
• "Despite his criticisms of the Catholic Church ..." - it wasn't criticism, it was a rejection of the Church.
• "Hitler as a child ... the hierarchical organisation of the clergy." - Highly unlikely that a child admires a "hierarchical organisation", Pomp: yes, hierarchy: no - hence, the child should go. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Drogo version,which contains my referenced, sourced material, " According to historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, much is known about Hitler's views on religion through Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.[23] In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote neither as an atheist, nor an agnostic, nor as a believer in a remote, rationalist divinity; instead he expressed his belief in one providential, active, deity:..." I don't know why you keep removing this sourced material.

Also, your changes are not well referenced. You need to quote the actual sentence that supports your inclusion of a POV, and properly attribute it. You can't state as a fact that he rejected the Catholic church. We know he made criticisms of it, but we also know he embraced it in many other ways. Rejection implies a totality, which, if you want to state, needs to be properly cited and expressed as a POV. For this any other similar reasons, I reverted to Drogo's version. Some of your points above may be valid, but you made too many sweeping, drastic changes that have nothing to do with the above points. I think you should fix small things first and state the reasons, and before you delete large sections and replace it with other material, you should bring it to the talk page first, so we can discuss the merits of each version.Giovanni33 19:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me, my parrot, of what I need to do, especially when I have referenced his rejection further up (in the passage you have chosen to delete, as it doesn't fit your bias). I can state as a fact that he rejected the Church, because it is a fact. You have not provided any serious view that says otherwise. He didn't criticize, he rejected it in total, he did not embrace it in any meaningful way.

You asked where your version was POV pushing. All right,

1. you highlighted Hitler's public "pro-christian" utterances as blockquotes, while you hid the private, anti-christian ones in the body of the text
2. your repeated inclusion of statements fitting your POV, sometimes hidden behind X says statements, in particular statements that Hitler never officially left the Church - that's not something that needs to be dePOVed by making someone (Speer) say it, as his never leaving is a fact. Only, it is already included and your repetition of it only serves as a POV chorus.
3. "Notable Hitler biographer John Toland" - notable? Why not agree "scholarly, secular, historical"? You play the game again of endorsing a certain source because you draw support from it for your bias. Toland, regardless of what his book's title says, is not the "definitive" biography and I am more and according to other historians he hasn't done a great job with his biography. Reading utterly contrafactual statements like "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome" I tend to agree. In any case, your endorsing statements is utter POV-pushing. Another such repeat is the quote by Lewy (not an authority in this field), which repeats what has already been included under public statements and which your version highlighted.

IMHO that's proof enough about your POV pushing.

Now, I had a look on your additions to the Drogo version and included some bits into the text.

I removed other repitions like "neither as an atheist ...", things that were clearly false and things that don't add anything to this section (St-G about Mein Kampf).

I also removed really stupid statements like "Finally, Steigmann-Gall gives another example where in a private Nazi meeting Hitler again stated the centrality of Jesus' teachings to the Nazi movement." So does he? Who cares? This is not a retelling of the contents' of St-G's book, but a section on Hitler's religious belief. You basically include stuff already mentioned (e.g. Hitler's calling Jesus Lord, thinking him an Aryan, reference to a supposedly "true Christianity").

Finally, your last sentence is completely out of place in this section, Anti-semitism is covered elsewhere.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, your disagree but you are only inserting your own POV. You need to reference your statments. Show the sources that support your claims of fact, and then attribute them. They are not facts which all agree with. You object to making my quotes as block quotes. Well, do the same for the other quotes. I don't object to that. But I object to you removing all the sourced material that you don't like because it doesn't match with your own bias and POV. That is not allowed. Lastly, your excuse to remove the part about anti-semitism because his anti-semitism is menitoned elsewhere is not valid because, as anyone can clearly see, this has to do with how his religious/Christian views influenced his anti-semitism. A distint point that relates directly to the brand of his religious thinking which was fused with with Hitlers prejudice and bigotry. I was going to revert it but I see yet another editor has reverted you already, to what they also regard as a better version. I think you should try to get conensus on here before reverting, again.Giovanni33 21:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have shown and even quoted the sources, but you prefer to delete my references along with the references material (I will inquire whether that constitutes a form of vandalism: deleting something and then complaining that it isn't there). Your "sourced material" OTOH does not add anything to the article except a repition of your POV, time and again, apart from the utter rubbish sentences. Do you actually check what articles you link to? And, yes, the last sentence is out of place in this section, as it adds nothing to the section on his religious belief (... and it isn't even sourced). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am asking for proper citations, that we can look up, including page numbers and direct quotes, for claiming that Hitler wasn't a practicing Catholic and that he stopped going to Mass and getting the sacraments after he left home. You have not done this so far. Instead you have given vague references to entire books in English, and sources to German material which only German speakers can look up. I looked up those references in English and could not find where they addressed this issue; perhaps you could provide page numbers and direct quotes? As John K pointed out, we are not talking about esoteric research here; there is no need to quote a German source on something as concrete as whether Hitler went to church or not. If the evidence from sources is so overwhelming, it should be very easy to find it in English language sources, given the massive amount of material in English on Hitler. If no English source supports this, that fact too needs to go into the article. Frankly, if you have to resort to quoting German sources on such a simple, factual, issue, I have doubts that the sources in German actually say what you want them to. Finally, are you done arguing that you don't need to give sources because the facts are not controversial? Or do I need to quote the WP:Verify policy on this matter?

Also, are you making the claim that he never again in his life went to Mass or took communion? The statement seems to be saying this. -- Drogo Underburrow 22:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I also support the Drogo, Alenius, and Giovanni versions for the reasons stated already by these good editors. MikaM 01:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't back Str1977 on fascist, authoritarian, totalitarian, as I had no knowledge or opinion of my own on the subject, but I absolutely support him here. First of all, can someone defend the placing of Hitler's "religious" statements in block quotes and the placing of his anti-Christian statements in the middle of text, so that it's less visible? Secondly, while sources should be in English, if possible, that can hardly exclude quoting from a book in a non-obscure language, especially when it is the language of the country of the subject of the book, and when that book has not been translated into English. I am hoping, when I get more time, to work on the articles about Jacques Fesch, Elisabeth Leseur, and Jerome Lejeune. In all three cases, I shall be using some English sources, but expect also to be working directly from French sources. If a book exists in German and in an English translation, the English version should be the one quoted; but to exclude an important, scholarly book because it's in German is not required or even supported by Wikipedia policy. Also, Str1977 gave a point-by-point response to Drogo's post a day or two ago, and Drogo just undid Str's edit without responding to Str's points. I'm also concerned that Drogo, who insists on finding a source for the most uncontroversial facts inserted by Str1977, had no problems a while back when someone inserted the completely unsourced, unverified, POV statement that Hitler received the sacraments "devoutly". AnnH ♫ 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are mostly off-topic here, AnnH; please move them to another section on this page, or make a new one. This section is for one thing only, my request for sourcing for Str77's desired edits. Str77 has simply been evading my continued request for sources, first arguing about whether sources are necessary (an absurd claim, he has been here long enough to know that everything on Wikipedia must be sourced when challenged) then by mostly ignoring my request and diverting discussion, as you are doing also, Ann. Please post your comments in an appropriate section and I'll respond to them. Drogo Underburrow 01:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was a professed Catholic, like it or not, Str. It would be helpful if you stopped removing sourced material. Anything that's sourced (John Toland is a very scholarly, academic, notable and highly respected historian, don't remove him from the sources) and comes from a distinguished historian, and is essential towards learning more about Hitler's faith begs, and deserves, inclusion. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide if Hitler was a Catholic in word, in deed or at all. Rather, it's our job to cite and quote from the relevant sources without undue emphasis. If Hitler said "I am a Catholic", let's quote him. If the Pope said "No he's not", let's quote him, too. Let the reader decide.

Regardless, everything said on this incredibly controversial topic must be extremely well cited. It appears that Str's version is not, which is why a number of us have felt compelled to revert to versions that are in line with WP:CITE. My suggestions, therefore, is that Str find some citations. I think this will be a course of action that will please all of us equally. Thank you for understanding. Al 02:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Al, its not our job to decide if Hitler was a Catholic, in word, in deed or at all. Rather, it's our job to cite and quote from the relevant sources without undue emphasis. The problem being dealt with in this talk page segment is that Str77 seems not to agree. Str77 said, "I can state as a fact that he rejected the Church, because it is a fact." This is the crux of the problem. Str77 has taken it upon himself to decide the facts, and present them. Others here do not agree that Str77 has the right to decide what is fact, and state it as so in the article. Deciding for yourself what is true and false, and insisting on the inclusion of the "true", is violating the WP:NOR policy. It is also violating the WP:Verify policy if what he decides happens to not be sourced. Finally, it violates the WP:NPOV policy since he is deciding which side is right, and which is wrong. The bottom line is, no, Str77, you are not allowed to baldly state what is fact on Wikipedia, if any editor contests your statment. You are only allowed to report what published sources claim are the facts, as long as they are valid sources and you properly cite them and attribute the material to them, not as God's truth given by you. I'm contesting your claims, see my opening statement at the top of this section. Now, its your turn, show us where sources say what you said, and then it can go in the article as their opinion. Properly sourced and attributed, I'll fight just as hard to keep them in the article as I am doing right now to keep them out. Drogo Underburrow 03:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Alienus and Drogo on these points. I have not reverted yet but will do so, if necessary. I find it very disturbing that only the Catholic editors are suppressing the facts of Hitler's religous beliefs, removing well-sourced material while inserting unsourced and disputed statements of fact without proper attribution. If it is to be included, it must be verified. Even then, this does not justify removing sourced material that is valid. The complaint of block quotes, I find disingenous because I noticed they did not change the block quotes to other formats, they removed the quotes completely! Also block quotes for the large sections quoted are fine due to their size. The smaller quotes, I'd favor removing the block format.

I also noticed that the edit summaries and language being used by them is not very civil, and is in some cases false, such as "rv to consensus version" when that is NOT the consensus version. The version that all the other editors support, is more balanced and well cited. I ask Str1977 (who is always backed by ML) to consider stopping their edit warring. All other editors support this version. Whatever you do, don't remove sourced material, please. We are here not to push a POV but only report who said what.MikaM 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

MikaM, while I appreciate that you're not using this username to revert, it is a violation of policy to use puppets to create the illusion of agreement on talk pages.Timothy Usher 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been here long enough to know this, Timothy. Contrary to your implication, this is my ONLY username. I don't have any socketpupetts. A usercheck has already established this so I suggest you assume good faith. I don't have a lot of time to edit many articles but I keep my eye on a few, and I must say, your contributions and role is not very good. Please lets stick to the issues in the article instead of diverting it into meaningless attacks. These diversions are a sure sign of weakness.MikaM 03:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Tim, you appear to be suggesting that MikaM is a sock puppet, but their page does not have a sock puppet notice. Where are you getting this from? Al 03:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically anyone who supported Giovanni33 in the Christianity article was accused and suspected of being his socketpuppet. Even Sophia was user checked. The results showed that Giovanni shared an account with BelindaGong. But Giovanni explained that she is his wife (but they did not want to reveal that info before). Freethinker was linked but he was Giovanni's friend. Everyone else proved not to be socketpuppets---much to their disapointment. Anyone a new user comes and supports a POV similar to Giovanni's they are userchecked by AnnH. Some people, like Timothy keep alluding to socketpuppets even AFTER it has been established by a user check that we are not. I guess he is only going by the fact that I still oppose their POV and support their opponents POV. I also think its just a way for them to divert the debate away from the article esp. when they lose the arguments.MikaM 03:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

All of which leads me to conclude that Tim's comments were uncivil and assumed bad faith. I've left a warning on his talk page. Al 03:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A comparison of MikaM's contribution histories, talk space and mainspace edits of MikaM with those of Giovanni33 demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that they are one and the same individual. I've no intention of pressing the matter, only apprising MikaM of WP policy in this regard.Timothy Usher 03:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your hunch that MikaM is a sockpuppet is of no concern to any of us, nor any sort of excuse for incivility. If you want to claim MikaM is a puppet, you need to get Checkuser to confirm it. Otherwise, any such claim will be understood as a simple insult and reported as such. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, this is the talk page of the Hitler article, and the segment devoted to Hitler's Catholic upbringing. I find accusations of sockpuppetry or warnings about suspected sockpuppetry disruptive to the proper flow of discussion of what is to go on the Hitler page. They have nothing whatsoever to do with Hitler. Timothy Usher, please do not bring up distracting issues here. Drogo Underburrow 04:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, all the info I put in is properly sourced, except for one bit which I haven't yet looked up (the one explaining the actual beliefs of Hitler about racial struggle etc.). However, this bit is supported by the Mein Kampf quote provided by Gio but not properly referenced. I will still look up my reference. Hence, I cannot positively see where my version is not sourced. To my knowledge WP has no policy on xenophobic treatment of books, so Rissmann is a valid source. He is the state of the art book in this field and endorsed by Ian Kershaw.

Regarding Kinneyboy's addition I will let that stay, despite the fact that it is already mentioned in text (I will discuss that with him) in the full form created by Bytewerk. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is what you put in the article:

After he had left home, he stopped attending mass and receiving sacraments altogether, thereby ceasing to be a practising Catholic.

And this is what you call a proper source:

Michael Rissmann, Hitlers Gott. Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators, Zürich München: Pendo, 2001, pp. 94-96 ISBN 3858424218; Ian Kershaw: Hitler, Brigitte Hamann: Hitlers Wien. Lehrjahre eines Diktators. München/Zürich 1996. pp. 11-64; William A. Jenks: Vienna and the young Hitler. New York 1960; Bradley F Smith. 1967; Franz Jetzinger: Hitlers Jugend. Phantasien, Lügen - und die Wahrheit. Wien 1956. p. 70).

Where in Ian Kershaw or Bradley F. Smith do they say anything about Hitler stopping attending Mass after leaving home, or conclude that he was not a practicing Catholic? I don't think you actually used these as sources, which is why you do not give page numbers. I'll address the other sources cited after you first respond to this challenge. -- Drogo Underburrow 20:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I made myself clear that I was basing myself on Rissmann. However, what he writes is not in any way controversial. He doesn't argue for it but includes it the part of his book concerned with giving an overview on scholarly findings on Hitler's relationship to certain beliefs or other elements (the next chapter is titled "Wagner"). I included Rissmann's sources to highlight to you that it wasn't Rissmann's lone opinion. However, I have no objection against removing Kershaw or Bradley Smith, if that makes you sleep better. Nonetheless, despite your objection, the text is sourced by a reference and hence there is no valid reason to delete it. Unless you have held back one I myself couldn't think of. I clearly stated my objections against some parts of your version (mostly structure of the text) and against Gio's addition (repitition to push his favourites into prominence). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you agree that the note should only refer to sources you actually used to support the material, which is just Rissmann. Now, Rissmann himself nowhere says that Hitler was not a practising Catholic. All he says was that Hitler learned anti-clerical attitudes at school. He also says that Kubizek never can remember Hitler's going to church. It's a far cry from Rissmann noting that one source never saw Hitler go to church, to making the claim that Rissmann concludes from this that Hitler was not a practising Catholic. In fact, Rissmann nowhere says that; YOU are the only one who says it, then you give Rissmann as a source. That is why I say that your claim is unsourced. Simply adding a footnote to a historian's work that doesn't say what you are saying, is not sourcing something. Drogo Underburrow 21:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright so let's quote it to you in tiny, easily digestable bits, shall we?

Since you refer to the "Did he attend Mass issue, I shall restrict myself to that:

• Auch der Jugendfreund Kubizek portratierte einen Hitler, dem alles Kirchliche fremd war. An einen Gottesdienstbesuch Hitlers konnte er sich nicht erinnern, allerdings ebensowenig an antiklerikale Polemik.

Kubizek, Hitler's friend, potrayed Hitler as someone, to whom all ecclesiastical things were alien. He could not remember Hitler attending a service, but neither anti-clerical polemics.

• wenngleich er aus seinem Unverständnis kein Hehl machte: Seine eigene Mutter sei auch eine fromme Frau, »trotzdem lasse er sich von ihr nicht zur Kirche nötigen«.

Hitler never tried to keep the friend vom attending church, though he didn't hide his lack of comprehension: His own mother were a pious woman, but "nonetheless he would not be pushed into Church".

• Zu einer Berührung mit kirchlichem Zeremoniell kam es lediglich bei der Beerdigung der Mutter.

The only contact with church ceremonies was at his mother's funeral.

Also consider this:

• Nur unwillig ließ Hitler die Firmung im Linzer Dom über sich ergehen. Sein Firmpate Emanuel Lugert und dessen Frau berichteten später von einem »mürrischen und verstockten« Firmling, dem weder die Zeremonie noch das teure Firmgeschenk etwas zu bedeuten schien ...

Only unwillingly Hitler endured the confirmation at Linz Cathedral. His sponsor Emanuel Lugert and his wife later talked about a "grumpy and stubborn" confirmand, to whom neither the ceremony nor the expensive present seemed to mean anything ...

• Im ganzen Iäßt sich an Hitlers religiöser Sozialisation nichts Ungewöhnliches feststellen: Als Sohn eines »freisinnigen« Vaters, geprägt durch das all-deutsche Denken einiger Klassenkameraden, erscheint die Lösung vom Katholizismus nicht ungewöhnlich.

All in all, one cannout detect anything extraordinary about Hitler's religious socialisation: as the sone of a "liberal" father, formed by the pan-german thinking of some of his classmates, his dissolution from Catholicism does not seem extraordinary.

• ... ansonsten haßte er sie. (Anm: die Kirche)

... in all other respects he hated her. (Note: the Church)

• ... verknüpfte sie aber mit Inhalten, die allen christlichen Traditionen widersprechen: Der christliche Gott und Hitlers Gott haben nur den Namen gemeinsam.

... but he combined them with contents contradicting all christian traditions: the Christian God and Hitler's god have only the name in common.

I should think that that suffices as documentation, though you could have read it up there. Sorry, folks, for filling up talk space with this repitition. Complaints should go to Drogo. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument above does not justify you removing the other sourced information relevant to this topic, specifically the MK quotes. As I said above, I restored the Drogo version,which contains my referenced, sourced material, " According to historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, much is known about Hitler's views on religion through Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.[23] In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote neither as an atheist, nor an agnostic, nor as a believer in a remote, rationalist divinity; instead he expressed his belief in one providential, active, deity:..." I don't know why you keep removing this sourced material. If you have valid changes make them but do not revert to a completely different verstion that undoes all my edits and those of others, particularly with then are supported by consensus and are valid.Giovanni33 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made that case already (starting "You asked where your version was POV pushing ...". You are basically posting again things already mentioned. You are also posting nonsense like "St-G makes another reference". You are posting off-section stuff like your sentence about anti-semitism (the gist of it already included) and unreferenced. You are posting wrong links, you are posting POV wordings etc. Quite apart from the fact that a reference by St-G to Mein Kampf as a source doesn't justify Original Research by quoting MK at will. So stop your warring! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I told you, Str77, I would accept your edit if you sourced it properly. If you want to say, that "Michael Rissmann recounts that Hitler's childhood companion Kubizek never saw him go to church" and you footnote it with source and page number, I have no problem with that. If you want to state, "Michael Rissman believes that Hitler hated the Catholic Church" and you footnote it properly, I have no problem with that either. If you want to say, "In Michael Rissmann's opinion, Hitler's god and the Christian god have only the name in common" I support it. I do not support stating "After he had left home, he stopped attending mass and receiving sacraments altogether, thereby ceasing to be a practising Catholic." since its stated as a fact, which it isn't. First of all, we have only Kubizek's observation that he never saw Hitler go to church, which is evidence, but is not proof. Secondly, there is no agreement among editors, let alone the public, as to what the words "practicing Catholic" mean. You have your definition, which isn't accepted by other editors. Rissman didn't use those words, so neither can you. Even if he did, you at most could say, "Rissmann says". -- Drogo Underburrow 22:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So you don't accept what the sources say, even after I have pointed you to the text? Rissmann or Kubizek does not say he never saw him but that he never went and insisted on not going. The current wording is perfectly accurate, properly referenced, NPOV and all. Your opposition is smacking of something different than merely concerns for proper citations. 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept what the sources say; I don't accept what YOU say. YOU say that Hitler was not a practising Catholic; no source says those words. Its your interpretation that "practising Catholic" is justified by what Rissmann said; but that doesn't mean Rissmann said it, it just means you choose to interpret it that way. In any event, there is no way you can put statements as facts in the article, instead of telling the reader what sources are saying. Again, if you state what Rissmann actually, (as close as can be translated), says, as his opinion, I support it. If you make bald assertions in the article, without qualifying them as Rissman's opinion, I don't support it. You would never allow me to take material from Steigmann-Gall and put it in as fact, giving simply a footnote, would you? So don't do it with Rissmann. Be fair. Drogo Underburrow 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, since you have run against the wall, we are back at your old song, redefining what praciticing Catholic means. And again you are misreading NPOV policy as it is consitently applied throughout WP. I will give you an example from the section "Holocaust"

"Between 1939 and 1945 the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed about 11 million people, SAYS WHO, including about 6 million Jews[4], in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere, ACCORDING TO WHOM. Besides being gassed to death, many also died of starvation and disease while working as slave labourers, SAYS WHO. Along with Jews, non-Jewish Poles (over 3 million of whom died), alleged communists or political opposition, members of resistance groups, homosexuals, dissenting Roman Catholics and Protestants, Roma, the physically handicapped and mentally retarded, Soviet prisoners of war, Jehovah's Witnesses, anti-Nazi clergy, trade unionists, and psychiatric patients were killed, AS MR X SAYS. This industrial-scale genocide in Europe is referred to as the Holocaust BY WHOM (the term is also used by some authors in a narrower sense, to refer specifically to the unprecedented destruction of European Jewry in particular, ACCORDING TO WHICH SOURCE)."

It looks rather silly, don't you think. Have spotted a wording problem that needs fixing. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This may be seen by some as a näive comment. Given that the source material rgarding Hitler's religious orientation after he left home is, to judge from the excessive amount of agument contained herein, extremely questionable, does anyone seriously suggest that a man who can sanction the extermination of six million men, women and children can simultaneously be a practising Catholic? Never mind the sources, look at reality. And bear in mind that there is a difference between being labelled as a Catholic and actually following the beliefs of the Catholic faith, which is a requirement if one is to be considered a practicing member of the Church.Anthony.bradbury 21:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But drawing conclusions is excactly what we are not supposed to do in writing Wikipedia - especially if that conclusion is subject to our way of viewing life. Hitler got the numbers of death on his side, but there are plenty of catholics, even clerics, who are responsible for equall barbarism, therefor even the argument would not stand. Agathoclea 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a little naive, and with all due respect its basically defining "Christian" in a bigoted manner, ie- "to be Christian is to be moral", which is the refrain of those who would believe that you can determine someone's morality (or lack thereof) by simply asking what religious beliefs he holds, which is fallacious. Those who would deny Hitler's Christianity on the basis of his immoral actions are guilty also circular logic: as they see it, Hitler is consistent with their belief that all Christians are moral because he was not a Christian, and they know he was not a Christian because all Christians are moral!

Ofcorse the problem is that the history of Christianity and of the Catholic Church fits in well with Hitlers genoicidal slaughters. The Catholics slaugthtered others and other Chritians in the tune of millions of people. The medieval Catholics did everything Hitler did and more; does this mean they weren't "true Christians" either? Are gas chambers are so much worse than hacking a "witch"'s breasts off, violating her with heated metal instruments, and then tearing her limbs out of their sockets on the rack?

Also, letse not forget the Crusaders. Lets just take one example, when they took Jerusalem from the Infidels at the end of the First Crusade in 1099. They had every man, woman, and child who was not a Christian (including babies) rounded up and executed. Christian historians who accompanied the Crusaders wrote that the entire city washed in blood of civilians, with the beheading of newborns being the most graphic. These Christian brothers murdered about

20,000 in that one incident.

Repeated Question

Apologies for repeating this question but I only got one answer in response. Wondered if any others might be generous enough to comment on it. PhilipPage 21:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion taking place here with good points made from all, making for a very intriguing talk page. Quotes aside what does everyone think about the Third Reich's activities against christians, such as the decimation of the Catholic church in occupied Poland? Does this make Hitler non-christian, does it reflect contemporary German rural Catholic distaste for the clergy, the oppositional position of church against national socialism or something else? PhilipPage 00:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make Hitler un-Christian--when we look at how he treated all the churches it is clear he gave preference and protection for Chistian churches as churches, but attacked others. So, the Nazi actions against the Church were not on the basis of them being Christians, but due their political activities, specifically an issue of nationalism, not religion. The Roman Catholic Church in Poland was suppressed because it had led Polish nationalist forces fighting for Poland's independence from outside domination, historically. The Germans treated the Church harshly in the annexed regions but not in Germany. This is different than how he treated other religions and churches which were attacked because of the religion, not because of political opposition. So the question is not whether Hitler killed Christians; the question is why? When one considers that Hitler himself openly professed his Christian faith in both his writings and public speeches, and when one considers the specific actions for which Christians were arrested and killed, it's obvious that they were killed for actively opposing his government, not for being Christian. This is entirely different from his hatred of Jews (whose only crime was their religion and race) and Slavs (whose only crime was citizenship in a "Godless Bolshevik" state). Also, Hitler did have confict with the Church, but again its was due to the role of the Church with the State, which is common in history as Christians have feuded with one another for centuries over these issues, including killing fellow Christians when politics and control was involved. In Hitler's case, he also feuded with the church was over the division of power between church and state. Note that he never contested the idea that the Christian church its religion belonged in government; he only insisted that he have control over the church, rather than the church having control over him. And if you resisted this you would be suppressed.Giovanni33 01:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To provide Philipp with a sensible reply:

No, it doesn't make Hitler a non-Christian and it doesn't even make him a non-Catholic, though it indeed casts doubt on whether he were a Catholic. Gio, as always, is wrong in the reason why Hitler persecuted Catholic clergy in Poland - not because they were involved in nationalist politics, but because they were part of the elite of a nation Hitler wanted to decaptitate.

He is, of course, also wrong in his assessment why Russians and other Slavs were killed - not for being citizens of a "Godless Bolshevik state" (as Gio likes to call it) but for being Slavs, allegedly an inferiour race, and for being inhabitants of territories Hitler wanted as Lebensraum for his "German race".

The evidence for Hitler not being a Catholic however is overwhelming and the Christian belief that can be gathered from his utterances is a Christianity devoid of anything particularly Christian, going against the most basic Christian principles.

I am not surprised that Gio had to jump on this question, giving his obsessive hatred of Christianity and his distorted relationship with reality. After all, this is the guy who claimed the Soviet Union wasn't Communist and who on other pages endorses the actions of another member of the League of great mass murderers.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like its as much a personal attack on me as a reply to the question posed by Phillipp. I guess if you can't get you way, you resort to this, no matter how absurd and rediculously false your claims are. This is a step up (or down, rather), from your usual wikistalking, and POV pushing. Giovanni33 22:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Whhhaaaaat? Hitler not being a Catholic? Hitler not going to church in his adulthood? What kind of bizarre discussion is going on at this page? In a state where Hitler had tightly controlled media, he was photographed leaving church: [2](First google link, this is a pretty well-known photograph). As far as Hitler's rather Catholic methods and propaganda, he made heavy use of blood libel, of purges of dissenters to further his own aims, and lets not forget the systematic warfare, torture and murder of millions of the "non-faithful". Hitler was a true Catholic's catholic, and it's only in modern revisionist contexts (where the modern Roman Catholic church is currently being *led* by a former German WWII soldier, after being led by the first pope to apologize to the Jews for 2000 years of hatred and oppression), that there is a systematic effort to try and whitewash Hitler's faith.

But that wasn't Phillip's questions.... His questions were:

[W]hat does everyone think about the Third Reich's activities against christians, such as the decimation of the Catholic church in occupied Poland? Does this make Hitler non-christian, does it reflect contemporary German rural Catholic distaste for the clergy, the oppositional position of church against national socialism or something else?

The problem with answering such questions is that they weigh heavily upon how one thinks of the concepts of christianity, and how one assumes a "good Catholic" or even a "good [C/c]hristian" behaves. Hitler went after any and every power organization or personal affiliation that stood in his way, or in his mind, anything that made "greater germany" (i.e. Europe and northern africa) weaker. When he was attacking clergy/citizens/soldiers for being gay, he didn't care what denomination they were. When he was murdering Jews over their *genetics*, he didn't care if they had converted to Catholicism. When he was killing members of his own party for challenging his power, he didn't care about their denomination of even lack of faith.

So, does this make him a non-christian? Well, the history of most faiths is quite colorful, and christianity is no exception. Killing in the name of a faith which opposes killing seems to be the best example. Even now, many people of a modern christian faith oppose killing, and yet the current self-identified-as-christian US president is engaging in a war, with the majority of those doing the killing self-identifying as christian. One of the fundamantal tenets of many (but not all) branches of christianity (and especially Catholicism) is that from birth, we are all "bad" christians, or sinners. We make mistakes. Some of us cheat on our wives, some of us kill millions of people because we believe they have bad genetics. Some christians believe that if Hitler "found christ" during the moment a bullet was travelling towards his brain that he is absolved of all of sins. It's all over the map.

Oh, and "the oppositional position of church against national socialism"? Wow. You have some *serious* reading to do. The whole of the church wasn't in opposition, quite a few Catholics actively supported Hitler. There's fun discussion on this subject on the page about Pius XII.Ronabop 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you will be suprised to know that Str1977 actually supports your mention of this ugly part of the imperial Christian past, specifically the systematic warfare, torture and murder of millions of the "non-faithful". I asked him about his reasons for supporting it on his talk page, out of curiosity, but he has yet to reply. I don't know if he is equally chipper of the Inquisition or not.Giovanni33 19:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio, what ugly part are you talking about. And yes, I support mentioning it (whatever it is) where it is on-topic, as I don't hide facts I don't like or push to prominence those I do like. Gio, please do us a favour and read a scholarly book on the crusades before you bore us to death with your "millions". The Crusades were not any more systematic warfare (whatever that means) than other wars. (And in case anyone wonders: I do not support mass murder of anyone and never stated a thing like that. I am not so sure about some other editor posting on this page.

But to address what Ronabop wrote: yes, Christians belief that all human beings are sinful and in need of God's grace and yes, had Hitler acctually repented his hideous deeds in the last moments of his life, he would have been forgiven. However, I doubt that he did.

Yes, we all make mistakes and our sinning doesn't make us any less Christian (if we are Christian), however if he start to reject the central tenets of the Christian faith, then we are no longer Christians by definition. Now Christians disagree about these tenets and so it is a tricky business. However, the RCC is clear on its doctrine and Hitler did not believe in it and didn't practice the faith as an adult - hence, he's no practicing Catholic (a fact some editors on this page try to hide). A Christian he was only in so far, as he adhered to "Positive Christianity". That's merely facts and the result of any serious historical research and not whitewashing.

Your take on Bush doesn't need commenting. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Taunting in the introduction

The Third Reich, which he said would last a thousand years, collapsed in only twelve.

Yes indeed it did. And people can count, they don't need it pointed out to them. This sort of propaganda statement offers no information of value, and simply serves as a taunt, a way of getting in a dig at Hitler. Its highly POV, completely unsourced, and has no place in the article, much less in the introduction. Drogo Underburrow 07:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Hitler isn't exactly popular, and no defense of Hitler is intended, but this shouldn't be used as an excuse for blatant violations of NPOV which occur throughout this article. I, too, noticed this as propagandistic rather than encyclopedic.

Of course he did say it would last 1,000 years, and this can be sourced, but there's no point in rebutting it with an in-text argument - the history makes it clear enough that this didn't come true.Timothy Usher 08:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed.Timothy Usher 08:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Complaints

A little while ago Bytwerk inserted a line by Speer stating that Hitler had little attachment to the Catholic Church. No one has deleted that edit, as it is properly sourced. Your edits on Hitler not being a practising Catholic are not properly sourced; hence they keep being removed from the page. Please see and respond to my request in the section on Hitler's Catholic upbringing. Drogo Underburrow 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

They are properly sourced, at least if you mean by that: giving a source/reference for the content. See my reply. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is fully aware Hitler was a professed Catholic, but Str1977 points out that he wasn't a practicing (nor valid) Catholic. There is nothing wrong with his edits and Gio's edits do not make the article any better. This is why I had to revert to Str's. Эйрон Кинни (t) 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the third time I posted this on talk, after Str1977 removed it--never once giving a reason. His argument above does not justify removing sourced information relevant to this topic, specifically the MK quotes. As I said above, I restored the Drogo version,which contains my referenced, sourced material, " According to historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, much is known about Hitler's views on religion through Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.[23] In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote neither as an atheist, nor an agnostic, nor as a believer in a remote, rationalist divinity; instead he expressed his belief in one providential, active, deity:..." I don't know why he keeps removing this sourced material. If he has valid changes make that is fine--I don not oppose including points he has made in his arguments above, and which you mentiond---but to revert to a completely different verstion that undoes all my edits and those of others, is a different matter altogether. Giovanni33 22:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio, look into my reply above and my original objections, starting "You asked where your version was POV pushing ..." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In Str77's opinion Hitler was not a practicing Catholic, but Str77 is not a published source, so his opinions are irrelevant. Str77 keeps posting a statement that Hitler wasn't a practicing Catholic as if it was fact, which is incorrect. Its an opinion, and needs to be stated as such. As Giovanni33 says, Str77's "version" also makes a whole lot of other changes to the article, so his reversions are inappropriate as well. His use of reversion prompts an edit war, since editors have to revert back all the missing material. Drogo Underburrow 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not an opinion, Mr Drogo, but an undisputed historical fact. Name me one serious (1) historical book that states that Hitler was a practicing Catholic (i.e. regularly went to Mass, received sacraments etc.) You haven't done so far and I doubt you will now. Drogo, I can say the same things about your edit-warring and, in fact, the reverting isn't as difficult as you think it is. Otherwise, you and Gio wouldn't be doing it so frequently. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, you are shifting the burden of proof, which is another logical fallacy of yours. You are making the claim that Hitler about his religion--that he as not a practicing Catholic-- but I have not seen any source that says that. Thefore, you can't say it. There is some evidence that supports this POV, true, but it has to be stating in NPOV language, i.e. "according to..." And, if there are facts, those facts as evidence have to be stated with attribution, and specifically according to what is established and known---without your own original research, interpreting what it means to you. You can't use your own personal definition of what it means to be Catholic, instead of the definition of a source. Otherwise, you are just inserting your own opinion, not a source's opinion. You can only use langauge based on what the sources say. You can not say something you believe is true but which is contested by other editors and then shift the burden of proof to others to prove it isn't true. Other editors have already given evidence pointing that it may not be true, i.e photographic evidence of Hitler leaving a church, of Hitler praying in public, and his own frequent professions of being a Catholic. Lastly, removing all my edits in the process based, ostensibely, on this point--even if valid---will simply result in it being reverted.

Giovanni33 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I now see that AnnH has reverted back in whole, again. While she suggests I make changes, I know doing so would probably land me in a 3RR violation/block. So, I will leave it up to other editors for now.Giovanni33 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Mr Logic! We have evidence for his not attending Mass i.e. ceasing to be a practising Catholic. We have no contradictory evidence. I am talking evidence both in regard to sources and to works of scholarly historiography. If there were contradicting voices by scholars your call for a "according to ..." would be right. But since we don't have any contradiction on this point, we need only a reference. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. You have already violated 3RR! You will see whether I report you or not! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Change the name of this section back, as other editors on this page have also objected to your actions, Str77. Also, I'm not going to be diverted into discussions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter, they have to be sourced, and those sources need to be cited. No source has said that Hitler was "not a practising Catholic", those are your choice of words, Str77. Drogo Underburrow 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the section title very much. I named it that way because the section starting with your post. I gave abundant reference for what I included, which is perfectly neutrally worded and undisputed. You are trying to reinterpret reality, which is IMHO Original Research. Assuming Good Faith, I must hold your opposition ot be irrational. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this several times before, but let's say it again. We have good evidence that Hitler did not attend mass as an adult (one component of being a practising Catholic). We have no evidence (I say again no evidence) that he did any of the other things that might be considered part of being a practising Catholic. I also found the following references which, while not definitive, give a good idea of what a pratctising Catholic is.

• Contains a definition at the end, though it makes clear it is used for a particular purpose only. * [3] A practising Catholic is someone whose Catholic faith is alive and who is committed to the Church, living in accord with her teaching and laws. Such a person will normally have been Confirmed and will be in the habit of attending Mass every Sunday and Holy Day. (Cf. Code of Canon Law 1983 Canon 1247). Go down to the section entitled important notes.
• 5 Ways to know if you are a practising Catholic Includes striving to live an honest, loving life and obey the Ten Commandments.
• "What is a practicing Catholic" written by a Bishop.

To conclude you will find that in all of these regular (approximately weekly) attendance at mass is a major component of practising Catholicism, and so is striving to live within the precepts of the Church. Maybe we should judge Hitler against some of these . DJ Clayworth 17:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but this is a futile train of logic...its original research. Its not our job to decide whether Hitler was a practising Catholic or not; and we arn't allowed to come to our own conclusions on this matter. Drogo Underburrow 18:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is no more original research than you attempts of reinterpreting reality, or redefining according to your liking what "praciticing Catholic" means. That Hitler wasn't one as an adult is an undisputed historical fact as long as the statement that he didn't attend Mass remains undisputed. I have repeatedly asked you to provide a serious scholarly work of historiography that disputes this. You haven't come up with one, most probably because not serious scholarly historian would contradict such an obvious historical fact. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Practicing Catholic"

Is it original research, now, to apply the definition of a term to the subject of an article? For instance, if I say "Hitler was not a woman," and give a bunch of sources that say that he was a man, is it original research because I can't find any specific sources that say specifically "Hitler was not a woman?" The definition of a woman, combined with the fact that we know from various sources that Hitler was a man, means that the statement "Hitler was not a woman" is not original research.

I don't see why "Hitler was not a practicing Catholic" is any different. We have a bunch of sources saying Hitler pretty much never attended mass, and never felt any attachment to the Catholic Church, from childhood onwards. Aside from the question of whether Hitler strove to fulfill the Church's moral commandments, which is, of course, impossible to come to any firm conclusion about, the definition of a practicing Catholic also includes attending mass regularly. If Hitler pretty much never attended mass, he was not a practicing Catholic. Q.E.D. This isn't original research, it is simply applying the definition of a term. If we cannot do this, practically everything in wikipedia would have to be deleted, except for direct quotes from sources. john k 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, if Hitler never attended Mass that makes him not a practicing Catholic. If you get published, we can then perhaps put in the article that you say Hitler was not a practicing Catholic. Its not only a matter of NOR. As I and others have pointed out, there is no dictionary definition to the phrase "practising Catholic". Its a matter of opinion what you have to do to be considered practicing. Its not a biological property, no forensic scientist can examine Hitler's record and state, "I have scientifically found that Hitler was a practicing Catholic, since all scientists agree that if you don't go to Mass and you never take communion and you call the Pope bad names, you aren't a practising Catholic, but Hitler didn't call the Pope bad names." There is absolutely no standard at all that one can say, "this makes you a practising Catholic, and anyone who disagrees is factually wrong". I could define "practising Catholic" to be anything I want to, and so can you, and so can the Catholic Church, and there is no authority to decide who is right. Its simply an opinion. Being an opinion, it needs a source, and needs to be stated as that sources' point of view. Now, even if it wasn't an opinion, you still can't put it in the article unless its already been published. There is no rule on the policy page that states that some facts are so basic they do not have to be sourced. The policy page says that all facts have to have been published somewhere. There is no cut-off point, nowhere does it say, "Well, really obvious facts don't need sources." But in any event, "practising Catholic" is nowhere even close to being some sort of simple fact. Its just the writer's opinion.

This should not be something we should be arguing about, just get a source and attribute the phrase to that source, properly, the way things are supposed to be done. Some editors have never learned, or worse seem not to care, that deciding what is true and then saying it, instead of finding what sources say is true and reporting on it, is against Wiki NOR and NPOV policy. -- Drogo Underburrow 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that there's no dictionary definition, please see above and below. I had already pasted in a definition of "practising" (a religion) from the Oxford English Dictionary, and now I'm forced to do so again. AnnH ♫ 13:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. A similar discussion is being held on the Cuba page, where one party wants to say that Cuba is the only country in the western hemisphere that isn't a democracy, while the other side argues that you can't state that as fact, but only as a sourced opinion. Likewise, over there, someone argued that some facts are so obvious that they don't need sources. They are wrong. Drogo Underburrow 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that until you can demonstrate that some source somewhere has said that one can be a practicing Catholic while almost never attending mass, it is you who is engaging in original research. All definitions of "practicing Catholic" that we have encountered say that one should regularly attend mass. Your standard of "No original research" means that we basically can't use words, unless those words are in a secondary source. This is absurd, although I will admit that they can arguably be justified on the basis of the current wording of WP:NOR, much of which seems to have been written to justify the activities of a small group of editors in getting their way in articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps you are performing a useful service, Drogo, in attempting to apply this standard throughout wikipedia, in that it draws attention to the ridiculous broadness of the current NOR policy, which, if strictly followed, would actually result in pretty much all of wikipedia having to be removed as original research.

But to get back to the original point, there are clearly a lot of sources that view it as a necessary condition of being a "practicing Catholic" that one has to attend mass fairly regularly (at least). Unless you can find an actual source which disputes such a definition, I don't see how you aren't the one who is engaging in original research by pretending that this definition is disputed. The issue of Cuba and how to define a "democracy" is a lot more problematic, since there's a long-standing communist tradition of defining "democracy" in a way which encompasses apparently non-democratic communist regimes. I still think the problems with simply calling Cuba undemocratic aren't insurmountable, but I think there you have a genuine case. On the other hand, in this instance you are entirely basing your criticism on the fact that someone theoretically might define "practicing Catholic" in a way which would include Hitler. How can excluding a completely hypothetical and unsourced perspective constitute original research? john k 05:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no burden of proof on me to demonstrate anything; the burden of proof is always on the person who wishes to put something in the article. I don't have to prove a statement wrong to keep it out of Wikipedia; neither do I have to prove that it hasn't been published. You can't put anything into Wikipedia that hasn't been already published, and the burden of evidence to prove something has been published lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. So show me where somebody has published that Hitler wasn't a practising Catholic, and I will be happy to allow a statement to that effect that properly attributes that opinion to the person saying it. I will not accept your opinion, or any other editors claim, as to what it means to be a practicing Catholic. I don't have to, the policy pages state that articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. To examine Hitler's life and conclude that he wasn't a practising Catholic is certainly analysing and synthesizing published data. Its original research. To say I have to refute your claim is baloney. I don't have to, so I'm not wasting my time trying. Drogo Underburrow 06:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia is not intended as a debate club, where editors argue over what is true, then put the consensus of their opinion into the article as fact. Arguing over whether Hitler was a practising Catholic or not is to engage in that style of participation. I'm not playing. I insist on only published material being used in Wikipidia, with that material being properly cited, and when there is any disagreement over facts or opinions, that all significant sides be addressed in the article, and the article itself not asserting which is fact. Is any of this not how the policy pages state? If so, enlighten me. Drogo Underburrow 07:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering, why is it not good enough to simply state what the facts are according to what the sources say, and then let the reader connect the dots and come to their own conclusion about what it means for Hitler's religious standing within the Church? For instance, state all the known facts about Hitler’s religion with proper attribution for the sources that make these claims of fact, i.e. "based on the account of....Hitler did not regularly attend mass, etc. Hitler said he was a Catholic, he made public prayers, was baptised, took communion, etc. Statements attributed to him are mixed. Some say, xxx, other say yyy. According to zzz,... This way the reader can then decide what all this means. Certainly, he was not a practicing Catholic in at least many important ways. But is it enough to say this means him non-practicing, period? It seems to imply an absolute, an either on or off possition--nothing in between. The point is how much does he need to practice or not practice in order to qualify under the term "non-practicing Catholic" is not one that is really even so important for us to make--even if to make it we were right and not violating NOR. I agree such a point would certainly would be important in article on Catholicism. But with Hitler, we don't need to get into the finer points of any religious membership questions, based on his complicated religious beliefs and practices. Lets just say who said what, and who reports what Hitler did.

Religion often appears strict according to its rules but in practice few really adhere to all the rules, esp. not on a regular basis--yet millions of Christians would certainly consider themselves practicing the faith despite this. And, under examination, I good argument can be made that they are non-practicing. Its debatable depending on whose standards you apply. I say, stick to the facts as they are reported and don't worry about coming to conclusions for the reader based on our interpretation of the facts. Sure, it’s quite reasonable in many instances but if there is conflict among editors over the conclusion, then there is really no reason to state it in that way. I say allow the readers to debate among themselves what the facts as they are known mean, based on their own understanding of what the religion requires, so as to be deemed "non-practicing." I do agree in some cases where there is no dispute, on controversy, it would be silly not to connect some obvious dots and come to conclusions, but even then its based to report who said what, then do it ourselves--however obvious. Saying its best does not mean it must be so. It depends on the nature of the conclusion. Can one be a non-practicing Catholic, and still a Catholic? If they are still a Catholic then are they not practicing the faith in some way? Or else what meaning does the label, to be considered a Catholic? It seems that fact that Hitler was a Catholic means he must practice some elements of it. Also, I know many Catholics who rarely go to Church yet would be insulted if I said they were not practicing Catholics. They practice in other ways. Within the Church there is not always such a unity of accepted practices demanded by the faith. There is leeway. Isn't the Catholic Church against contraceptive/birth control? And do not most Catholics use it anyway? Does this make them non-practicing? As you can see this is not as clear-cut as it first appears. While your logic is correct, we should err on the side of caution whenever there is a dispute and stick only to the facts as reported by respective authorities in the field. If one must include the statement that Hitler’s practices or lack thereof mean he is not a practicing Catholic, according to doctrine or dogma, then, I guess we can attribute such a conclusion to some source, as well. Giovanni33 07:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To take up Drogo's Cuban example. "Democracy" is a slippy term, as you may well know that all countries of the Warsaw Pact called themselves "democratic" by using the term "people's democracy" or something along the line. Democracy is a wide field, including direct/plebiscitary democracy, representative/indiarect democracy, parliamentary democracy, presidial democracy, radical democracy, grass roots democracy, guided democracy (see Mr Putin)etc. Dictionaries can help us in finding out the proper usage of the term but in the end only reflect current usage and are not authoritative.

In our case, however, when decided what a practicing Catholic is, it is up to the Roman Catholic Church to lay down what she demands of her members. Above DJ has provided several links giving such answers. The teaching of the church is an authoritive source on this and unless she changes her mind (regardless of whether that's actually possible) we have to stick with it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, DJ is not the only one to have provided links about what a "practising Catholic" is. I gave several links above. I also gave the definition from the huge, twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary, and from a one-volume modern Oxford dictionary.

From the twenty-volume edition:

b. to practise religion [after F. pratiquer la religion]: to perform the religious duties which the Church requires of its members; to be a practising and not merely a nominal member (esp. in R.C. Ch.).

The smaller (1083 pages) Oxford Dictionary of Current English (third edition, 2001) gives

5. follow the teaching and rules of (a religion).

I made it clear above that attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days is one of the "religious duties which the Church requires of its members", and it is one of the "rules". It's not optional or even strongly recommended: it is obligatory. And no, it's not my opinion, or "original research". I referred other editors to the Precepts of the Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (sections 2041–2043). Attending Mass on Sundays and Holy Days is the first precept. There's also the Code of Canon Law. And by the way, the use of contraception does not mean that someone is not a practising Catholic. Drogo, several editors who have been here longer than you, including three administrators, disagree with your rigid interpretation of WP:NOR (which by the way, is not rigid when it concerns a version that you're in favour of, since you reverted back to the unsourced claim that "His writings also indicate that his anti-Semitism was influenced by the Viennese Christian Social movement, and his admiration for Martin Luther who wrote the anti-Semitic work,On Jews And Their Lies", after I had drawn attention to it in an edit summary. Don't you think it's just possible that you could be wrong? AnnH ♫ 13:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church does not own the English language and does not get to define what it means when other people say "practising Catholic". That's all I'm going to say on this, I told you I'm not going to play the game where editors decide what is true and false and then use those decisions to assert facts instead of properly reporting what sources say.

AnnH, please stop bringing up issues unrelated to the segment topic. You raise topics other than the one under which you post, in this case its the Luther edits, then I or other editors reply, and pretty soon there is just one big talk page with no separation of issues. You've done this before, and I've politely complained. Please start a new section when you have something new to talk about, I'll reply to it. Or post it in the appropriate old section, I'll find it, I watch the page pretty well. I'm not going to reply to off-topic issues you raise, trying to keep discussion organized.

Lastly, AnnH it's not very civil of you to use arguments implying that others may be right and I am wrong because they have admin powers or have been here longer, that's an ad hominem arguement, arguing that someone is wrong not because of what they say but who they are. Drogo Underburrow 14:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo,

endlessly repeating yourself does not improve your case.

the Church does not own the language but Catholicism owns the right to define what practicing it requires. It is you who are trying to state what is true and false by your original research on this.

editors are free to raise any topic related to the editing this article (with a certain leeway). Don't play the enforcer, Drogo, of your self-styled rules. (As you did with the edit summaries).

Finally, admin or not, there is no one on this page objecting to the factual statement that Hitler was not a practicing Catholic, except you and Gio.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not just myself and Gio who object, Agathoclea objected, and will no doubt object again when she gets back from her wiki-break. I'm repeating myself briefly, in replies to others, including yourself, repeating themselves at length. You are trying to confuse the issue, masking your own attempt at violating NOR by accusing me of doing it. I can't be violating NOR, as I am not the one trying to put something in the article. NOR is a rule for what can go in articles:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

That is what you are trying to do; insert an unpublished statement that Hitler was not a practicing Catholic, that is derived by synthesising facts about his church attendence and adherence to other Church requirements. If this fact is such an obvious one, given the vast amount of literature on Hitler in English, it should be very easy for you to simply find a source that says "Hitler was not a practising Catholic". That you haven't done so, weakens your case severely that this statement is a fact. You have thousands of books to pick from; if you can't find one, don't blame me...and don't insist that your chosen statement get put in anyway, in violation of NOR. Drogo Underburrow 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo you are being deliberately disingenuous. We are allowed to apply basic rules of logic. We have pretty good statements of what constitutes a practicing Catholic and Hitler clearly doesn't satisfy them. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So, Drogo, it's not just two editors, it's three editors. Great, really great! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Disingenuous?? How much more straightfoward can I be? I am adamently opposed to editors playing fast and loose with the basic policy rules. You are not allowed to "apply the basic rules of logic" to put facts together to come up with a statement. NOR is clear as can be that you can't do that. Read the policy, I put it here in front of your eyes. You cannot take facts and combine them and make a conclusion, no matter how obvious and logical it appears to you. That is what the policy says. You do have statements about what constitutes a practicing Catholic; but you cannot apply those statements to make a conclusion about Hitler. Thats what the policy says!! Read it, for crying out loud. Drogo Underburrow 18:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, it is you are playing with the rules and policies for reasons not clearly visible. If we used your logic, we have to deleted most of the article, as it isn't verbatim quote from some book - and note: we have to delete that as well for copyright reasons. Your objections are long past the stage of being ridiculous. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not my logic...its what the policy page says. I'm going to assume good faith here, and continue discussing this issue, in an attempt to persuade. I assure you I am not "playing" with rules and policies, but simply insisting that editors abide by the three non-negotiable policies of NOR, NPOV, and VERIFY. These policies nowhere require verbatim quotes; but neither do they allow you to synthesize material. Basically, what you have to do is paraphrase other works; say what they say, and no more than what they say, but use your own words. That solves any copyright problem, as copyright applies only to the specific words used, not the ideas. The rules also do not require that material that isn't properly attributed and sourced be deleted; but it allows editors to do so if they wish. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So, Drogo, you got it right and all of Wikipedia is misapplying the policies. WP does not say "that scientist say that the earth revolves around the sun" - it just states the fact. It doesn't even give a reference. etc. Look into other articles - no one is doing what you are demanding. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is true, most articles do not follow the rules. So what? Does that change the rules? Is Wikipedia a democracy, where editors can vote to do whatever they please? No, the policy page specifically states that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so just because many editors do something incorrectly, does not make it correct by popular will. Drogo Underburrow 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, Drogo, most (by most we mean practically all) articles don't follow your particular reading of the rules. But they get along fine. Yes, WP is not a democracy - who said it were? But WP also is not a oligarchy where a few editors can dictate an article, especially if these editors have not brought forth any sensible argument so far. Only Bubbles! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (posted in edit conflict with the following)

If most article don't follow the rules that you seem to think apply, and nobody else complains, that's a good indication that you've intepreted the rules wrongly. Your statement that 'Wikipedia editors are not allowed to follow the basic rules of logic' is one that carried to its logical conclusion leads only to chaos. DJ Clayworth 20:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it simply means most editors do it wrong. I can point to article after article where no sources are cited at all. Does this mean that those editors are doing things right, and sources do not have to be cited? If I went to one of those pages, and asked for sources, would they be right in saying what you just said? There's no difference. Drogo Underburrow 14:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll make an analogy. In the United States, most motorists drive faster than the posted speed limits. Would you say that since everyone seems to "get along fine", I'm wrong to insist that my vehicle obey the posted limits? Would you claim that I have "no sensible argument" in favor of obeying the posted limit? Would you argue that since most "don't follow the rules that you seem to think apply, and nobody else complains, that's a good indication that you've intepreted the rules wrongly"? Would you claim that if everybody followed the speed limit, it would "only lead to chaos"? That is the gist of your last posts. Drogo Underburrow 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the sources relating to Hitler's supposed catholicism are open to debate, as is shown over the many columns above this one. But do they matter? It is not arguable, except by David Irving and his ilk, that Hitler sanctioned the extermination of some six million innocent men, women and children in the Holocaust. This policy does not afford with the principals of Catholicism. Never mind the potentially arguable sources; just look at the facts. No-one who followed the principles of Catholicism could have behaved in this way. Wherein lies the argument? Anthony.bradbury 22:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"rv"

1. (cur) (last) 08:50, May 9, 2006 Str1977 (rv to accurate, NPOV, sourced version)
2. (cur) (last) 03:32, May 9, 2006 Giovanni33 (rv "totalitiarn" back to consensus A word. Also, rvt. the Owen Chadwick addition--he's a theologian and his expertis is in the Early Christian Chruch--not Hitler.)
3. (cur) (last) 00:30, May 9, 2006 Patsw (→Hitler's religious beliefs - he hated...)
4. (cur) (last) 00:26, May 9, 2006 Stanley011 (Changed "authoritarian" to "totaliarian")
5. (cur) (last) 00:07, May 9, 2006 Drogo Underburrow (→Hitler's religious beliefs - rv to properly sourced, NPOV version free from original research)
6. (cur) (last) 19:55, May 8, 2006 Golbez (TAUNT?)
7. (cur) (last) 19:52, May 8, 2006 Musical Linguist (Rv to my last one. That version is POV, and does contain OR (in last sentence of religious section).)
8. (cur) (last) 17:31, May 8, 2006 Kecik (Rv/ This is more NPOV, and has no original research. Its verifiable.)
9. (cur) (last) 17:19, May 8, 2006 Musical Linguist (Revert to my last - more NPOV. Also, I don't think we need {spoiler} except for novels and plays.)
10. (cur) (last) 16:41, May 8, 2006 Kecik (RV)
11. (cur) (last) 16:29, May 8, 2006 Kenwilliams m (→Defeat and death - +{spoiler})
12. (cur) (last) 16:21, May 8, 2006 Musical Linguist (Rv to KNewman)
13. (cur) (last) 16:15, May 8, 2006 Kecik (Rv to last by Musical Linguist--the accurate, NPOV, and compromise version by Drogo.)
14. (cur) (last) 12:56, May 8, 2006 KNewman m (typo)
15. (cur) (last) 12:36, May 8, 2006 Michael David m (→External links - Category)
16. (cur) (last) 06:35, May 8, 2006 Str1977 (rv to accurate, NPOV, sourced version, also rv change to the T word to retain consensus)

Here's the exercise for the day: How many times can we find the string "rv" in the last 20 edits or so? Perhaps the article should be protected so we can discuss things properly. Revert wars never win. --Golbez 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that so? Then why did you, without discussion, revert the deletion of "The Third Reich, which he said would last a thousand years, collapsed in only twelve." ? There's two editors on the talk page who have expressed their opposition to that statement, and no voices in favor, yet you reverted. Drogo Underburrow 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I say I was without sin? Stop fucking arguing with me about my own revert, I never said I am without sin here. I said, EVERYONE stop reverting, or I'll get the page protected and force it on us. --Golbez 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't get to pick and choose the scholars

My add to the article was deleted. I disgree with the statement the edit string: Owen Chadwick is a historian,and perhaps a theologian as well.

But even if he were only a theologian, you don't get to pick and choose the scholars that get into an article as a secondary source if they are considered reliable, and Chadwick certainly is. patsw 13:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this statement, its properly sourced and attributed. I"ll include it in my next edit of this page. While I feel that the source is not the strongest, I feel that the article needs more edits like this one, where information is given as coming from a source, and not from the editor as bald fact. Drogo Underburrow 15:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I take that back...its properly sourced...but not properly attributed. Its still stating what is, rather than what a source says. Drogo Underburrow 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a dispute over this? While one might express this idea in different words, is there a reliable source who does not hold that "From his late teens he hated Roman Catholic priests and despised Protestant pastors"? If this is disputed, what would follow next? That he didn't hate Jews either? patsw 17:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There doesnt have to be a dispute to properly attribute a POV. Drogo Underburrow 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you suggesting that Hitler's hatred of Jews is only alleged as a POV of some (or most or almost all)? Something that's held by all the reliable sources Wikipedia editors can identify, and not held by any reliable sources that Wikipedia editors can identify is not a POV, or even a shared POV, it is presented in history reference works as a fact and should be so presented in this reference work. patsw 17:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, if it is the undisputed finding of historical scholarship it is not a POV, except maybe a historians' POV. So we could say "historians say ..." ... or we could just leave it. Have another look at my pseudo-dePOVing the holocaust section.

Pat, I have no objection against including your addition - however, it should be integrated into the text. "My" version is not only NPOV, accurate and well referenced - it is also a unified text. The "Drogo"/"Gio" version is a "heap of broken images", repititive and more oriented on the TOC of their respective sources. In other words: not good! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and lest I forget: The D/G version is

• also full of ridiculous wordings, e.g. "Adolf Hitler as a child was brought up" - really, I thought he was brought up when he was thirty-six, but appearently it was when he was a child.
• still POV pushing e.g. by means of blockquotes.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not oppose you improving the text, but I do oppose you making other changes that are not related to the above "rediculous wordings,' which is not NPOV and engages in OR--esp. when you remove most of the well sourced and NPOV reporting about what is knowns about Hitler's religious beliefs from valid sources. So, your complaints above, which can be fixed, is not the real issue and not what is disputed. A red-herring?Giovanni33 06:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A POV, even if everybody holds it, is still a POV, it doesn't become a fact simply because we all agree on it. That reminds me of Rudyard Kipling's poem about the Bandar-log; the jungle monkeys. They had a chant:

"We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the Jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true..."

An opinion, never can become a fact, simply because everyone holds it. Lets not be like the Bandar-log. I am not disputing that Hitler hated the Jews; I'm not even disputing that he hated the Catholic priests. Neither am I affirming it. However, its not self-evident that he despised all Protestant clergy... its not a fact to my knowledge, its an opinion. Some might say he was simply opposed to Protestant clergy who opposed him, but had no problem with Protestant clergy who supported him, such as those clergy who where affiliated with Positive Christianity.

From his late teens he hated Roman Catholic priests and despised Protestant pastors

The source of such a blanket statement should made clear by being attributed. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, you obviously have no clue about POV and NPOV and verifiabiliy at all. Maybe rewrite this article to read: "Earth (often referred to as "the Earth") is, according to scientists, the third planet in the solar system. It is generally considered the largest of its planetary system's terrestrial planets and the only place in the universe known to currently support life. Evidence gathered by scientist X, and scientist Y and scientist Z indicates that the Earth was formed around 4.57 billion (4.57×109) years ago (see Age of the Earth) and that its single natural satellite, the Moon, was orbiting it shortly thereafter, around 4.533 billion years ago." Go there and fix that problem before you continue messing around this page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles may not contain any unpublished statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; neither can they contain any new synthesis of published data; that Hitler was a practicing Catholic, based on putting together facts that he didn't go to church, etc. is synthesizing facts to make a conclusion, and isn't allowed. End of story. Instead, find a published source which says that Hitler was not a practicing Catholic, and paraphrase that source. If you can't, then you can't say it, no matter how badly YOU want to. Its really simple. Because the bottom line is, Wikipedia is about reporting what sources say, not what editors want to say, no matter how simple or true it may be. Look, if its really all that simple and true, you'll find a source that says it, and you can then paraphrase that source, citing it, and attributing it. Drogo Underburrow 20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is really that simply? Only we have already done that countless times. To satisfy your lust for reference I will include a rather lengthy footnote to it next time. But I guess you don't care about making this a good article, you care for mucking around and playing cool, as you have done before (read your talk page)! And yes, that's actually still AGF. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, in the general case, what, to you, indicates that one is practising the Catholic faith -- in a way that is manifest externally, and attested to by verifiable sources such that it can be presented in the Wikipedia as fact and not an opinion? patsw 20:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

May I move your question and my reply to the other section? We've done it again, what started in this section as a discussion of your edits, has evolved into a discussion of the practising Catholic issue again. One cannot put into Wikipedia a statement as to whether someone is a practising Catholic or not, unless one is paraphrasing a published source that has already said the same thing. One cannot connect facts together, and draw conclusions from them.

An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.

So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:

If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones commmitted it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources. - Drogo Underburrow 21:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, in the general case, what, to you, indicates that one is practising the Catholic faith -- in a way that is manifest externally, and attested to by verifiable sources such that it can be presented in the Wikipedia as fact and not an opinion? patsw 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For both fact and opinion one needs to have verifiable sources. That one is a practising Catholic is always a matter of opinion; I've said this already elsewhere on the page. It can be a fact that an author says that someone was not a practising Catholic. It can never be said as a fact on Wikipedia that a person was a practising Catholic, as that would suppose some agreed upon standard that all people agree to. Does this answer your question? Would you answer mine now? Drogo Underburrow 22:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's your point of view that it is merely an opinion. It's my opinion that whether or not one is a practicing Catholic can be declared with the certainty of a fact in many cases, so of course "it can be said as a fact on Wikipedia that a person was a practising Catholic." In Hitler's case it can be. In answer to your question, I believe the continuity of this dialog has more value in place than in some reorganized form. patsw 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact or Opinion, it doesn't matter, to put either into a Wikipedia article, you need a proper source. Drogo Underburrow 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I competely agree with Drogo arguments. The problem with NPOV is that those who want to insert their own POV, i.e. POV pushing, really have problems with the NPOV guidelines since it gets in the way. I'm gald we have a strict policy on our side that makes it very clear how to proceed, esp. when there is disagreement: stick to reporting who said what in relativistic language--without taking sides or drawing conclusions ourselves based on what the facts mean to us. We are allowed to paraphrase in our own words what is known, and that should be good enough. If we believe something is obvious based on the facts, then let the facts speak for themselves and the reader to come to their own conclusion that Hitler was not a practicing Catholic. Im sure most would think that. Some might not, though...so unless we have a source that says this, its not fair to put our voice as Wikipedia's voice in making such a statement, esp. when the statment seems to imply and either or dichotomy. Giovanni33 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have re-edited the section again, eliminating various POV pushing statements, merging quotes from Mein Kampf (provided by Gio, but unfortunately unreferenced) with the actual text, which necessitated some rewording, attempted compromise wordings at paragraph intros, and reincluded sourced text and removed an refuted claim. Details can be seen in the edit summaries. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Enabling Act addition

Here was my version of the claim about a connection between the enabling act and reichskonkordat:

The position of the Catholic Centre Party, at this point the third largest party in the Reichstag, turned out to be decisive: under the leadership of Ludwig Kaas, the party decided to vote for the Enabling Act. It did so in return for the government's oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats signed by German states and the continued existence of the Centre Party itself. According to historians, notably Professor Klaus Scholder, Hitler also agreed to initiate negotiations for the Reichskonkordat, a treaty between the Catholic Church and the German Reich. Scholder maintains that in making this agreement Kaas was guided by his friend Cardinal Pacelli, Vatican Secretary of State and later Pope Pius XII.[3](ref to book by Scholder)

which Str1977 changed to this:

The position of the Centre Party as the largest non-Marxist party, turned out to be decisive. Under the leadership of Ludwig Kaas, the party decided to assent to the Enabling Act in return for the government's oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats signed by German states and the continued existence of the Centre Party itself. Sometimes it is alleged that the party's assent was part of a quid pro quo of interests between the Holy See and the new regime, but there is no evidence for involvement of the Holy See in these dealings.

I reverted. I think my version was superior in a number of respects. It gives a very respectable reference - as Str1977 knows well from discussion on the Pius XII page, Scholder was perhaps the foremost expert on this issue. Str1977 has removed a specific, sourced, claim and replaced with weasel words ('sometimes it is alleged') and a meaningless statement about 'a quid pro quo of interests'. His 'there is no evidence' is pure unsourced POV.

I also disagree with the fudging description of the Centre Party as 'the largest non-Marxist party'. a)was the SDP a 'Marxist party' at this point?; b) the communist party was banned; c) why is it not being a marxist party specially relevant?; d) in any case describing the centre party as 'catholic' is completely accurate and much more succinct. Why try and avoid this?Bengalski 13:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ben,

• I was wrong to simply remove what you added. However, your addition does not represent the consensus of historians and only related what Scholder argued. I have reincluded my NPOV wording while including the substance of your edition.
• You asked for marxist parties in the reichstag: take the SPD, which was still marxist in its ideology until 1957 (programme of Godesberg), despite their more pragmatice approach in practical politics. The distinction is important as the SPD never was in the Centre's position. The Centre could negotiate for its votes while the Social Democrats had nothing to gain by negotiatign with the self-professed enemy of Marxism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (posted in edit conflict)

To address the points you raised:

• Yes, the SPD was a Marxist party and I explained why it's important
• Re the qualification of the Centre party: it is in my opinion a needless label - if you know the party you know this, if you don't follow the wiki-link. Also, not all Catholics voted for the Centre Party, the party tried from time to time to "escape from the Catholic ghetto". But most of all, why is it only the Centre that constantly gets a label put in front of its name, sometimes even insinuiating that this is part of the name. You don't get much from the "Marxist SPD", the "Bolshevist KPD" or "Leninist KPD" or the "Protestant DNVP" or the "Protestant DVP" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I know they were baptised as such, but were the SPD "practising Marxists"?

As for calling it the 'Catholic' Centre party: I agree KPD and SPD are also pretty meaningless - but if we spell them out as 'social democratic' and 'communist' the first time then people will have a fair idea what they were about. 'Centre Party' could just mean anything, and it is helpful to indicate their basic ideology for the uninitiated.Bengalski 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re your first point: who defines the practise of Marxism? They had Marx in their party manifesto, Hitler fought them as Marxists, and even in the early 1950s, their political rivals could still print posters: "All roads of Marxism lead to Moscow".

Re the Centre's name: we normally don't lead readers around by the nose. I once had a dispute with EffK because he insisted on replacing my "Social Democrats" (directly taken from the party's name) with Socialists. He claimed it was "more common" and "more descriptive".

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing this sentence until you find a source for it:

"This viewm, especially the alleged incolvement of the Holy See, has however not found wide acceptance among historians."

I've referenced one leading historian who says x; you have provided no references saying 'not x', let alone the further claim that 'x is not widely accepted'.

Also please don't delete or rewrite others' edits to talkpages.Bengalski 14:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ben, Scholder himself says so and the consensus hasn't changed since then.

I have now read the second chapter you reference from Scholder (Capitulation) and I want to state that he does not state that Kaas was guided by Pacelli - he states that Kaas wanted a concordat and that Pacelli wanted one and that Kaas knew about this and that this played a part in his decisions. I have never denied this.

However, I don't think that describing Scholder as one leading historian is accurate. But more so: you say "historians" - are there any others?

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your original entry, before Str77 messed with it, was better and I restored it. Drogo Underburrow 15:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, if you want to revert to your "Hitler was raised as a child" version, with all its intentional ignorance, POV pushing, bad wording and manipulative misinterpretation of the rules, then please openly say so - don't hide behind Ben's additions. At least, he raises a valid issue (and I can say the same for his banned buddy EffK) while you are just fiddling with the rules. Goodday, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how what you say here is helpful in any way. Infact, I don't even know what the problem is with specific text your objecting to or your reasons. But what it does do is cross the line in terms of civility. We have to adhere to certain quality standard both in our edits as well as in our interactions with fellow editors. Accusing others of "Intentional ignorance" assumes bad faith, too, besides making it a personal (and unverifable) attack on the person of the editor instead of the problems you have with the edit. Could it just be possible that there is genuine disagreement? Giovanni33 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "incivil" in the least. The "intentional ignorance" was directed against the version Drogo reverted to. And as for "helpful" - when will you be doing something helpful.

Str77, I did openly say so. I wrote in the edit summary, "restoring better version, including incorrectly deleted material". That refered to both Bengalski 's contribution, and Giovanni's contributions, as well as my own, all of which you deleted, and I restored all at once. This latest post of yours had nothing to add to the Hitler discussion, and was entirely a personal attack; it is all accusations directed against me as an editor, accusing me of "fiddling" with the rules, and making deceptive edit summaries. I've done neither. As I just explained, my edit summary comment was broad, refering to all the changes I was undoing. My message here was focused, I told Bengalski specifically that I had replaced his material. As far as "fiddling" with the rules, its completely beyond my powers to make changes to Wikipedia policies. I can't fiddle with them, but I can cite them, and point out the ways in which editors attempt to violate them, often to push a Catholic or Christian bias. - Drogo Underburrow 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It was no personal attack at all. It was a comment on your edit. Your edit summary might be correct but your comment here is hiding behind someone else (Ben), as the version you reverted from was his version and not mine. As for "fiddling" - I am afraid that that is exactly what you are doing with the "practicing Catholic" issue. Not bad bad Catholics Str and Ann say so, John K and Kinneyboy agree (both obviously non-Catholics but both respecting WP rules and common sense). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Str77 I'm not going to respond to your accusations about "my" version, except to remind you that it isn't mine; the version I restored has been edited by several editors, and I take no ownership of it whatsoever. In fact, I would say that the great majority of it was written by other people, so again you are wrong. - Drogo Underburrow 18:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. Didn't I put "my" and "your" in brackets? I did so further up and in the comment you are referring to I haven't either as an oversight or because it clashed with the quotes immediately after. In any case, "my" and "your" are ways of quickly identifying the versions -"my" version is not completely my version either. Other worked on it (including you). That you care to voice such a complaint and I have to explain this to you speaks books to any sensible reader. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tag

Str1977 put the {{TotallyDisputed}} template in the section on Hitler's religious beliefs, with an edit summary "one of the last edit introduced a major misrepresentation of source (Kershaw)", and Giovanni removed it a few minutes later.

First of all, it was the wrong tag. If a section is being tagged as totally disputed, the {{TotallyDisputed-section}} template should be used. If someone feels that the section introduces enough bias and inaccuracy to make the whole article suspect, then the TotallyDisputed template should go at the top.

Secondly, Giovanni has claimed elsewhere that he never removes dispute tags from articles, and that he always respects others who put them there. If he has changed his mind, fine. I just want to make sure everyone understands that his removal of the template was a revert, and Str's replacing of the template (if he replaces it) will also be a revert, though probably not if he uses the correct template. Some people think that removal of POV etc. templates is vandalism, and that reverting of it is not subject to 3RR. In fact, it does not qualify as the "simple vandalism" that would exempt one from 3RR (though it may be seen as rather bad manners). Putting a tag on an article that had one ages ago is not a revert. Taking it off when it has been there for a long time, and some issues have been resolved or have not been stated is not a revert.

Thirdly, Str1977 gave a brief explanation of the problem (major misrepresentation of source - Kershaw) in the edit summary. Since he is not someone who makes changes without discussing them, I don't think it's necessary to tell him to take it to talk. I wouldn't be surprised if he's typing something at the moment, and I get an edit conflict with him. In any case, neither Str1977 nor Giovanni33 should ever be accused of not discussing their edits on the talk page. AnnH ♫ 18:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was my first time removing a tag. I thought it should not be done, but I learned from the Christianity article how things are done. However, I still respect the tag if it results from many attempts at working out a solution on the talk page, and having all else failed, the tag can be used for a while to get more people interested in resolving the dispute. This is how I used the tag, but even my tag was reverted. Then I learned that reverting the tag was ok. Well, I only removed the tag because I think Str should first come to this talk page and present his objections and try to work out a solution. The tag was premature, and seemed to be used to not talk about the real objections. That is why I removed it. Giovanni33 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To remove a tag within a few minutes of its placing, when it was placed by an editor who has a record of engaging in full discussion on the talk page, shows a lack of respect for the other editor, to say the least, though I would not personally go so far as to call it vandalism (as many do). Besides, the version that he tagged was one to which he had on numerous occasions presented his objections; his remark about Kershaw in the edit summary was only a new objection in addition to the older ones he had already stated (and which had not been satisfactorily dealt with). AnnH ♫ 07:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Str77, if you object to an edit, please use the talk page. Tags, I believe, are for when discussion has proved fruitless. Am I wrong? I admit it when I don't know something, and I'm not completely sure. - Drogo Underburrow

Its been hours now and no word from Str77, so there goes AnnH's statement that Str77 is not someone who makes changes without discussing them, as at least in this case, it is what he did, though no doubt she feels it is an abberation. It also appears that Str77's intention was to put up a tag and not discuss it. Perhaps he had to leave and didn't have time to discuss it. If so, in my opinion its bad form to use a tag in this fashion, as a way of expressing one's disapproval of an edit. In retrospect, Giovanni33 was completely justified in removing the tag. Had he not done so, the article would have been stuck with a tag for no reason other than that Str77 didn't like an edit. Since the edit he questioned in the edit summary was only one sentence long, it strikes me as completely inappropriate to have had a tag go up. Are we going to tag the section or article each time that one editor doesn't like one sentence? -- Drogo Underburrow 23:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Mr Drogo insists on having separate sections, I move my reply further down, including my comments on the unwarranted removal of the tag. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Make additions to links where I may have left out.

Anything not relating to Adolf Hitler himself (that is the topic of this article) was removed. The article went from over 90 KB to 64, and is still twice as long as really desired by policy.

The article had no replacement of any information or the interpretation thereof, except a link to Blitzkrieg, and was only reworded to be shorter.

Adolf Hitler category as a whole seriously needs some clean-up. There is a lot of unnecessary information and articles dumped into Wikipedia (his health has it's own section?)

If you really think that all that information should be there, is there a "WikiProject: Adolf Hitler"? Colonel Marksman 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You did remove quite a bit of information. Just a few examples: you removed all mention of "Schicklgruber" and "Hiedler" surnames, and you removed all mention of Geli Raubal.

The "32 kB" limit is quite obsolete, there are very many articles that exceed this size; indeed, out of the thousand or so featured articles I doubt that there's even a single one smaller than 32 kB. Please don't use this supposed 32 kB limit as a pretext to remove a great deal of valid information.

I took your edits to be possible vandalism, sorry if this wasn't your intent. We do get this sort of thing sometimes, for instance just today, someone reverted the September 11, 2001 attacks page to a version from July, 2004 on specious grounds. -- Curps 23:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Mind you, this is an article on Adolf Hitler. And like I said, you're supporting a 12,700 word article here!

-- Length is by far not the only problem. Most of that information I removed is quite unnecessary for the article. Wikipedia is not just some dumping grounds for all the information one has on a particular subject. The length is so great because of all this crap that ought not be here. Colonel Marksman 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the entire section on Hitler's religion. You deleted the entire section on the Enabling Act, which was when Hitler really confirmed his grip on power. That's vandalism in my book. Drogo Underburrow 00:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimming to be more concise is not the problem, although you definitely overdid it, did not try to get consensus beforehand for such a radical modification, and the 32 kB limit cited for justification is simply not applicable. The more serious issue is your removing all mention of some things which are really an essential part of any serious encyclopedic biography entry on Hitler. -- Curps 00:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, fine. Put all that controversy (religion section) back in there, but because one important section was deleted doesn't mean the whole rewrite is bad.
• We do this in our Warhammer 40,000 articles. We let the rewrite stand as improved, and simply add the parts that were left out.

Instead of going back to a bad article because sections of a better one is not as good or left out, don't go back to the bad one. It's almost like you're always overreacting here.

Work with the Wikipedians, don't overrule them.

• And what is vandilism in your book is not Wikipedia policy. You're not a dictator. That's why we have this discussion page. Colonel Marksman 00:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

-- I'm willing to work with Wikipedians and improve pages, and I say again, Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for all the information in the world. It still looks as though my entire rewrite is still better than what your reverting it back to (by far). Consider the people who use Wikipedia as source of information for 40 seconds. Until you do so, we're not helping anything.

-- Now, if you don't mind, instead of taking off the entire rewrite, at least look at it, pull out information you see needs to be in there, and discuss it.

-- You're reverting the page for the sake of what you see as vandilism, not for the sake of Wikipedia. Check your motives. I'm not here to vandalize anything, I'm not here to just do as I please, so don't treat me like a criminal prowling on the Internet. Colonel Marksman 00:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Hitler page is not too long. Its the same size as the Stalin page, but there is a whole lot more written about Hitler than about Stalin in the world. Read my comment to your original complaint. Drogo Underburrow 00:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• My gosh, are you even listening to anything I'm saying? LENGTH IS NOT THE ISSUE! What hinders the page to make it longer hinders it, and it is that unnecessary information that is dumped into here to make this page 12,700 words long.
• A lot of information in here belongs on the Nazis page. Remember, this is about Adolf Hitler, not the Nazis. There are entire paragraphs that don't even have the word Hitler! Colonel Marksman 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you MOVE (not delete) information by taking it off the Hitler page and ADDING it to another page, I support your actions, if the material is not about Hitler. If you simply delete material, you are vandalising the article. So far, you have shown no evidence of having any interest in MOVING anything; your interest is on deleting material because you for some reason don't like the idea that a lot has been written about Hitler. Drogo Underburrow 00:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked over the article and I only saw one place where there was a block of text that arguably wasn't about Hitler. I suggest you give up the idea of cutting the article's size significantly. While there are places where re-writing could condense the prose, I suggest you do it one section at a time, and give other editors a chance to look at it, rather than carving up the entire article radically. Drogo Underburrow 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Geli Raubal and "Schicklgruber/Hiedler" don't belong on the Nazi page, they don't belong anywhere but here. You haven't addressed that point at all. Your stated reasons for removing material don't quite add up. Even if your reasons for drastically deleting material are or were in good faith, please get consensus first. -- Curps 00:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Geli was possibly Hitler's "true love"; she was possibly his first girlfriend; her death profoundly affected his life. If anything, that material needs to be longer, not removed. The stuff about Hitler's name also belongs here, not on another page, and definately not on the Nazi page! Drogo Underburrow 00:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think shortening the article and eg. moving some detailed stuff to sub-pages would be a bad idea per se. But this wasn't the right way to go about it. Obviously there are editors here who have worked long and hard on the page, and to delete all that work and expect them to start from scratch is not respectful. We can try to do it together, and with civility.Bengalski 02:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Shortening is good and we should start by removing/merging repititions of the same info (my current fight in the religion section).

Secondly, deleting/moving whole issues should be discussed here first: Geli, religion cannot be ommitted (albeit in a proper form) as these are deeply personal issues. The "Schicklgruber" issue could be moved to his father's article with this one only giving a short note to it (e.g. "Opponents ridiculed Hitler by using his father's original name Schicklgruber, saying Heil Schicklgruber" or the like). Whether Enabling Act (regardless of my dispute with Ben) or the retelling of his way to power in all detail is warranted is a matter of judgement. However, it should be done only giving the broad lines and not quoting whole blocks of Hitler speeches (before you ask: we had that before).

In any case, such moves need to be discussed first on the talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, I don't think ya'll have the definition of vandilism correct. Vandilisim is the destruction of pages, scribbling all over it, and turning it into a mess (Like property).
• If I go in to cut a public lawn and remove tall plants I call "weeds", don't run in here and tell me I'm vandilizing. If I wanted to vandilize the property, I'd cut it up, litter, and make a mess out of it.
• In other words, vandilizing property is what criminals/nasty people/idiots do. It seriously offends Wikipedians to tell them their changes are vadilisim because you are telling them they are just tearing up and destroying the article.
• I know what good, hard, work is for a page. I wrote the Invasion America article, but I got excited when people came in and started editing it, not frustrated. I also completely rewrote and reorganized the Tyranids page, (twice), but I don't go in and chase people off or call it vandilism. I let their changes stand and discuss it.
• Now, the way we in the Warhammer 40,000 do complete rewrites (Which I almost suggested, but this page just looked too gross to me) is by making the rewrite on a subuser page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colonel_Marksman/Adolf_Hitler_Page (which was how I managed to revert the article so quickly).

• Instead of using the offical article of Adolf Hitler for Wikibattles or major changes, would you mind doing it here? Let's come to some agreement there, and then switch it over when the time is right.

Like I've been saying over and over: think about the people who use Wikipedia. I'm willing to set aside my hard work for that cause, and I discuss and change articles for that cause. E.g. People tell me to take pictures of my own models for Warhammer 40,000 if I have the camera. I tell them, "No. Those might be my models featured on those pages, but they're not for the better."

I'm not here to vandilize, I'm not here for glory. I do everything with a purpose. Colonel Marksman 17:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Choice of Mein Kampf Sites

Given a choice between a commercial site with advertising, that is making money off of its link to Wikipedia, and who forces you to see ads, and an ad-free page hosted by a neo-Nazi group, I prefer the ad-free site, especially as its presentation of Mein Kampf is superior. There is no neo-Nazi propaganda on the Mein Kampf page, so any objection to this site simply because the host is a neo-Nazi group is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the Stormfront is kind enough to host an ad-free Mein Kampf page, that is great and we should take advantage of it. Drogo Underburrow 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Depends on how aggressive the advertising is and how obvious the propaganda is and what the Nazi-site links to. I will first have to look at it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia's policy states: "However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints." Second, the guideline recommends avoiding sites with objectionable amounts of advertising, which the original site does not, to my eye, have. Bytwerk 22:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

We arn't using Stormfront's extremist views when we link to Mein Kampf. The page is only hosted by Stormfront, nothing on it is Stormfront's material. You are quoting this material out of context. Its discussing the use of sourced material in the article, and we are discussing an external link, a completely different issue. Finally, the passage you quote is not a Wikipedia policy, its only a guideline, its in no way official. The page you quote from can be modified by anyone, I just made a minor improvement to it myself. Drogo Underburrow 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a little more than simple hosting. Entering "crusader(dot)net" gets you to the Stormfront forum page. And the rest of the material on the site is neo-Nazi oriented. So given the choice between modest advertising at the bottom of a non-neo-Nazi page, and no advertising on a neo-Nazi site, I know where I'd prefer to be. Bytwerk 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's all there is to it. The page is hosted by Stormfront. Of course, if you type in a different URL, of course you are going to get a different page. So what? We link to the Mein Kampf page, not to the Stormfront page you typed in. You simply object to this page because its hosted by Stormfront, and I say that's no reason to look at an inferior presentation of Mein Kampf and be subjected to advertising, because Bytwerk doesn't like the hosting organization. Drogo Underburrow 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My point was that crusader(dot)net takes one to a Stormfront URL, which suggests that the relationship between the two sites is a little more than simple hosting. And if I am the only one who doesn't like a neo-Nazi hosting organization, and most agree with you that it is a good place to link to, well, then I'll be somewhat surprised, and the neo-Nazis will be happy. Bytwerk 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What "hosting" means in this case is that Stormfront supports the webpage using the same domain name as other pages it also hosts. Every webpage is a seperate document, and its not fair to object to ANYTHING that Stormfront puts on the web simply because you don't like them. The webpages on Mein Kampf are ad-free and do a superior job of presenting Mein Kampf, and there's no objective reason not to use them in preference to sites which do an inferior job and also display ads. Drogo Underburrow 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, one more try. There are pages on the "crusader(dot)net" site that take one to a site with a URL that says "crusader(dot)net/whatever." However, "crusader(dot)net" takes one to a page with the URL "stormfront(dot)org/forum". Hence my point that the relationship is a little closer than simple hosting. But as I've said above, if many others think it is a good idea to link to such a site, I'll be surprised. Bytwerk 23:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the logic presented by Drogo, I have to disagree on the basis of the links it provides to the rest of the side, and at the bottom of the same page. These link to neo-nazi essays. Even though the presentation of MK may be superior, the the other site might have advertising, I don't like having a link that links to neo-nazi POV's. For me they are outside the legitimate scope of political views, and thus should be avoided absense a critical treatment or counter-balanced presentation. I agree that the mere fact that its hosted by a neo-nazi site should not matter, but its the racist links they provide below which I find objectionable. But, this is just my view and I will abide by the consensus of my fellow editors. Giovanni33 06:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For once I agree with Gio. Since we don't need to link to a Neo-Nazi site I don't think we should. The advertisement isn't really that aggressive. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Kershaw

If you disagree with what I said, that nowhere does Kershaw agree with Chadwick, then please find where he does, and I'd be happy to delete the post. I've read Kershaw, and I don't recall him saying anything of the sort. Drogo Underburrow 18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring this section as it is a separate topic. Str77, I'm going to be the second editor on this page to ask you to refrain from undoing their edits here on the talk page. If I had wanted my comments mixed in with those about Gioivanni's removal of a tag, I would have put them there in the first place.

Don't refer to the German edition of Kershaw here. This is the English language Wikipedia. We use English language sources here except when special circumstances exist. Your convenience is not one of them. Perhaps you should be editing the German language Wikipedia article, as you seem to be given to using German language sources. If the argument is about what Kershaw did or did not say, it is the English text that is the source. -- Drogo Underburrow 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Patience, guys. I haven't yet commented because

• my edit summary was quite clear enough what my objection was
• I wasn't logged on after that except for a very short time during which I was not looking at this article.

I also find it strange Drogo is allowed to introduce such a sweeping statement - let me quote it:

"Noted Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw, however, fails to note any such hatred at this point in young Hitler's life."

with any further ado. I know that he couldn't provide a reference, since you cannot reference that someone has not stated something (unless someone else said so, e.g. Historian X said that Kershaw failed to ...). According to Drogo's own principles (with which I disagree) this statement cannot be included unless someone else (published) said so, as it is OR and a POV synthesis. Also, the statement is meaningless unless one subscribes to the principle "non in Kershaw, non in mundo". What would it matter if Kershaw failed to note such. There could be many reasons for that.

For these formal reasons I regard Gio's removal of the tag - not after hours of awaiting my full reasoning, but after five minutes - as vandalism. (The same thing happened recently under the cloak of it being the wrong tag (if so, then rectify it) but I am not sure right now whether it was Ali or Gio).

Anyway, after all this formal stuff, let's go to the heart of the matter. Drogo's claim is unreferencable and unverifiable, which already casts doubt on its inclusion, However, I have skimmed through hundreds of Kershaw pages (German edition, hence page numbers might differ - I will give German page numbers, the Chapter. For a better, cross-lingual orientation I will also give the referencing notes, which should be the same in the English version):

• Volume 1. Chapter 2 (German title: Der Aufsteiger)

referencing Karl Honisch, calling his report "putting Hitler in the best possible light" but nonetheless "a plausible picture" (page 93 - next note is 263)

further down (page 94) two topics fed his (Hitler's aggression): the Jesuits and the "Reds" (note 265)

• Volume 2, chapter 14 (German title: Unentwegte Radikalisierung)

referencing Goebbels' report: "the Führer thinks Christianity ripe for its demise" ... Hitler loathes every compromise with the "cruellest institution coceivable" (note 212) ... Hitler indicated that some time in the future Church and state should be separated from each other, the concordat of 1933 between Reich and Vatican should be annulled and the whole force of the party directed on the "annihilation of the Pfaffen" (derogatory term for priests) (page 79, last words 80)

futher down: "In the Church question the Führer is increasingly radicalising." He had agreed to the start of "Sittlichkeitsprozesse" (trials for sexual offenses) against clerics. (note 216) During the next week Goebbels underlined various times Hitlers verbal abuses against the clergy ... (note 217)(page 80)

So after only a cursory skimming through the two massive volumes I have found two passages where Kershaw mentions anti-clerical utterances. I am sure a thorough reading would turn up many more. Also, a biography does not tell the reader on every page something that is a consistent feature of its "protagonist". Hitler hated the Church and her priests in 1913 (as Kershaw above tells us), he hated them in 1937 (as Kershaw above shows) and he hated them all the time in between. (BTW, Kershaw also positively states - page 81 - that Hitler as not showing a occupation with the "Jewish question" - no one concludes that therefore he wasn't an anti-semite). Drogo's statement, referring to "young Hitler's life" is therefore disproven. This also casts a bad light unto him, who is normally so super-scrupulous regarding references or even synthesizing sources.

Next to these considerations, Drogo's inclusion of the weasel word "claim" when referring to Chadwick (while reporting neutrally on Kershaw's failure - which now is a disproved claim) pales in importance.

Regarding the whole paragraph: I have no objection against including this info but it has to be integrated into the text structure. Some complain that the article is too long - we don't need to waste space by repeating the same info again and again and again.

And, guys, please don't hit Ann for judging from her good experience with me. And don't hit me for drawing my conclusions from my experience with you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. Don't forget that it was Kershaw who endorsed Rissmann's book in most lauding tones. So I guess he doesn't object to the treatment of the basic facts, if not with the entire thesis (into which I haven't delved much). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So, now down here: Drogo please spare me all your nonsense (to remain as polite as I can) - you introduced a claim into the article that has been found out to be wrong. If you doubt the translators, then look up the passage I provided and report. Note: it was you who included an unsourced, unreferenced, from memory, claim, while I took the trouble of skimming through hundreds of pages. Regarding the usage of a German source, read this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. It says "English-language sources should be provided whenever possible" - if I could I'd use a Rissmann translation. The case of Kershaw is different, as this is not about referencing info in the article but about evaluating your claim, which turned to be ... well, read above.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether Drogo's claim about what Kershaw doesn't say is right or wrong (and it certainly seems to be wrong based on Str1977's references), it's rather POV to make such a claim. The NPOV policy used to say (I haven't checked it very recently) that even the word "however" should avoided, as "John says X; however Fred says Y" carries a slight implication that John is wrong. The Kershaw-doesn't-mention-it claim seems to be designed to introduce doubt as to the accuracy. So what, if he doesn't say it! Does he contradict it?

As for the "Don't refer to the German edition of Kershaw" order, certainly the English version, rather than the German version, should be quoted and referred to in the article. But there's really no rule that says that editors may not "refer to the German edition of Kershaw" on a talk page. Especially if quotations from it disprove a claim another editor made that something is not to be found in Kershaw. I'm not a historian, and I've never read a book about Hitler, but it seems that Str1977 has found references that call Drogo's claim into question, and has given nearest footnotes, to make it easier to find them in the English version. To brush this aside with "Don't refer to the German edition of Kershaw here" suggests that the argument has been lost. AnnH ♫ 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Str77, Please stop effectively moving my comments around on the page. I've undid your changes. Do not insert a later comment of yours in such a way that it breaks up my text, or the chronological order that mine where made in. The passages you cite in Kershaw do not contradict what I put in the article, which I will elaborate on shortly. - Drogo Underburrow 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, AnnH, there's no rule about using German material on the talk page. I don't think there is a rule against using German on the talk page, either. Str77 could if he wanted to, I suppose, use his German edition of Kershaw, and make his comments in German, too. So much for the rules. Str77 has made me look up his comments by note number, so I could see what he claimed refuted my statement in the article. So be it. I said what I said, protesting against being forced to deal with a German translation of an English book, because I'm tired of Str77's repeated use of German material. There is no lack of sources in English on Hitler. There are so many, that no one can read them all. So there is no reason for anybody but a scholar to go to German sources. For a scholar, its a different story. Wikipedia is not meant to be a cutting edge scholarly journal, its just an encyclopedia that is supposed to go to the most widely used secondary sources, and report what they say. German sources are not widely read by English speakers. Str77 should be putting what Michael Rissmann has to say, into the German language article on Hitler, where other German speakers and check his work and comment on it knowledgably. Now he's asking us to deal with the German edition of one of the most popular English language biographies of Hitler. No, he's not violating any policies, but I think he is being very inconsiderate of English speaking people.

No, AnnH, my objections about language are not a sign that I've lost any arguments. I'm going to reply now and show how truly absurd Str77's claim is that he has shown my edit to be wrong. And I hope that after this, Str77 will go out and buy himself a copy of Kershaw in English, considering the amount of time he spends on the English language article on Hitler. Drogo Underburrow 00:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify the dispute:

The entry was made into the Hitler article that Chadwick claims that from his late teens Hitler hated Roman Catholic priests and despised Protestant pastors.

To which I added a qualifier: Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw, however, fails to note any such hatred at this point in young Hitler's life.

Str77 objected to the qualifier.

To prove this qualifier incorrect, one must find somewhere where Kershaw notes such hatred and despisal in Hitler starting with his teens. On books that have detailed indexes, like Kershaw's, its really not that hard to check. Str77 claimed he found two instances that proved the statement incorrect.

Str77 found a passage where Kershaw speaks about the recollections of one Karl Honisch. Honisch met Hitler in 1913, when Hitler was 23 or 24. So already, this has nothing to do with Hitler's attitudes starting with his late teens, but is about Hitler's attitudes in his early to mid-twenties. Already, anything that Honisch has to say does not contradict what I wrote. But lets see what Honisch does say.

He says that Hitler had two subjects that above all aroused Hitler to make heated and forceful tirades: the Jesuits, and the "Reds".

Now, a tirade against the Jesuits does not in any way mean that you hate all Roman Catholic priests. The Jesuits are a very specific order, and one cannot say that whatever applies to them applies to all priests. For example, Switzerland until the last half of the 20th century, banned the Jesuits entirely from Switzerland. Does this mean that no Catholic in Switzerland went to Mass? No, of course not. Priests where not banned, just Jesuits. If you want more proof that the Jesuits are not even close to the same thing as all Catholic clergy, read Suppression of the Jesuits.

So, Honisch's recollections of Hitler in Kershaw are from a later date, and in any event do not say anything about Hitler's attitudes to the Catholic clergy. Str77's first example is invalid.

Moving on to his second example. I don't even have to bother to look it up. Goebbels is speaking of Hitler's attitude as a middle aged man. It doesn't even matter what Goebbels says, he's talking about a time period long after the one being dealt with in our statement under question.

Str77 is really exaggerating his claims when he says he has proved me wrong. To show you how he exaggerates, he sums up his argument by saying "Hitler hated the Church and her priests in 1913 (as Kershaw above tells us)." and I've shown how Kershaw has said no such thing. What Kershaw said was that Honisch reports that Hitler would rant about Jesuits.

See how Str77 takes a fact, that Honisch claims Hitler ranted against Jesuits, and exaggerates it? Then later he says, rudely, that I am wrong and it casts a bad light on me.

Now, Str77 says he skimmed hundreds of pages. We can assume this was the best proof he could find in Kershaw to refute what I said. He hasn't refuted what I said. So my statement stands, nowhere does Kershaw support Chadwick's claims that from his late teens Hitler hated Roman Catholic priests and despised Protestant pastors. Frankly, I don't believe Chadwick's claims; but he's a source so I reluctantly agreed to let his statement be in the article, though other editors rightfullly argued he is such a bad source about Hitler that he should't be quoted. Frankly, after considering Kershaw's lack of support, I'm inclined to agree. Chadwick made his claim in a popular book about the history of Christianity. He provides no sources or footnotes. Under the guidelines page, for topics that are historical like Hitler, the guidelines recommend that sources be limited to peer-reviewed material that is footnoted and sourced. I was being very liberal about sources to support the inclusion of Chadwick's material, in an affort to be accomodating to a pro-Church element and when I try to give another source's POV to alert the reader that maybe Chadwick is wrong, Str77 jumps all over it tags the entire article.

Saying something is or is not in a book, is a factual statement. Either the author did say it, or he didn't. Its fact, anyone can read the book and find out if its true or not. To give an neutral example, if Chadwick had said that Hitler was a space alien, I cannot find any source that contradicts this. So, I have to report that other sources do not say this, that Chadwick is the only source that does, and let the reader come to thier own conclusion as to who is right. This is being NPOV, telling the reader what sources do and do not say, and making no choice as to who is right. This is what I have done with the Chadwick quote. Chadwick states that starting in his late teens Hitler hated Catholic priests and despised Protestant pastors. Reading the most popular scholarly biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw, I could find nowhere that Kershaw said this; so I put into the article, that Kershaw fails to note any such hatred at this point in young Hitler's life. Just like in the space aliens example, this is being exactly how NPOV NOR and VERIFY are intended to work. Drogo Underburrow 03:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For reasons stated above, and as I previously stated, I do not think we should include Chadwick as a source for the Hitler page. He just is not the best source for this topic, and his statement does not find support in other sources. This is why we should stick to high standards: quote from notable authorities who are experts in Adolf Hitler and the history of this period. I'm sure if KMHO3 were here, he'd agree. Given that the section is getting rather large, I move we dispense with that Chadwick citation and stick to better sourced material such as Byzek cited below.Giovanni33 21:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Drogo for restoring the material Str1977 removed, it saved me the work of doing it myself. I oppose removing the qualification of the Table Talk source, as that is a widely used source for almost all the alleged anti-Christian quotations people have read. So, I think its important that it remains.

I also agree that there should be an English source for references uses when possible, since this is the English version of Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to other languages being used but an effort should be made to use sources that most of us can readily read and understand for ourselves, if for no other reason than to act as a check and balance, a sort of peer review, to see if the sources you claim are saying what you say they are saying, are really saying it. From what I've seen you often like to read into and interpret what an author means, which is not allowed.Giovanni33 05:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, you are really predictable.

1. I foresaw you claimíng that while my example were indeed there they did not apply to your statement because Hitler was a few years too old. While technically true, it is stilly misleading - Kershaw mentions such outbursts a few years later would me truer to what Kershaw wrote. As for Jesuits not being the same as priests - they were seen as the vanguard of the Pope and always were hit first in persecution measures, and often they stood in as a pars pro toto for all of clergy - so much that the RCC was sometimes called Jesuite Church. In the Kershaw passage "Jesuiten" is but in brackets, suggesting a not so strict usage of the term.
2. Including now "other historians" (unnamed so no one can refute you this time) is just another of your tricks. WP is not for you to put up claims with limited relevance (see the next paragraph) only for your fellow editors to track them down as false.
3. It is completely irrelevant what some authors do not state - especially since you are narrowing it down so much and especially since the same author clearly states similar things.
4. Regarding the Chadwick paragraph: I have stated frequently that it still needs to be integrated into the main text, hanging around now rather loose between childhood and adult life. However, for de-POVing him we don't a contradiction supposedly from other historians (which do nothing of the sort) - by prefacing Chadwick's view with "According to Chadwick ..." we have already dePOVed him. Stating alternative views is good but "X doesn't state that" is not an info worth including (especially since it's false).

Since you, Drogo, drew a wrong conclusion from my statement, let me reiterate: "I skimmed through Kershaw" - it was no thorough reading of - I went very quickly and only looked for one thing. Certainly I missed quite a few possible examples (and some I skipped though I read them, thinking the two above more comprehensive in Kershaw's narration).

Gio, your desired qualification (as I said countless times) is false, as Table Talk is not hearsay but a protocoll from memory and as it is not the source "for almost all the alleged anti-Christian quotations" - we have Goebbels, Speer and others.

Gio, you should thank me for integrating your Mein Kampf quotes into the text and if you ask me I will even provide the references you seem to insist on ommitting.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research

Hitler however, like many other Catholics, felt that he was still a Catholic even if he did not attend church. He maintained to the end of his life that he was a Catholic in good standing with the Church, and the Church never issued a statement contradicting him.

Since when is Wikipedia qualified to state as a fact what Hitler actually felt? Do we have some proof that he never told lies? If so, why don't we put that in the article. And can someone refer me to a statement he made a few minutes or hours (I'll be generous and even accept days) before his suicide that he was a Catholic "in good standing"?

This original research is on the same level as the recent statement that he received the sacraments "devoutly" as a child. Gosh, we don't even say that about Pope Benedict. AnnH ♫ 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not original research. Its from John Toland, Adolf Hitler p.803, where it says he was still a member of the Church in good standing, and that he stated "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" . Drogo Underburrow 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

But you didn't put "According to Toland, Hitler was still a member of the Church in good standing." You stated Toland's theory as if it was a fact. Also (and this is really where the original research comes in), you stated that Hitler felt that he was still a Catholic. We don't know what Hitler felt. By stating what he felt, as if it's an indisputed fact that he felt that, you were introducing original research in the sense that you were deciding that Hitler was sincere when he referred to himself as a Catholic. Also, "maintained to the end of his life" is unsourced, because, as I pointed out, we'd need a quotation from him from shortly before his death. AnnH ♫ 02:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"According to Toland ..." is the farthest we can go. The statement is referenced but it is also definitely incorrect or at least misleading ("good standing" being a bit ambiguous). Toland is, despite the book's subtitle, not the definitive biography but actually a highly superfluous book, as it aims at merely listing events without attempting, as the author put it, to issue a "thesis" - he might think that this makes it objective. However, such a thing as an objective book is impossible. I don't understand why we need to use this third rate book when we have Kershaw and other grand masters. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In respect of "now as before", surely, "According to Toland Hitler stated that..."?--shtove 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR evasion through puppetry

Giovanni33, you have misused your Kecik username to break the three revert rule, in violation of WP policy:

1.21:58, 11 May 2006
2.07:05, 12 May 2006
3.07:17, 12 May 2006
4.19:45, 12 May 2006.

Please self-revert.Timothy Usher 20:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You have misused your free-speech rights to break Civility, in violation of WP policy with your assumptions of bad faith. Please self-retract your false statement. I note that this is not the first time you have done this. Just a week ago you made the same false accusation about MikaM, and you were properly rebuked by other editors. In fact, I believe it has been stated that a user check was already done and proved that no connections exist between me and these other users. And, as others have said:

Your hunch that MikaM (now Kecik) is a sockpuppet is of no concern to any of us, nor any sort of excuse for incivility. If you want to claim MikaM is a puppet, you need to get Checkuser to confirm it. Otherwise, any such claim will be understood as a simple insult and reported as such. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest your use of the talk page be more about the content of the article, rather than making false charges that you know are false. This is distruptive, bad faith, not civil, and takes us away from meaningful issues into petty, speculative and personal ones. Meant as an off topic distraction, or insult to two editors? Giovanni33 02:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my comments.Timothy Usher 03:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, you have once again misused your Kecik username to break the three revert rule, in violation of WP policy:

1.18:41, 14 May 2006
2.19:40, 14 May 2006
3.20:35, 14 May 2006
4.22:17, 14 May 2006

Please self revert.Timothy Usher 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You have once again misused your free-speech rights to break the Civility rule, in violation of WP policy with your assumptions of bad faith. Please self-retract your false statement. I note that this is not the first time you have done this. Just a week ago you made the same false accusation about MikaM, and you were properly rebuked by other editors. In fact, you are aware that user check was already done and proved that no connections exist between me and these other users. Therefore, please self-retract your statment. Giovanni33 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my comments.Timothy Usher 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise? Majority?

Edit-warring Giovanni has just reverted again, writing in his summary:

"No point to edit war when the majority of editors support this version. Get consnesus on talk page first.)"

I think it funny that he is accusing others of edit-warring or about getting consensus. My numerious arguments and objections have yet not been adequately answered, some issues not even answered at all. Also, I have a few days back put a lot of work into including (still unreferenced) additions by Gio, while he and Drogo are simply reverting. Right now, however, I simply want to ask what majority he is talking about?

Only he, Drogo and Agathoclea prefer "your" (for the usage of possessive pronouns read further up) version (not counting your socketpuppets, Gio), while "my" version is preferred by myelf, AnnH, Timothy Usher, Kinneyboy, Patsw, Bytwerk, and (regarding one issue) John K. In my book that makes 3 (with two puppets) vs. 7. Does sound like a majority for ... And before you jump again, Drogo, no, WP is not a democracy, but still ... Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni is "edit-warring"? What are you doing, Str77? I see just as many Str77 reverts as I see Giovanni reverts. You state that your arguments have not been answered; you are entitled to that opinion; but your holding this opinion does not make it a fact. Your count of who is for and who is against the current article version is bogus. You omit editors who have reverted to it in the past, while including editors who have never reverted to your version. And, why do you bring up meaningless points, Str77, while in the same breath acknowledging that they are meaningless, as Wikipedia is not a democracy? Drogo Underburrow 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What you call "my opinion" is not a matter of opinion. Most of my point raised above haven't actually been addressed by you or Gio.

In as much as I have to defend accuracy, historical facts, NPOV etc (in someone else's words: "The history is against you!") I am engaged in an edit-war too. However, I wasn't the one that brough up this name.

The same goes for the "majority" issue - Gio brought it up. (and BTW, numbers is not meaningless, they are just not decisive but they do add some weight) And I don't say "my" version is better because of the number of people supporting it, I say "my" version is better for the arguments repeatedly made above. And as for counting: why should I only count the ones that have reverted. Various people have made their views known without ever reverting.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see your specific objections. I don't see them, and those that I did see were answered by others ,and compromises have been made regarding them. If you removed sourced, relevant material, it will be opposed. Mention of Table Talk qualifiers should be properly stated, as they are now. Your version removes all mention of this.Giovanni33 22:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "Kecik", where are your objections on the talk page? Please do join.Timothy Usher 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Kecik supports Giovanni and Drogo and other editors, including myself. So, no need for him repeat what others have said. Btw, Im no socket puppet. And you may have noticed I have not joined in any edit war of late. If I were a socket, then I wonder why Gio is not using me? I feel neglected!MikaM 05:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I submit that, as a matter of principle, he ought to show up on the talk page, especially in light of his edit summary, which criticized others for supposedly not doing so. And I should like to hear from him, in the same unequivocal language you've just used, that's he's not Gio's puppet. If we're going to be speaking of a "majority," I want to hear from that majority. I think you - and Kecik - will agree that this is fair.Timothy Usher 05:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo in my last edit summary; meant User:Kecik, naturally.Timothy Usher 09:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mika. I do not mean to neglect you. If you will kindly revert to "my" version, and pretend I'm pulling the strings, then all will be good. hehe Seriously, it doesnt matter if you revert to my version or not--do what you think is best. Either way, I'm sure the likes if Timothy will continue to slander you as he has been doing since your edit contirbutions supports mine rather closely (thanks!). Do not be intimidated from editing as you think is best by such unprincipaled tactics.Giovanni33 18:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected page

Practically all I see on the page history for this page is reverts. I've protected the page- please resolve disputes and then request unprotection by me or using WP:RfPP. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection was long overdue considering the nonsensical edit war going back and forth with little progress by the typical edit warriors. So, a page protection is needed to get them to actually state their objections and find out what consensus is, including an understanding of the rules.Giovanni33 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the version that's protected, but that's beside the point. Can we please come to some sort of consensus here? Al 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd love to reach a consensus if only others would stop playing games with the rules (as with what Kershaw said or didn't say) and valued attempts to create an actual text instead of a collection of unconnected elements. I have tried that several times but only got reverted all the way. Points raised on the talk page were left unanswered or brushed aside by some technicalities. But I see your post, Ali, as a sign of improvement. Please, don't prove me wrong. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a {{TotallyDisputed-section}} template to the "Hitler's Religious Beliefs" section as this is primarily what the debate is about. This was suggested by Str1977 on my user talk page. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Deskana. I think it only fair to both disputing editors and readers unaware of the dispute. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting a new section where we can discuss the dispute. Drogo Underburrow 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)