Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Hitler and the church

I find it odd that the material about Hitler and German churches is in the legacy section, but the content is helpful. I propose creating a new section in the article (just before or after the holocaust section) or... maybe a link to a new article, Hitler and the church would be appropriate. Thoughts anyone? Wyss 16:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hitler and the Churches is certainly a very interesting topic. Some of that should be in the Gleichschaltung article. But the churches in the Third Reich, especially the Catholic Church, e.g. the agreement of Hitler with the Pope is a topic that deserves special attention. ben 05:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
the Hitler article is already overloaded with the story of the Third Reich and WWII. There could be some comments on his religious beliefs (actually there are already some), but not about the official policy with the churches. ben 15:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think so too. Maybe a separate article then... Wyss 15:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The german wiki has an article on the subject, see de:Religion während des Nationalsozialismus. Also, there is de:Ariosophie and our Nazi mysticism, a separate, but related topic. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... ready-made maybe. Wyss 20:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wrote my thesis on this subject. I will be happy to split this off if that is okay with everyone Jprismon 03:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please! Wyss 05:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy against original research. —ExplorerCDT 06:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, let's wait 'till we see it... AH had some well-documented interactions with the church and one can always strip out any stretchy inferences. Wyss 10:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Noted. I am planning on staying inbounds on the generally accepted view of Hitler's relation with the church and the neo-romanticism and cult of Hitler topics. I will split this out this weekend. Jprismon

Starting to work on it here: Hitler and Religion (Bad timing, computer crashed and I lost a good chunk of the work). Still working on it. --Jprismon 05:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I have a big chunk to do I usually write it in a text editor (and save a lot) to avoid that sort of unhappiness but you've likely thought of that by now [grin]. Thanks, btw. Wyss 10:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it was msword. Curse it all. --Jprismon 23:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reviled

Someone asked why the word's been called redundant... it's also used at the end of the article. I'd noticed it before and decided I didn't care, although normally an adjective like that shouldn't be repeated in a single article. Maybe substitute loathed or hated for one of them? It's certainly accurate. Wyss 06:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that "reviled" was used again at the end. The lead section, acting as it does as an introduction to and summary of the rest of the article can repeat some of what follows. I don't have a problem with the repetition of the word "reviled", and "loathed" or "hated" are not quite synonymous. Paul August ☎ 13:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I not only dislike the redundancy and repitition, but feel that the placement in that particular sentance is poor prose. Neutrality is also an issue, no matter how unpopular the individual in question (and Hitler is arguably the most unpopular individual in history) we should strive to present them fairly, allowing the reader to form their own opinions. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, also regarding keeping a steady neutrality. The results of his efforts do speak for themselves (as noted above etc). Wyss 14:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding concrete information on the defeat of Hitler. The information I do find is sort of beating around the bush, and I need a soild answer, quick (the due date of the project I need this for is in 2 days). If you know of anything on the internet that states the exact way and aprox./exact(exact preferred) date he was defeated, can you please tell me? If you read this after February 20, 2005, don't bother, because I need it before them. I have one more question. I had never heard of this site before, and just found it yesterday while using a search engine to research about Hitler. I am a little speculative about the authenticity of the information on this site, seeing as how basically anyone is offered a chance to start an article about a subject that has not been used before. Is there someone who reviews the information and insures that it is not just a bunch of made-up stuff? Dana 16:33 February 20, 2005

Yes, there certainly is, and his name is apparently Dana? Would you like to form a user account? Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, his name is not Dana, that is my name, and I am a she. Do you have any information on the defeat of Hitler. Why should you have a user account (ie: necessary)

Hi Dana, welcome to Wikipedia. If you're looking for information on AH, you might want to read the article. After comparing it with other sources you should be able to decide for yourself how accurate it is, and how helpful it might be to you. Wyss 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have read other information, and ithas said was repeatedly beat as a child, yet this article says that he just didn't like his father and his upbringing was normal for the time, was it normal for the time to give your child daily whippings? And then some say his whole family was also beat by his father, do you know if this is just an overexaggeration? -Dana

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. We all peer review each others work here, and since you are now involved this far, you have just as much right to verify information as anybody else. You don't have to form a user account, but it helps alot if you want to do stuff like edit. As far as your questions, I have no idea, a good % of what I know about Hitler is already in the article, the rest is mainly conjecture, as any stories about his upbringing are certain to be. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About AH's relationship with his father Alois, it was "normal" for boys at that time and place to receive punishment in the form of beatings (this sounds odd and cruel to most of us today). While young Adolph had arguments with his father, and was teased by him (again, not unusual) drawing any sort of causality between the sort of parental discipline he recieved and his later behavior is utter speculation. In principle, it's probably more significant that Alois died when Hitler was on the cusp of his teens but again, drawing a relationship between that event and AH's later life is ultimately guesswork. Taken as a whole, the disarray of his family and the early deaths of his parents probably played their part, and the article includes the documented facts pertaining to that. Wyss 00:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally I take the word of Hitler himself, and his doctors. Hitler claims that he was inspired to believe as he did by observing the Autro-Hungarian empire, by reading tracts and opinionated newspapers, and by being suprised to discover Jews were an ethnicity as well as a religion, and that some of them were not German in his eyes (I think he may have been refering to hassidim, as he remarks that previously Jews had looked much like any other german, but that the Jews of the city did not). Also, his doctor suggests that he had syphillis, and regularly recieved methamphetimine injections. See Hitlers medical health for more info. I seriously doubt his upbringing was of any great import. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The drug aspect may be significant, starting at Pasewalk, the field hospital where he recovered from temporary blindness as the Great war ended. It appears he regularly took methamphetimine and cocaine through the 20s and 30s and 40s, both prescribed by doctors. Moreover, the essentially toxic "treatments" his personal physician Theo Morell was giving him by 1942 almost certainly had an effect on his behavior during the 39-45 war. There's a story that on July 20, 1944, a young doctor treated AH immediately after the bomb explosion with cocaine (swabs in the nose, as I recall), and was subsequently shocked to learn that one of the daily "drugs" Morell was giving Hitler was bella donna (a poison). By any account I've ever read Morell was a quack (not an assasin). So one can assume a likelyhood of some influence on his behavior but again, aside from that context, it's speculation. Wyss 01:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The word allowed

I mistakenly thought there had been a consensus for that. I prefer encouraged since promoted sounds like he was selling soap (which he was but that's another story). Let there be no doubt he was behind it... they obviously avoided a paper trail at the time and/or burned it. I also removed a repeated sentence, artifact of the rounds of editing this AM I guess. Wyss 13:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

  • Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My recent edits

  1. I removed the Krockow paragraph about secrecy over Hitler's life, as it smacks of original research (a wiki no-no) and reads like a badly written college sophomore's term paper.
  2. I removed the statement that Hitler was born "around 18:30 LMT" - who knows that? is it on his birth certificate? I find it speculatory and vague, and I doubt it will ever be verifiable.
  3. I reorganized some of the section divisions in the article, as we had one title saying "biography", which had nothing to do with biography...just original research interpretations. I organized Biography into the section entitle "early life" putting "Childhood" "Early Years Vienna and Munich" and "First World War" as subsections.

We really have to pare down this bio...it's out of hand and just tries to accomplish too much...including aggrandizing insignificant detail. —ExplorerCDT 06:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I saw that you again ignored that I asked for discussing some points and you just undid my changes. I wonder whether the talk page tells us more about dictatorship and democracy than the article. I saw in RequestedMove you called somebody an "annoying little gnat" 2 times with no reason, just because he/she asked for a discussion. Anyway, I take a time out, I was very upset to see the page two weeks ago because it was just so bad and I did a lot of changes. I see the page got better a lot. A lot of more changes are needed and I wanted to see for some, but I don't see a positive atmosphere and I don't have the time to just argue with some people who don't have the necessary understanding of democratic procedures or just culture of discussion. You can change whatever you like, I am in time out. ben 07:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • That kid has been annoying for the last three weeks. Not just twice. Discussion is o.k., I like discussion. But when things are glaringly wrong, I have no compunction whatsoever about making them right. —ExplorerCDT 07:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two remarks... it's a historical fact Hitler was secretive about his genealogical origins, that they were rather more incestuous than "average" and took documented steps to research and "erase" parts of his past (whatever the reason, although the most recent scholarship tends to limit any possibility he was 1/4 Jewish, the existance of a doubt was political fodder for his opponents etc). Meanwhile, I'm all for paring down the article where possible, keeping in mind this is a way significant topic that merits a somewhat longer than average, but succinct bio/article. Wyss 02:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree that something needs to be mentioned, but the two paragraphs I removed at the head of the bio article were poorly written, smacked of a sophomoric effort, and in my mind, were more an attempt to bring publicity to these two historian's theories rather than promote serious analysis of Hitler. Something should be mentioned, just not that way. —ExplorerCDT 15:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT, I agree with your reversion of the first paragraph back to what was agreed upon last week. Wyss 03:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks, the kid who was editing is supposedly an admin...some admin not even bothering to see the discussion page to see we talked about it. He finally apologized. —ExplorerCDT 15:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paring down the Biography

As some of us have agreed, the bio needs to be pared down...not with regard to content, but in superfluous writing, awkward construction and insignificant detail. I'm more than happy to start, but I'd like to seek your guidance before embarking on what may be perceived as too disruptive an endeavour. Comments? Suggestions? Things you'd like to see added or removed? —ExplorerCDT 15:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

203.36.44.13

why his edits were reverted? i think his edits were fain. --Haham hanuka 15:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • 203.36.44.13/203.36.44.14 stated that Hitler's sexuality became ambiguious when he started gymnastics especially after experience on the pommel horse? And that his "famous comover (sic...comb-over, i think) had its origins from the gymnastics days? Are you smoking something? What the hell is fain? —ExplorerCDT 16:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • [1] what's wrong with this edition, he worte about some speculation about Geli's death and worte something about Hitler's autopsy... where did he write about his sexuality?? --Haham hanuka 16:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm... if you'd look yourself, you would see: [2] where he incorrectly replaced "british empire" with "french empire", [3] where he mentioned the sexuality issue, and [4] where he mentioned the comb-over after RickK reverted his earlier vandalism. The section on Hitler's alleged participation in Geli's death is still there and "autopsy" remain, as I should remind you they were not added by 203.36.44.13 or 203.36.44.14. If you think his/her contributions are worthwhile, you are sorely mistaken. —ExplorerCDT 17:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment, the bizarre edits by 203.36.44.13 regarding a "combover" along with gymnastics and pommel horses in elementary school have zero basis and were simple vandalism. Haham hanuka, fain is an adverb, not an adjective. As for Geli, the documented evidence indicates she killed herself, probably because she felt trapped in a suffocating sexual relationship with a politically powerful uncle (keep in mind, AH's mother was his father's niece as well, so having that sort of interest in one of his own nieces probably wasn't much of a psychological stretch for him). Various rumours swirled around at the time but that's all they were. I removed the bit about AH spending many subsequent Xmas eves in Geli's former room in the Munich apartment not because I don't believe it (for all I know he may have done), but because it's not documented other than as anecdote and seems too granular for an encylopedia article. Wyss 06:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the kid who was editing is supposedly an admin...some admin not even bothering to see the discussion page to see we talked about it.

I haven't been a "kid" for almost two decades and you can check Wikipedia:List of administrators to see for yourselves that i am indeed an admin - aside from that yes i didn't look at the talk page and yes i should have before i acted. PMA 23:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The word infamous

I don't think the word significant implies "love" at all, no way, and the word infamous would inevitably throw the factual credibility of the entire article into question. AH was one of the most significant leaders in world history and effectively murdered tens of millions (including millions of the "aryans" [sic] he was supposedly trying to help). Wyss 20:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

infamous (în´fe-mes) adjective

1. Having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious. 2. Causing or deserving infamy; heinous: an infamous deed. 3. Law. a. Punishable by severe measures, such as death, long imprisonment, or loss of civil rights. b. Convicted of a crime, such as treason or felony, that carries such a punishment. Famous for a negative reason basically.


Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I think this is one of the few cases where "infamous" is actually justified. "Significant" can imply a certain favorable notion, I think, and makes me at least a bit uncomfortable (and I don't think I'm odd on this account). Howabout instead portentous? --Fastfission 23:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
AIDS is significant too (does that imply a favourable notion?), and I wouldn't call it an infamous auto-immune disease in an encyclopedia article. Portentous is even worse. AH didn't show up in the 1920s with a Future Infamous Dictator sign hanging around his neck, which is one reason why he got as far as he did. Wyss 00:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that "significant" is technically neutral but it sounds too positive to me. That's why I tried to balance it by adding "and reviled", but it got edited away. Paul August ☎ 02:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
The article makes it clear this person was a political sociopath who murdered millions. The term reviled appears at the end of the article and was edited out from the opening partly because it was being used twice, partly because it's a summary of opinion (well-documented, accurate and IMHO more than reasonable to mention there). Wyss 03:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This discussion is moot, IMHO. Neither term contributes to good style. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Avoid_peacock_and_weasel_terms.
Sebastian 04:21, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
We have negative superlatives like "infamous," "heinous" and "enormity" exactly so we can apply them to people like Hitler and events like the Holocaust. Who is infamous if not Adolf Hitler? Demi 09:13, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

irrelevant links

i think that the History of Gays during the Holocaust is not related to this article, someone oppose for removing this links? also the external link "The Straight Dope: Was Hitler part Jewish?" should be removed (Rotten.com was removed). --Haham hanuka 16:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm neutral on both, not thrilled, wouldn't have picked them, but since they're external and seem reasonably accurate I'm ok with them either being there, or not. Wyss 00:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the History of Gays during the Holocaust should go, and the "was hitler Jewish" should stay, since the 1st isn't about him, and the 2nd is. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 03:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok i'll remove only the links to the "History of Gays during the Holocaust". --Haham hanuka 11:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Truth be told I do agree that the link about gays may be a bit gratuitous when one uses Sam Spade's reasoning. Comment: It's been my impression that one of AH's biggest issues with homosexuality was that he perceived it as an impediment to baby production (necessary for his vision of pan-Germanic expansion and redemption). It's also interesting that the leadership of the SA was populated by many gays when Hitler purged it, although his reasons for doing so seem to have been political. I imagine he also viewed "gay culture" (as we might call it today) as intrinsically subversive to what he was trying to accomplish. Wyss 11:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, homosexuality wasn't a big theme of Hitler's at all, but he was of course perfectly happy to have them sent off to the camps along with whoever else public opinion made it expediant to be against. Its very telling that he waited until the last possible moment to purge Ernst Röhm, whom he personally liked and respected a great deal. The purge of Röhm and other "homosexuals" (I'm far from convinced their was anything more to that allegation than slander) had far more to do with the working class nature and leftist leanings of the SA and other Strasserists within the Nazi party than anything else. It was a power play, rather than a crackdown on homosexuality, IMO. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not homosexuality was common in the SA leadership by the time of the purge (I infer it was, from various accounts, aside from the scandal-mongering before and after), while assertive/visible gays obviously had grave difficulties like any divergent group, I'd say we agree AH never seemed to focus on the issue. Wyss 04:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

external links

Why were these links deleted? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • They're Hitler-bashing, distorted, seem to contain mis-statements of fact and stuff presented out of context. The Internet is replete with sites like these about AH, unhelpful because they're not instructive. Wyss 20:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I was just curious. They seemed of rather poor quality to me as well, but I wanted to know why they got cut. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)

Color Photo

Why in the world was thec olor photo removed at the start of ths article? It was one of the best pictures of Hitler I've seen. C an we bring it back? -Husnock 8MAr05

It was a great character study with lots of interesting detail and added something to the article. Unfortunately, it seems to have been a copyright violation. Wyss 02:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alois Corrections

Having extensively re-written the article on Hitler's father Alois Hitler (mostly for syntax and style), I realized that there were some minor errors about Alois in the main article. It was Alois who appeared before the priest, making an affidavit that his step-father was his biological father. I've also clarified the language about this in general: Hitler's grandfather was likely one of the Hiedler brothers (one married Alois' mother, the other played a huge role in raising him). The Frankenberger story (from which the "Hitler was Jewish" rumours have come) is now presented plainly as an interesting rumour with no basis in documented fact. Wyss 18:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paula and the orphan's pension

I've inserted a brief mention of this because it may provide some interesting character (or family) insight, and gives more context to his constant financial struggles in Vienna after his mother died. Wyss 20:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hitler and the church

I've at last taken this content out of the legacy section (where it certainly didn't fit) and created a new article for it, Hitler and the church, as previously discussed here. I suspect this new article will get filled out and cleaned up over time. Wyss 20:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An Uncontrolled Experiment - AH's Paintings

Presented only for the amusement of readers of this talk page...

Ever since I was about twelve and saw a few paintings by AH in some book for the first time, I thought he had mild talent as a painter... above average, so to speak, even pleasing with buildings, landscapes and plants but oddly inept, even "creepy" when drawing people (maybe I wouldn't have said it that way when I was twelve, but I remember thinking it). Anyway, along with working on some of these AH-related articles during the past week, I stumbled across a website (linked from the main one here) with lots of AH paintings I'd never seen before. As usual, I found myself "sort of" liking some of them, but was slightly uncomfortable with his drawings of people (bear in mind, it's always hard for me to mentally disassociate AH artifacts from images of the camps and so on).

I should add that for me, most painters don't paint people with the convincing, stirring flair of a Waterhouse, Rockwell, Draper, Hacker or Dali, to name some broadly put "contemporaries" of AH with whom one might even begin to draw some sort of comparison.

So I chose a few scans of AH paintings that didn't involve people (flowers, buildings and landscapes), arranged them on the monitor display, made sure his name wasn't showing anywhere and called out to my friend who graduated from a respected European college with a four-year degree in fine arts... as a painter.

Me: So what do think of these?

Friend: Hmmm... wow!

Me: You like them?

Friend: These are great! Super!

After looking at them together for a minute or so, my friend paused, and said,

"These are by Adolf Hitler, aren't they?"

"Yep."

"They were crazy for rejecting him from art school."

I opened a few scans of architectural sketches by AH. The response was similar... talented and so on.

I brought up some portrait sketches of heads by AH.

Me: They're ok, I guess. About like any decent sketch artist at Montmartre...

Friend: Oh, better than that.

Finally, I brought up an AH nude (which I find slightly creepy), and while my friend liked it more than I did, we agreed the head was too small, among other details.

Either way, I think I can understand somewhat why he felt resentment at being rejected (twice) from attending a major art school. I think I can also see why someone told him he should try architecture. As his sister Paula said after the war, would that he had... Wyss 22:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Acronyms in opening

I'm not sure what's with the back-and-forth on the opening, leader of the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party.

Let's discuss this before changing it again, since some consensus editing was involved in getting it into the current form (remembering the need to keep the opening paragraph crisp).

The acronym NSDAP is certainly not too familiar to most English-speaking readers (not to say it's obscure, but it's certainly not "better known as"), for example and I can't remember one time when I've heard AH's political party referred to as the NSDAP in verbal conversation. I've seen it now and then in English texts, more so in German ones maybe.

Anyway is there some specific reason why it doesn't work as it is? Wyss 08:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i think my version is better, (Nazi Party and National Socialist German Workers Party redirect to the same place. --Haham hanuka 11:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We can de-link one of them. I think that Wyss is correct,the acronym is helpful to include, as it was as the NAZI leaader that Hitler became notable. Thanks for bringing your concerns to the talk page. Cheers, -Willmcw 13:00, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw that works for me too. Wyss 15:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think National Socialist German Workers Party should be interrupted with the parenthetical "Nazi" as it currently written. Parentheticals belong after the terms being qualified, not in the middle. For all it is worth (given the etymological nature of the acronym), the parenthetical "Nazi" could logically belong as such: National Socialist (Nazi) German Workers Party. I prefer seeing it as National Socialist German Workers Party (better known as the Nazi party). —ExplorerCDT 16:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From a stylistic perspective, I don't think it's a problem. I think the alternate of putting the acronym in the middle of the name is a false dilemma and that "better known as " isn't necessary. There does seem to be some sort of a concern with how this reads, though, understandable with such an incendiary topic. My thoughts continue below under AH was a Nazi. Wyss 05:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Visits abroad

Is this section of the article really necessary...after all, despite omitting the rumoured trips to England in 1937/38 the drives through Prague, the trip to Italy, and a few others I can think of off the cuff, the section only has one entry that would probably be placed better in the WWII writeup and not as an autonomous section. —ExplorerCDT 16:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping someone might bring this up. No, I don't think this section is helpful. AH never visited the UK. His half brother lived there for a time (and passed some of it in prison for theft). The author of the book with that claim was an in-law and she later admitted to a family member most of it was made up, she was trying to spice up the book to make money- it didn't work btw (I remember playing a game of Trivial Pursuit and seeing a card that erroneously said he'd spent time in Liverpool). Hitler went to Italy and I think Spain (I've forgotten where that humiliating meeting with the wiley Franco was) on a very few state visits, he was in Belgium during the Great War along with France which he of course visited in 1940, too. That's about it... his famous, heavily secured eastern headquarters "Wolf's Lair" was in Poland... Grossdeutschland [sic] as far as he was concerned... I'd say remove it... Wyss 16:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the section is a waste of space. Recent scholarship had alleged that Hitler journeyed to England in '37 or '38 and personally met with Chamberlain in private meetings discussing appeasement. Churchill's son has found some of his father's private papers mentioning "rumours" that selected British noblemen were key in perpetuating this treason, and that he knew of some of these meetings at the time. Whether or not those rumours are true are up to historians to substantiate, but more and more the rumours are sounding like they are. Hitler's going abroad was common, especially after his armies invaded. But in his encyclopedia article I don't think there should be a bullet-pointed travelogue...after all this isn't Ho Chi Mihn going to Paris in 1919 to try to corner Woodrow Wilson on the issue of Vietnamese self-determination. —ExplorerCDT 18:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I also think that if this section stays, we should have a section entitled "Famous Prison Bunkmates" with links to some of my heroes, like Erich Mühsam. —ExplorerCDT 18:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AH was a Nazi

Bluntly put, "half" the time when one sees a reference to Germany's mad, ruinous dash to rule the world during the late 1930s and early 40s, it'll speak of Nazis, not Germans. The reasons for that are clear and Hitler by all accounts invented and unleashed the Nazi Party in his own image (never mind he started by taking over a tiny political group he'd orginally been sent to spy on). The full name in English was National Socialist German Workers Party and "everyone" called them The Nazis or the Nazi Party. Hitler and Nazi are linked like DeSade and masochist, Einstein and relativity, John Lennon and Beatle (no relative value judgements should be construed by the association of all these people in the same sentence). To omit the term in the opening para is to be incomplete or even misleading. Putting Nazi in parenthesis after the party's full name is self-explanatory in the extreme. Why the fuss? Wyss 05:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't mind the parenthetical, I just don't think that interrupting the flow of the party's name with a parenthetical is appropriate. Content bounded by a set of parentheses qualify a thought after it has been completed, not before it is finished. —ExplorerCDT 05:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For me, the word party is rather generic and not part of the thought (just explaining why it doesn't break the flow when I read it). Wyss 05:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But it is a component of the official name. You wouldn't call the American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, as the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Corporation just because you thought the Corporation part of the name was a throw away. (Though, the AT&T article isn't the best example because of the improper use of a parenthetical in the article...IBM and GE are a better examples: International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and General Electric Company (GE)...not International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation and General Electric (GE) Company). Style manuals decry such interruptions. —ExplorerCDT 05:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree with decrying the parenthesis. It's made even more heinous by forcins us to change the link wording. Does anyone object to changing it to [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (Nazi Party). ? DJ Clayworth 14:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't object. My only hesitation, as a matter of pure style, was repeating the word party, which at a minimum adds a problem that doesn't apply to the examples given by ExplorerCDT (it's IBM, not IBM Corporation and so on)... but so be it if the inter-parenthesis method doesn't work for some editors... this way is also ok by me. Wyss 15:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't object, but I think it is awkward to put it simply as [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (Nazi Party). While I don't think it awkward to repeat party (as the guideline to never repeat a word within a sentence both is broken often and doesn't apply to parenthetical statements), when I reverted Nathan Ladd's removal of the fact, I put "(known familiarly as the Nazi Party)." I think there should be some better known as/also known as/known familiarly as to qualify the use of the parenthetical otherwise it would appear as an awkward construction. The other opportunity is to avoid putting in a parenthetical qualification here, and make the association later in the article. However, with the translation of Führer und Reichskanzler in the opening paragraph, the Nazi Party parenthetical statement belongs. —ExplorerCDT 16:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree with that last sentence. Wyss 17:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


  • Ok, I've tried to implement the two above suggestions. IMO it would also work with the parenthesis replaced by commas, that is... [[National Socialist German Workers Party]], also known as the Nazi Party, ...that might look stylistically cleaner (while I prefer the parenthesis in terms of thought-flow), but either is utterly ok by me. Comments are welcome (please)! Wyss 17:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Strunk & White like parenthetical clauses continuing the flow of the sentence being sectioned by commas. But, the a.k.a. statement is a break from the direct flow of the sentence and I would be inclined to use parentheses. However, I'm not going to bitch about it if it were changed that way. I'm o.k. with that. —ExplorerCDT 17:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the parentheses too, as above.Wyss 18:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've contracted the whole thing to Nazi Party; the Nazi link explains the meaning of the word, and the interior of the article is the place for detail. The intro shouldn't be full of nitpicking. I have also added a sentence about the expansionist foreign policy and the genocide, and its effect on Hitler's public image in the modern world--his "most hated leader" status. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, please discuss on the talk page first. The first paragraph hasn't evolved to where it is today by accident (and no, I didn't write it). Wyss 19:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well now I've discussed it. Any comments? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • That last sentence you added about the "most hated leader" status is definitely not NPOV, though any reasonable human being already accepts it as a given, it smacks of smug bias. Secondly, Nazi is an abbreviation...abbreviations aren't appropriate at first. You qualify the abbreviation (as we have done), and then afterwards using the abbreviation is o.k. Thirdly, there are objective nuances that are not just overshadowed but trounced upon simply abbreviating it to "Nazi Party" from the get-go. The intro paragraphs are where they are because of consensus work. They also have been nitpicked in order to have the maximum dynamic without resorting to the all-too-easy POV statements you tried to edit in. —ExplorerCDT 20:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (P.S. Wyss...don't be modest, you did write and contribute to a lot of what is today the introduction...not to mention the rest of the article.) —ExplorerCDT 20:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Tony's additional sentence, I belive that something additional is necessary to balance two favorable sentences in the intro: A charismatic orator, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders in world history. The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and for a time controlled the greater part of Europe. While we should avoid smearing biography subjects in this case more is needed. For the introductory paragraph to paint a full picture of Hitler it is necessary to include the very large warts. He is not famous because of his economic policies and the war he began led to the ruin of Germany, so any economic benefits were shortlived. I don't think that it violates the NPOV rule to point out in the intro that legacy includes the Holocaust, etc. -Willmcw 21:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree completely. Demi T/C 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

I don't think my wording can be fairly described as POV. "...he is now widely regarded as one of the most hated national leaders in history." It's a factual statement and one of the most significant things about Hitler. His name is a by-word for brutal, inhuman barbarism. Note that I'm describing the legacy of the man, it's a fact that he is widely viewed in this light. I'm not saying he does or doesn't deserve that reputation, I'm observing a highly significant fact about the man.

  • I feel it's POV, and I try to give a lot of latitude on that one. As to being "most hated" that's a judgment call, but coming out and saying he was among the most reviled is still stating an opinion of the man. A good portion of the world, for some stupid reason, reveres him something like a God who was right in massacring Jews (or those who don't think the Holocaust took place at all) and don't think he was brutal, but just. While whitewashing him is never acceptable, making blanket statements that Hitler was the epitome of evil incarnated into man is just a little too much...even if it is generally regarded true. Ask yourself, what would Brittanica or Funk & Wagnalls do? —ExplorerCDT 22:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral doesn't mean "balanced;" it doesn't demand the incorporation of every crank perspective. If Hitler is not one of the most reviled leaders in history, then there is no one that would fit that sobriquet. Demi T/C 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

On "Nazi", it's the English name for his party, whereas "National Socialist German Workers' Party" is simply a literal translation of the official German name. In practise his party is known as the Nazi Party. This familiar word should appear in the introduction. Save the nuances for the interior of the article and the link.

  • No, Nazi is just an abbreviation. Before he became the "enemy," most American papers (especially Hearst papers) refered to him as the National Socialist leader. National Socialist German Workers Party is the full name of the party. The familiar word does appear in the introduction as a parenthetical qualification to the National Socialist German Workers Party. In practice, anything can be known by abbreviations, but the fact remains the party had a full name, and it is standard stylistically to mention that full name before going off and using the abbreviation. The nuances are properly placed, here, we lay out the facts and the fact is the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party. —ExplorerCDT 22:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally we can't let the introduction to Hitler go without a mention of the Final Solution. That really would be POV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I would agree something ought to be mentioned, but yours was way too POV. And besides, you didn't bother discussing it here first. Because a lot of people have put a lot of effort into rendering the introductory lines just so, it's a courtesy to hash it out with them/us before going off half-cocked. —ExplorerCDT 22:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The idea that Tony's edits are "half-cocked" is misplaced. Consensus is good but this is not someone unthinkingly spewing garbage on the paragraph. Something needs to be mentioned and reverting it is not good. Rephrase it if you wish and we will approach something mutually agreeable. Demi T/C 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

The result of all those months of discussion appears to have been that the introduction somehow managed to omit the two most significant facts about Adolf Hitler: that he waged genocide against the Jews and Gypsies (and Slavs), and that his name is synonymous in the minds of most people of post-war generations with brutality and barbarism. Those are facts, and significant ones. To state the latter is not to state an opinion, but to state a fact about an opinion. And a highly significant one. As WP:NPOV puts it: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves."

The article introduction as it now stands is hopelessly POV, falsely depicting a world statesman who is remembered only for his charisma, his political acumen, and the fact that he was on the losing side in a big war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where does it call him a statesman? Where does it say he is remembered only for his charisma? The article concludes characterizing him as "reviled" by most historians. It also clearly places responsibility for the holocaust on his shoulders, summarizes what that was, calling it industrial scale genocide, and links to the main article. By starting the article with an evaluation of legacy, one reduces the murderer to the level of a cartoon, making it more difficult for people to learn how to spot the next one who comes along. Wyss 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually the wording is mealy-mouthed and passive "encouraged..." and racial policies "which reached their peak..." as if the policies themselves were doing something while Hitler was just hanging out. Tony is attempting a mild edit here, and the article is improved as a result. Demi T/C 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Why do the assertions about his charisma and economic savvy need to be in the intro anyway? All of those are also listed in the main text. To sum up his legacy by mentioning his leadership without, in the same breath, mentioning his faults furthers a particular point of view, IMO. If the destruction of Germany does not belong in the intro then neither does his economic achievement. -Willmcw 23:47, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's obvious that Mr. Hitler was a Nazi. ok? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reviled

Wyss, we're talking about the introduction to the article, the part that's supposed to provide a summary of the article. If you agree that he is widely reviled, let's put it in the intro.

I said the intro implied he was remembered only for "his charisma, his political acumen, and the fact that he was on the losing side in a big war." I say that because that's what the intro says. It mentions "racial policies", but it doesn't mention genocide. It says he "encouraged" racial policies, but it doesn't say that he, Adolf Hitler, as his country's leader, was one of those who planned and executed the killing of millions of people on grounds of race (and for other reasons, such as eugenics). Again you appeal to detail in the article that reveal highly significant facts that aren't presented in the intro.

Finally we're here to write an encyclopedia article, not to write a didactic piece or a polemic. The introduction should contain a mention (not an evaluation) of Hitler's legacy, because that is the most significant remaining thing about his influence in the modern world--whether rightly or wrongly--as a symbol of evil, often a caricature. That's a highly significant fact about Hitler that doesn't (remarkably) attach itself so readily to butchers whose deeds were probably the equal of, or exceeded, Hitler's. Mao and Stalin pale into insignificance in the public mind, it's Hitler we remember as the terrible architect of genocide. That fact belongs in the introduction. We can make it as neutral as possible, but we shouldn't weasel it away. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As it's written, here are the most significant facts about Adolf Hitler:

  1. His lifespan.
  2. He led the Nazi party "during the Third Reich."
  3. He was a charismatic orator.
  4. He was one of the most "significant" leaders in world history.
  5. He "fostered" a military-industrial complex that caused Germany's economic recovery
  6. The military-industrial complex for a time controlled Europe

Tony's right. Not only are these not the most significant facts to mention in a summary, they assert a passivity in Hitler's life and career that are very apologist. "During the Third Reich" makes it sound like that was something external happening while Hitler happened to be in charge. Saying he was "significant" (though accurate) puts him there with Roosevelt, Churchill, the better Popes and Emperors, etc. Saying he "fostered" (an interesting word implying caring parenting) a military-industrial complex is a doublespeak way of saying he militarized Germany, and saying the military-industrial complex controlled Europe is just inaccurate, when it was being controlled by people, chief among which was Hitler.

Omitting the Holocaust from this summary, or any implication that people might have a negative opinion of him, is POV in the extreme. Demi T/C 00:38, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

I had no problem with discussing these points. I would have been happy to cooperate with both of you in working these concerns fully into the text. However, your editing tactics are too unilateral for my taste. Wyss 11:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My changes

Here I will explain my changes. Give me a few moments. -- BRIAN0918  00:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • "regarded" -> "widely regarded": This isn't totally necessary, but turns the text from appearing POV into a fact about opinion.
  • "reviled" added: It is a fact that he is widely reviled and is already stated near the end of the article. The intro is a summary and should... summarize.
  • removal of economic crisis part: Until someone cites economic historians on this issue, it shouldn't be included, as it is disputed. Economic crises eventually end because the market adjusts to the shock; the relationship to increased employment isn't necessarily causal. They're both determined by other things. (I thank my math/econ friend for clearing this up) "Things like technology shocks, terms of trade shocks, and monetary changes are the drivers" [for increased employment and economic crises], but one does not necessarily follow the other. -- BRIAN0918  00:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • primary cause in europe: "War began in Europe on 1 September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland." (from the WWII article) Just because the events of the war are lumped together under one name "WWII" doesn't mean it is useful to lump all of the causes and regions involved together. For Germany, WWII was primarily in Europe.
  • encouraged->instituted: Hitler was not on the sidelines; these were policies, not opinions, and they were enforced. -- BRIAN0918  00:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "a" Holocaust -> "the" Holocaust: Because the term is capitalized in the text "genocidal Holocaust", it is referring to the Holocaust of WWII, instead of a holocaust. This is not just my opinion, but is regarded as proper usage among scholars on this subject (I'm taking a course on The Holocaust right now and both of my textbooks on the subject support this distinction).
  • "founder of" the 3rd Reich (change added by Tony Sidaway): I support this change. How could something like that be left out??? -- BRIAN0918  01:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These are good edits. I'll point out that as the "cause of war" sentence reads, it is "Hitler's desire to create a Greater Germany" which was the cause, and is correct as it stands. Demi T/C 05:21, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

  • I believe  BRIAN0918 's edits are historically incomplete to the point of being misleading and unhelpful. He has attempted to use his role as admin to intimidate me from asserting my opinion that discussion and consensus on this talk page should precede material changes. Since this article is so "hot", however, I recognize that an accurate, realistic and scholarly portrayal of the sociopathic monster that was AH may be difficult if not impossible to achieve by communal editing (unlike most other articles). This is a well-understood aspect of WP, and I've enjoyed having some first-hand experience with it here. Thus, I defer, and will not be editing this article any more. Wyss 11:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you were intimidated, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. Please specify what changes of mine you disagree with. -- BRIAN0918  15:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed a few things. Hitler didn't invent Nazi Germany's racial policy, so I changed "invented" to "implemented." Anti-Semitism was in Europe long before AH was born, and all he did in his speeches and in Mein Kampf was crystallize some of it. Most of the policy making fell on his subordinates throughout the Third Reich. Globke, Eichmann, Himmler, Goebbels (esp. developing the propaganda), and a whole bunch of scientists (including pseudoscientists like "eugenicists") and statisticians. —ExplorerCDT 16:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm. I don't think I saw the edit that was "invented"--I think it was "instituted" and then I changed it to "established;" but I like "implemented" better than all of these.
    • My bad, it was "established" not "invented." —ExplorerCDT 16:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the changes, I support them. -- BRIAN0918  18:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also just wanted to note that the time and attention Wyss has spent on this very difficult article are really appreciated: its overall quality was one of the things that attracted me to Wikipedia. Demi T/C 16:26, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

  • Thanks. One of my hopes for the article has been that through rigorous objectivity, it might simply and plainly reflect how a talented demagogue/salesman can disasterously exploit human weaknesses and fears. This would be helpful to readers in learning how to spot them when they come along (rather than looking for mythical, strutting characatures of evil). Wyss 16:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Wyss on my changes

Here are Wyss's comments on my changes, copied from his talk page:

  • The removal of the brief mention about his perceived economic influence utterly distorts reality. Germans not only thought he was saving Germany, they thought he'd improve their quality of life (although living standards was the wonted term back then, I believe). They supported him because they thought he'd helped turn the economy around (in the 1920s, people carted wheelbarrows filled with nearly worthless paper currency to buy groceries- at the worst of it, people sold pianos for sausages), never mind this happened as a result of many complex factors including massive spending of borrowed money on military re-development.
    • Germans may have perceived him as ending the economic crisis, as you state, but it is not necessarily factual. Your version didn't make that distinction ("The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis..."). See my statements on the talk page about this. -- BRIAN0918  22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perception is way important to voters and supporters, and he did foster a military-industrial complex, and it did help to pull Germany out of the post-war depressions. Hitler's perceived economic role in Germany is essential to understanding his political successes during the 1930s.
  • A charismatic orator, Hitler is widely regarded as one of the most significant and reviled leaders in world history.
    • Sure he's reviled. However, for the alert reader, words like beloved or reviled in the opening paras of a bio reveal bias, and bring the accuracy and "spin" (if you will) of the remaining content into some question. The use of such terms should be carefully qualified, as is the use of the word reviled at the end of the article, where it should be (now repeated, not at all a clean thing to do). Also, there is a moral issue with human revilement/hatred (as AH's politics themselves demonstrated), never mind when it's extended beyond a personal scope as in an encyclopedia article. Finally, from reviled it's not too far to "strutting dictator with a funny little mustache." The people who allowed him to gain power and consolidate it didn't see him that way. The article should reflect that, it's one of the reasons why the horror happened.
      • As supported on WP:NPOV and reiterated a few times on Hitler's talk page, phrases like "widely regarded as reviled" are facts about well-documented opinions. From WP:NPOV: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves". It is not biased, as is stated on the talk page.
Yeah, but I don't think they should go in the opening paragraphs, for the reasons I gave above. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, I see no problem with the same word being used twice in the article and think you're pulling at strings with that specific argument. Introductions and conclusions often involve repetition. In this case, the intro is supposed to be a summary, whereas the end is about his "Legacy", so it belongs in both sections for different reasons (although now I'm pulling at strings :)).
        • Heh heh. We don't agree :) For me, it's sloppy writing. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, I've changed the 2nd usage to "reproved" which is very close in meaning. If you would like a different word in the "Legacy" section, please change it, but the use of "reviled" in the intro is supported by several, so please leave that alone. I'll respond to the rest later, time for food. :) -- BRIAN0918  23:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Who are the several and why aren't they participating in this discussion? Can you document their user names, for example, and their statements specifically supporting the use of the word reviled in the opening paragraphs? Wyss 23:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • As for your statement: "Finally, from reviled it's not too far to 'strutting dictator with a funny little mustache.'" I really don't know how to respond to that, it seems like a truly odd line of reasoning. Maybe if I had used "villainous" I could understand, but reviled simply means "assailed with contemptuous language" which is a well-documented fact. -- BRIAN0918  22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Trust me, reviled is a strut or two away from Darth Vader. Keep it for the closing, by which time the reader's trust and confidence has been gained and the term in conclusion will drive it all home. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • He implemented the racial policies of Nazi Germany and instituted the genocidal Holocaust of millions of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs.
    • First, the term Holocaust really only applies to the genocide of European Jews during that period (although I imagine some might argue that point, it's easier just to apply it to the crimes against Jews).
      • From the first line of Holocaust: "The Holocaust refers to Nazi Germany's systematic genocide of various ethnic, religious, national, and secular groups during World War II starting in 1941 and continuing through to 1945." If it had said "Final Solution" then I might suggest changing it, as the Solution only applied to Jews. In any case, the genocide of the Jews is the most notable. -- BRIAN0918  22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Final Solution is worse, since it's ultimately a propaganda term (and should IMO be qualified as such). As for what the Holocaust was, widening that term beyond genocide of the Jews is fuzzy and doesn't derive from the original post-war use. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • He enabled those racial policies, but this wording gives him credit for inventing them. Truth is, he spent his twenties reading (not writing) virulently anti-semetic magazines that would make an iman blush. Have you ever seen the cartoons? Germany, especially Barvaria, was ripe for genocide by the end of the Great War. AH had the political saavy to grok and run with it. There's another tricky problem and perhaps it's only one of form because we all know he was behind the authorizations for industrial scale slaughter in the camps but there's no paper trail (it was obviously either avoided or burned in the spring of 1945). We know the Holocaust happened, we know for sure he wanted, enabled and encouraged it but we don't know exactly how, except that for the most part, planning and execution were handled by others (Himmler and Heydrich, for example). The Holocaust section of the article is accurate by the way, and links to the larger main article on that topic.
    • It is more accurate to say, He enabled (or encouraged) the racial policies of Nazi Germany which culminated in the genocide of millions of Jews along with gypsies, slavs and other ethnic groups. Wyss 21:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm against "encouraged" for the reasons mentioned on the talk page, and even "enabled" sounds very passive. As he was on top, "enforced" might be better, it's passive in that it doesn't suggest he originated everything (although most agree he did), but it suggests he went out of his way to answer the "Jewish question", thus his Final Solution (something which I still think should be added to the intro). Right now, though, I'd suggest leaving it as is. More people support not using "encouraged" than using it. -- BRIAN0918  22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let's not use enforced at least... he didn't enforce the law, that was the job of the SS (for example). Enabled doesn't sound passive to me, but I understand how it might to others. That's why I liked encouraged (ties in with his oratory and so forth)... really, even though there's no paper trail, I'd say he is believed to have ordered rather than instituted. It is important however, not to leave wiggle room for Holocaust deniers. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
...believed to have authorized... may be even better, if encouraged seems too passive for some. Wyss 23:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

"Can't write an intro to Hitler without mentioning genocide"

Should we mention the "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" in the beginning of the article when we write intro to Harry S. Truman? --Haham hanuka 13:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Doesn't the current article on Truman do so? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

83.109.*.*

An anonymous user using various IPs starting with 83.109.*.* keeps readding the same content over and over without first consulting or replying on the talk page, and despite repeated reversions. -- BRIAN0918  12:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shoah

I had a discussion with Tony Sidaway on IRC, and it seemed his problem with the intro saying "the Holocaust" was that it left out "genocide", which according to him is "the most important word". Another problem for him was that the word "holocaust", according to him, didn't come into popular usage as being the word for the 1945 genocide until the 1970s, and the word was popular before then. My problem with his version was that it didn't link directly to The Holocaust, leaving out an important link. So, we agreed that the best way to clear this up would be to use the term which is accepted by Jews and by the Catholic Church as being the proper word for "The Holocaust" (they don't prefer "holocaust" because its original meaning, as is used in the Bible, is that of a "burnt offering [to a god]", implying that the Nazis was in fact doing the proper work of the Judeo-Christian God.) Since "Shoah" is accepted by two major groups (and arguably the most important groups in this event as far as religion and the origins of anti-Semitism are concerned), and since Shoah links directly to The Holocaust, it is probably the best choice, despite the term not being commonly used among laypeople. -- BRIAN0918  21:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I'm sorry to have become a party to what may seem odd--a discussion on IRC that is cited as influencing an edit on Wikipedia. I just told Brian that I didn't find Shoah, which was Brian's suggestion, an unreasonable word to use, although I think it's not as common a word as Holocaust, and that in any case I think the word genocide should be specifically included in any introduction to Adolf Hitler. The word holocaust, although it has specific meanings with respect to the Shoah, also has a more general meaning. I'm presently trying to perform a wikipedia-wide disambiguation of the two usages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


NOTE: A conversation from last week, copied from my user talk page. (something I said should be done, and I never got around to it) —ExplorerCDT 05:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because the term is capitalized in the text "genocidal Holocaust", it is referring to the Holocaust, instead of a holocaust. This is not just my opinion, but is regarded as proper usage among scholars on this subject (I'm taking a course on The Holocaust right now and both of my textbooks on the subject support this distinction). -- BRIAN0918  22:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This usage ("the" Holocaust) is also supported and explained at Holocaust (disambiguation) -- BRIAN0918  22:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • But the disambiguation proves there is a need to differentiate between this and other Holocausts...many of which as the disambiguation page proves, uses a capital "H." As there are many holocausts in history (and several in fact, regarding the genocidal treatment of the Jewish people) it is inappropriate to use a definite article to describe one of those many. Not all scholars agree on this point, as you so naïvely assume...just take a quick look at the German historians who are still afraid to broach the subject boldly. —ExplorerCDT 23:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is a minefield of polemics. The holocaust deniers inevitably push scholars to distance themselves from any possible mis-interpretation that there's any room for doubt, hence a redundant, circular term like genocidal Holocaust. Wyss 23:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Those holocausts are prefixed with terms (eg Chinese, or Black), whereas the Holocaust is not. The only reason they're capitalized on the disambig page is because they're talking about specific incidents. If they were talking about a generic case, it would be "a holocaust of the Chinese", for example. Please point out where I assumed that all scholars agree on the subject. -- BRIAN0918  02:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both usages are acceptable, but it is probably more sensible to refer to the Shoah as "a holocaust" since the term long precedes the Shoah and has historically (and in my personal experience) been used in multiple contexts. Anyone who thinks there is one "holocaust", or that the Shoah is "the holocaust" obviously hasn't lived long enough or has insufficient knowledge of the classical Greek origins of the word "holocaust" and its usage throughout the modern age. If you want to make the Shoah unique, do as fr.wikipedia does and refer to it as the Shoah. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • "the Shoah" is definitely an acceptable alternate. (not "the genocidal Shoah", that's redundant maybe) -- BRIAN0918  02:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think "the Shoah" is an acceptable alternate, because most people don't know what a Shoah is (since not everyone is familiar with the Hebrew nuances of the word), but everyone knows what defines (or connotes) a Holocaust.
Calling it "the Shoah" would be so accurate, but I agree most people don't know the term. Wyss 16:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree with its accuracy. It is a remarkable word when you look at it from its usage in Hebrew. But, aside from Spielberg's oral history, and occasional utterances of it, there's really no means by which it has been imparted to the larger audience...unlike Holocaust. However, when I first hear the word "Holocaust," I don't think of the WWII genocide. Thought it is a second thought, my primary thought is of "nuclear holocaust" but that's mostly from my focus on Cold War military matters. (Which thankfully, I don't badger people with here...I have enough of it outside Wikipedia that bringing it here would make my time here miserable). —ExplorerCDT 16:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that it's only in the last 10-15 years that holocaust has, in popular usage, become so synonymous with the industrial scale genocide of European Jews during the 1940s. Wyss 17:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Correct, it's common usage is a by-product of the Historikerstreit (Historian's Quarrel) in Germany that happened in 1986. However, it was used early in connection with the Nazi atrocities as early as the late 1950s (in works, I might add, by the recently late George F. Kennan, for one). —ExplorerCDT 17:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(We should copy this discussion on the talk page for AH) —ExplorerCDT 17:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Be bold? (grin) Wyss 18:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just speaking with an eye towards posterity. I'll be glad to do it once the discussion ends. Though in the middle of it all, it may provide confusion ;-) I know you and I won't get confused by such a move, but Brian0918 may. —ExplorerCDT 18:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Umm... okay? -- BRIAN0918  15:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you post all over my talk page on the subject, consensus apparently seems to be as the page is now (referring to it as a genocidal Holocaust), and yet you persist in thinking a.) it isn't enough, and b.) your minority opinion over using a greatly unrecognized word should trump. Consensus is compromise, and there's no use being a pedantic jackass about it. Why don't we call it a day and put "Hitler is Evil" in capital letters ten feet high and erase the rest of the article? Would that suffice? —ExplorerCDT 16:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I should probably not feed the troll, but I need to defend my position. I was alright with "genocidal Holocaust" provided that "Holocaust" linked to "The Holocaust". Tony Sidaway, however, was not, which is perfectly acceptable. Shoah is the preferred term of notable Jews and is the accepted term of the Catholic Church, and so is not a minority opinion. Mine was a compromise with Tony Sidaway; we both agreed on the current version. He is currently planning on writing a separate article for holocaust which will explain the origins of the term, its usage, and how it came to be associated with The Holocaust, so right now is disambiguating the words throughout Wikipedia. How's the business trip going? -- BRIAN0918  17:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Business trip starts tomorrow, probably could last a good 4-5 months. Spent most of this weekend configuring my laptop and trying to locate wi-fi hotspots in various cities I'll be going to so that I won't be too far out of the loop and that my watchlist wouldn't suffer from my absence. As for Shoah..."notable Jews" isn't the whole world...just a small segment of a smaller ethnic group (a few million people worldwide) and that further proves the inclusive nature of the word's impact. If it weren't for the documentary oral history Steven Spielberg made after making Schindler's List or my friendship with several Jewish intellectuals, I wouldn't have heard of the word "Shoah" in the first place. It's just not used by the majority of the world. The Catholic Church isn't much more credible either because Pope Pius XII had a swastika rosary given to him by Der Führer, did nothing to stop the madman, endorsed his efforts, and they'll do anything now to patch things up and make themselves look good (though I do think Pope John Paul II's concilatory efforts are genuine, the church itself is mired in a hypocrisy that knoweth no bounds). I was thinking the same thing about feeding the troll when I responded to you, so touché. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think I've been hostile you though, whereas you have been from first contact. -- BRIAN0918  18:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I am always hostile and aggressive. While it's probably not in the best interests of Wikipedian harmony, it makes money. And, as such, I have no intention upon changing that. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, it seems Tony is fine with "the genocidal Holocaust", so I'll change it back to that since it's what everyone else seems to want anyways. -- BRIAN0918  17:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have always admired Tony's efforts. Despite whatever disagreements I have had with him in the past, I respect his judgment. You, on the other hand, are a work in progress in my book. (I assume the feeling is mutual) —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Tony and I were just completely confused by eachother. I thought he was against "the genocidal Holocaust", but I guess he was only against "the Holocaust" because it left out "genocidal". -- BRIAN0918  18:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought Tony had made that abundantly clear. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article Treats the German Populus unfairly

The article portrays the German populus in an unfairly bad light, particularly in the section om repression pre-war. Mention should be made that a) Anti-Semitism was by no means a uniquely German phenomenon and b) The public did not for a very long time give ACTIVE support to Nazi measures: One could mention the resounding failure of the April Boycott or the fact that Krystalnacht and similiar lower level violence was carried out almost entirely by the SA before the propaganda really started to hit home about 1938. Also, this section also seems to seek to create the impression that pre-war Germany was a pure terror state, which is simply incorrect. User:KharBevNor (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC))

  • Hmmm. How the heck do you read this out of the article? Where does it explicitly say Anti-Semitism is an exclusively German phenomenon? And this article, as well as other Nazi Germany articles convey that Hitler's party never was really a majority party in its existence. And how was pre-war Germany not a terror state? I guess bashing a man's skull in, branding a swastika into his forehead, ripping out hair from a guy's beard, etc. don't count as instruments of terror (See Erich Mühsam for more) when the world media were reporting them week after week before Hitler showed up in Prague in an open car. —ExplorerCDT 06:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. Sign your comments, please. —ExplorerCDT 06:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In the pre-war impression section. It's a sin of ommission mainly. Also, the early nazi state was not a pure terror state. the Nazis used a hell of a lot of carrot with their stick, and the life of the majority of the German people (basically all the groups not being discriminated against: ie the average German) was improved over the final years of Weimar. User:KharBevNor


Adolf or Adolph

What is the correct spelling of Hitler's first name in English? I thought it was Adolf, but my History teacher commonly spells it Adolph. When I asked my dad he said Adolph, so which is it? --Zeerus 18:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Adolf Hitler/mentioning the (mis?)spelling Adolph. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's spelled Adolf Hitler everywhere, because that was simply his name. We don't rewrite Pearl Harbor's name as "Pearl Harbour" in the history books even though "Pearl Harbor" is misspelled. Also see: Iosif Vissarionivich (not Joseph Visaryonowitch). Should we also change Winston Churchill's name to Winston Churchhill as the original name is clearly missing a "h"? :)
If we really wanted to put everything in the correct English way of spelling, all ö's would have to be converted to oe. Example: Höss -> Hoess. (Yes, it is strange that there is Goebbels, and not Göbbels written in the article, but Dönitz is not written as Doenitz).
Let's just stay with zie German name, as it is much more commonly used. --HJV 22:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok vandal

Alright vandal, now the page is protected. Now explain on this page why the consensus version shouldn't be accepted, and if we come to a consensus on that, then your version may be incorporated. See how it works? As for your changes:

  • Your claim that the current photo is "ugly" is laughable. It's doubtful that the photo would remain in existence if Hitler didn't approve of it. The photo your replaced it with is crap; biography photos should be a portrait if possible, not a photo of the guy mixed in a crowd. And for your other changes, they were already discussed above. --brian0918™ 23:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems disingenuous to say Hitler was the cause of WW2. He was merely a product of the Treaty of Versailles. I think it's probably fairer to say 'one of the causes' rather than the main cause. Trampled 22:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that "causality" is kind of a slippery concept. However, Germany's expansion by assuming control of and invading other European countries (led by Hitler) was certainly the proximate cause. I'd be tempted to use the term "proximate" in the article but I think that's less understandable than what's there now. Most people reading the paragraph, in my opinion, would expect to see causality in a direct sense, rather than an indirect or non-proximate sense (the Treaty of Versailles itself having its own causes, so one could go back, cause by cause to even earlier events). Demi T/C 18:01, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

brian0918's questions haven't been answered, above, so I'm going to assume that the currently protected version (the "stable" version that's existed since 3/19) represents the best current consensus. Obviously if someone can improve upon the "causes" wording I'd like to discuss it here. Demi T/C 18:01, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Hitler: Jesus Freak or Not so Meek?

Okay. There is a major dispute in my family about Hitler's religion. My mother says he's an Atheist, I insist he's a Catholic. Who is right?

Hitler was raised a Catholic and was religious. Note some of his statements:
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people."
Also, an Associated Press article about him (before he became notorious):
"A campaign against the 'godless movement' and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces."
It's not hard to see why he would think he is following the will of God, considering the numerous anti-Semitic passages in the Bible, and the actions and beliefs of various church leaders over the centuries. He was just following through with the what had been building up for two millenia. --brian0918™ 01:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above quotations are all regarding public policies in a religious country; it should be no surprise, and I don't think it proves anything either way. 119 22:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Was Jesus a Jew, according to Hitler?
Hitler wasn't at least an atheist, and like his idol Wagner, he seems to have believed in a path set by the creator. I am not sure how Christian he was, but he didn't condemn Christianity. So does that mean he didn't consider Jesus to be Jewish? Jesus was, according to history, born as a Jew, regardless of how he later distanced himself from the law of the Jews. Was Hitler familiar with the Christian monk Martin Luther's essay "On the Jews and Their Lies", who condemned Jews regardless of his devotion to Jesus? (anon)
I'm not sure we should expect a coherent, well-thought-through theology from a man who thought that war and genocide were appropriate policies. DJ Clayworth 18:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both Hitler and Stalin did consider a religious life I also read that Stalin was praying to God in a Kremlin church when the Germans were headed to Moscow, it is ironic becuse Stalin despised religion. Hitler allowed religous symbols in his country,such as The Iron Cross Dudtz 7/26/04 2:09 PM EST

Method of suicide (minor change proposal)

The article mentions Hitler ingested a cyanide tablet. In fact, the cyanide came from an ampule. Minor change, but accuracy lies in the detail.

Done. Thanks. --brian0918™ 02:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbeit Macht Frei

It was a cliche of the Holocaust, and a cynical and hypocritical one at that... but was it necessary for Hitler to go around plastering those three words all over his concentration camp entrances? Especially in the locations shown in the films - which seem to be out of the way or ineffective entrances. Oh well - everyone knew in the camps that arbeit really macht todt, not macht frei. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hitler had nothing to do with the camps. He never even visited a single one.

This note by anonymous user 24.141.60.112 Demi T/C 05:36, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

page protection

i think the protection should be removed, this page was protected for too long time. --Haham hanuka 12:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"genocidal Holocaust" and "NSDAP"

I think that using thouse words is a personal point of view, by writing "Holocaust" we say that the policy of Nazi Germany was bad. --Haham hanuka 15:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is simply using the most common name for the event, which has been the accepted way of choosing which names to use on Wikipedia. We shouldn't really even be including "National Socialist German Workers Party" in the lead section, because this article is not about that party. It should just say the Nazi Party, which is the most common term in the English language for the party. --brian0918™ 16:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's okay to assume that killing lots of people because of their racial origin or culture is bad. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia doesn't make room for extremist viewpoints. If it did, we'd have to change The Holocaust to read "The Holocaust refers to Nazi Germany's alleged systematic genocide..." --brian0918™ 17:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I also agree that the full name of the NSDAP is out of place here. It should be called by its common English name, the Nazi party. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia makes room for all sorts of outlandish viewpoints, see reptilian humanoid, flat earth society, heteronormativity, or any of the anarcho- articles. Also, I see no reason to shorten NSDAP, but I don't think it matters very much if you want to so badly. Sam Spade 18:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Sure, Wikipedia is allowed to have articles on the viewpoints, but it doesn't take those viewpoints into account when considering how it writes normal articles. Like I said above, otheriwse we'd have to change The Holocaust to read "The Holocaust refers to Nazi Germany's alleged systematic genocide...", and we'd have to change Earth to read "The Earth is approximately a slightly oblate spheroid, or flat." --brian0918™ 18:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What will always irk me linguistically is the phrase "genocidal Holocaust". Is there any other kind? In fact, genocide was coined specifically to describe events like the Holocaust. It's a good illustration of how words can fail to describe the enormity of the thing. JRM 15:36, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway wants the term "genocidal" so that there is a direct link to genocide in the lead section. "Holocaust" as a term doesn't necessarily have to mean genocidal, although the phrase "the genocidal Holocaust" doesn't leave room for that argument. Just consider it an unnecessary, but useful descriptor I guess. --brian0918™ 15:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, Tony wants it in. That changes everything. I suddenly find it palatable now. :-) Since being bold on a page like this doesn't get you much, as a rule, how about:
He implemented the racial policies of Nazi Germany and his government instituted the Holocaust, the genocide of millions of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies (among others).
Is that any good? Now, of course, you can object that we're explaining what "the Holocaust" is, which should be bleedingly obvious, but it's still better than referring to "the genocidal Holocaust". OK, the "among others" is rather lame, but we don't want to repeat the intro of the Holocaust, nor do we want to imply the rest "didn't matter". Hmm, tricky finding the right words on such a topic, isn't it? JRM 16:07, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
  • My concern was that the term holocaust isn't self-evidently genocidal--it could just describe a really devastating event. The common term nuclear holocaust, for instance, which would be more in the nature of a strategic deterrence strategy gone wrong and doesn't really have any genocidal elements. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, but we're not talking about "a holocaust" here, in the meaning derived from the original event (which, in terms like "nuclear holocaust" indeed has nothing to do with genocide per se), we're talking the Holocaust, definite article, capital H, architectured by mr. Hitler. Calling that "genocidal" looks as silly as "devastating" would look for any holocaust. Implying that we need "genocidal" to make sure exactly what sort of holocaust is talked about, just in case the reader is thinking of mushroom clouds or indeed just any mass killing when reading about Adolf Hitler being responsible for "the Holocaust" seems a bit off the mark. Still, we're talking personal interpretation of semantics here, which is always tricky. JRM 16:29, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
    Consider the term to be a descriptor rather than a.. disambiguator. --brian0918™ 16:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I did, and I do. Tony seems to think of it as a disambiguator. My argument is that as a descriptor, it's at best a pleonasm and at worst a tautology, and neither are very suitable for a well-written encyclopedia article. The Holocaust was genocide. "The genocidal Holocaust" is doubly bad because "genocide" is so closely linked to "Holocaust" in its origins. But as I said, it's unlikely any amount of argument will settle this, as it seems to boil down to personal taste, and we all know what they say about taste... JRM 17:41, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
I prefer the term "a genocidal holocaust" because it's descriptive, whereas the term "the Holocaust" isn't much use to someone who hasn't heard the term holocaust applied in that way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I sort-of see your point. My problem is that I cannot imagine someone who knows what "genocidal" means but has never heard of the Holocaust. No, scratch that—I cannot imagine anyone who's never heard of the Holocaust, although I know my imagination is getting in my way here, because such people must exist (there must be areas of the world where WWII in its entirety is languishing in obscurity, as hard to envision as this is for me).
That said, I still don't see why my idea of explicitly referring to the Holocaust as a genocide, rather than tagging it "genocidal", has no merit. (I'm arguing from silence here, obviously. :-) Are people really supposed to go "gee, I didn't know holocausts could be genocidal, let's click on that link"? I'd rather think they'd go "what's 'genocidal'"? In that sense, I'd like to give "genocide" prominence of its own, not an off-handed adjectival mention. What you are effectively doing here is explaining very briefly what the Holocaust entailed, which is good, but then you're also doing it very off-handedly, which is not so good, and causes irritation among people who do know what the Holocausts was and what genocide is (well, with "people" I only mean "me", obviously. :-) Hope this clears up my POV. JRM 19:29, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)
If we're deciding between linking to the Holocaust and to genocide, I'm pretty confident that the Holocaust should take precedence, since the article is actually talking about that specific event. --brian0918™ 21:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've yet to see proper proof of the allegement that homosexuality depends on the person's genes. I personally believe it is caused by the person's development in his/her early age. Therefore, why not just make it "mass murder", "a holocaust", "an organised extermination" or something along those lines (note: not the holocaust, but a holocaust, since there have been various other holocausts such as the Native American Holocaust, the Yugoslavia Holocaust, the Rwanda Holocaust, and so on). Keeping it as "genocidal Holocaust" (why the capital letter H by the way?) would not include the mass murder of homosexuals and Hitler's political opponents, as none of the two things depend on genes. --HJV 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Therefore" doesn't follow from "I personally believe". "The Holocaust" is the accepted term, thus the article The Holocaust being on this event of which we speak. It is capitalized and prefixed by "the" to differentiate it from various other genocides. Again, this is the accepted format. Your personal belief is irrelevant. As for your claim that it doesn't include other groups, the first line of The Holocaust says: "The Holocaust was Nazi Germany's systematic genocide (ethnic cleansing) of various ethnic, religious, national, and secular groups during World War II, starting in 1941 and continuing through 1945." --brian0918™ 21:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changes to intro since Mar 18th and comment on Wyss

After having been away for much of the last several weeks, I have only just now looked at this article again. I support the changes argued for and made to the intro in the last month or so, by various editors including Tony Sidaway, Demi and Brian0918 They have made the intro substantially better IMHO. So well done everybody.

I would also like to recognize and thank Wyss for the hard work he has put into this article, with such excellent results. Paul August ☎ 18:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

6 million

I'm a Jew and I think the real number of Jews murdered by the Nazi is much smaller. The number of 6 million may be just a myth. As far as I know there is no evidence or proof for this number. --Haham hanuka 17:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your ethnicity and personal POV actually aren't relevant to the article contents. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
So your POV does? Virtually everyone who has studied the holocaust in some depth must have noticed how the only proof that there is of these "6 million" being killed are some testimonies got by beating the living s*it out of the suspect, and some physical "proof" not proving anything at all. I do know that thousands of Jews and other people died on these camps, and that even one dead is one too many, but due to the lack of proof a specifid number should not be announced, as long as there is a clear lack of solid proof for this number. The International Red Cross Committee (section of war crimes or something, cant remember examtly) published an investigation stating that around 66 000 we killed in Auschwitz, but it got soon pulled back and put into the secret archives. Probably too costly rewriting the figure in history books. --User:HJV
Strangely enough, at the end of World War II, the jewish death toll for this holocaust was 6 million, from which some millions in Auschwitz. Curiously, when the Auschwitz number was cut down by over half, the six million figure remained. This six million number has not been proved to be true, and could be classified as given from a certain POV. --User:HJV
Wikipedia does not deal in what is "true", but what is accepted by the majority in a given field. The 6 million number is the accepted number. Whether it is true or not will never be known. --brian0918™ 21:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're Jewish, and you remove the link to The Holocaust from the lead section of Adolf Hitler (and change "killed" to "led to the death of")... please stop making edits like this without discussing on the talk page. --brian0918™ 21:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should even consider your opinion. From your last failed self-nomination for Adminship, it was revealed that your user page was locked on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and it lists all the charges brought against you by their admins, including that you have vandalized the Hebrew Village Pump and put pornographic content on the main page, among other things, according to Danny. I'm not totally convinced that you're Jewish, or, if you are, that you care about contributing to Wikipedia. The admins on the Hebrew Wikipedia certainly think so. Have they banned you for good, or just locked your user page? --brian0918™ 02:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The number factors in people who were pretty much as gentile as it gets but, were killed for 1/16 or 1/32 jewish ancestory. The number of religious Jews killed was lower but, i think the number should stick because the people who were killed for being 1/32 Jewish were still killed for being presumably Jewish.

The Encyclopedia Judiaca (not sure if I spelled that correctly) has an article explaining the origins of the "6 million" figure. Its been years since I read it, but the most important method used was comparative census data. An exhaustive examination of pre- and post-war censuses in Europe and elsewhere (including what is now Israel), showed that more than 6 million Jews listed in pre-war censuses had dissappeared from the face of the earth at the end of the war. When adjustments are made to account for Jews killed in the war by causes other than murder, the total was about 6 million. --Nate Ladd 08:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Changes I want to make

  • ...and his government instituted ethnic cleansing (better known as the holocaust) of millions of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies.
  • Between 1942 and 1945 the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, has led to the death of millions ,including millions of Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere.

--Haham hanuka 08:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • Why? And why should we consider your opinion, considering you've been banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia as a vandal/troll. --brian0918™ 11:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No one has ban me from the he.wiki, in fact I've a lot of contributes. Stop personal attacking me. --Haham hanuka 12:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think anyone is considering this a personal attack, so you shouldn't bother pushing that view. It says right on your he: user page that you are a "troll", and you haven't edited that Wikipedia since 2004. Why did you stop? --brian0918™ 12:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You never explained WHY these changes should be made. Stop changing the article without explaining first. --brian0918™ 17:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Brian0918, can you state what you find objectionable about his changes? You are saying the material should not be included because it comes from Haham hanuka--how is that not a personal attack? 119 17:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A reputable reference for the "11 million" and "6 million" figures, given in the article would help with issues like this. Can someone please provide one? Paul August ☎ 18:03, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Adolf Eichmann himself said the 6 million, but I've found some reputable references for the 6 million: [5] and [6] for just a couple examples. This is a good example that breaks the numbers down: [7]. --brian0918™ 18:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you are comfortable with the authoritativeness of these references, then you should add them to the article. Paul August ☎ 18:59, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • The lowercase "the holocaust" is completely wrong (grammatically and historically, see the Holocaust), and his removal of the accepted "11 million, 6 million" reference is unallowable. Besides, his version doesn't even sound right: "the SS... has led to the death of millions". Not only is it bad English, it's a switch from active wording to passive wording ("killed" -> "led to the death of"), purposely deceiving. --brian0918™ 18:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hitler was a leftist!

There seems to be a much confusion about what leftism actually is. According to the conventional wisdom of the day, Hitler was overwhelmingly socialist, although not at all extreme as a socialist. The claim that Hitler was "rightist" falsely connects his radical nationalism with unrelated liberitarian capitalism. Readers need to be informed of this so as to clear up and prevent further misunderstandings. In my argument I refer to this article:

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html

Here's one quote which might inspire some thoughts, but there's much more to it in the whole article: ""That does however raise the question of WHY such thinking is seen as "Rightist" today. And the answer to THAT goes back to the nature of Leftism! The political content of Leftism varies greatly from time to time. The sudden about-turn of the Left on antisemitism in recent times is vivid proof of that. And what the political content of Leftism is depends on the Zeitgeist -- the conventional wisdom of the day. Leftists take whatever is commonly believed and push it to extremes in order to draw attention to themselves as being the good guys -- the courageous champions of popular causes. So when the superiority of certain races was commonly accepted, Leftists were champions of racism. So when eugenics was commonly accepted as wise, Leftists were champions of eugenics -- etc. In recent times they have come to see more righteousness to be had from championing the Palestinian Arabs than from championing the Jews so we have seen their rapid transition from excoriating antisemitism to becoming "Antizionist". "" --ScandinavianMale

I'm not sure it's helpful to make a big thing of whether Hitler was 'leftist' or 'rightist'. As you say, the exact definition of these terms vary from time to time and place to place. Rather than saying "Hitler was a leftist" would it not be better to give a description of his beliefs and policies and leave the reader to decide which pigeon-hole, of any, to put him in? DJ Clayworth 20:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. The title was just a challenge to the popular (but controversial) belief that Hitler was undeniably right-wing. I'm suggesting the article should depict more, of what he has in common with "leftists" and more where he differs with "rightists", than it does currently. --ScandinavianMale

Hitler during the war

I find the section on WWII in this article remarkably short for such a pivotal time for AH. I'm not a big expert on AH, but it seems we could expand on his relationship during that time with other high-ranking Nazis, and especially his increasing tendencies to take control of military operations himself, and deteriorating relationships with his generals. Surely also some mention of the Holocaust needs to be made there. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yad Vashem is not reliable source

I've been in Yad Vashem museum in Israel (which none of you have been there) they are claiming that the Nazis made soaps from the bones of the death victims which has been proved as an Urban legend!!!, I think we should have more sources for this argument. This source is not objective. --Haham hanuka 19:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • How can you assume that nobody has been to the Holocaust memorial in Israel except you? This is one of the most reputable sources. Besides, there are dozens of other legitimate sources that quote the same numbers in detail. How do you go from this alleged "soap is an Urban Legend" to "they are lying about everything and their claim of 6 million is wrong"??? That is not a logical step. --brian0918™ 19:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Is this the best source we can find? Paul August ☎ 19:44, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is one of THE best sources, though. It's Israel's official memorial to the Holocaust. You can also check the external links at The Holocaust. I don't think we should be trusting the word of Haham hanuka, who has been banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia since 2004 for being a troll, vandalizing the main page, adding pornographic content (according to User:Danny who translated his user page, which lists all of the things he's done). --brian0918™ 19:48, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not suggesting we "trust" Haham. That's the point of references, so we don't have to trust what any individual editor says. That is why it is important to have the best sources we can find. Perhaps adding another one would be good. Paul August ☎ 20:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Check the article, there are two references there. --brian0918™ 20:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I just post here an example that shows Yad Vashem is not reliable. In addition, like the Hamas wensite is not reliable when you worte about Israeli politicians, Yad Veshem website is not reliable when you write about German politician. --Haham hanuka 19:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • More illogical nonsense. --brian0918™ 19:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, Mr Haham hanuka, your statement above that "nobody else on this page has been to Yad Vashem" is wrong; something I know from my own personal experience (i.e. I've been there). By your own logic this false statement means that you are not a reliable source, and we can ignore everything you write. Or do you wish to change your viewpoint? DJ Clayworth 03:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, what an outlandishly sophomoric thing to say. I've been there as well, more than once. El_C 05:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Soap isn't made from bones,it is made from fat(doesn't have to to be human) all you vegetarians out there better stop using soap and glue "you won't eat our meat but you'll glue with our feet"-The Simpsons Dudtz 7/26/05 2:18 PM EST

Haham hanuka is not a reliable source

Please see User:Nadavspi/Haham Hanuka where Nadavspi is translating Haham hanuka's user page on Hebrew Wikipedia, which details why Haham hanuka was blocked from that encyclopedia. (He has only translated the first part of the page at the time of this posting, but is currently working on the rest.) --brian0918™ 19:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This Page in the Hebrew wiki does not belong to me!!! didn't you get it by now?? --Haham hanuka 20:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you even bother lying? You said right on User talk:Merovingian:
      • To prove that I'm right see my contributions here [8] --Haham hanuka 19:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • which is the contribution page for that user, who you say is yourself. Stop lying! --brian0918™ 20:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It also says right on your talk page in Hebrew that that is you. --brian0918™ 21:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hysterical blindness?

The current text says:

On October 15, 1918, shortly before the end of war, Hitler was admitted to a field hospital, temporarily blind following a poison gas attack. Recent research however indicates the blindness may have been the result of an hysterical reaction to Germany's military defeat.

This doesn't sound right. According to Kershaw's Hubris, p. 96-97:

On the night of 12-14, October, Hitler fell victim to mustard gas on the heights south of Wervick, part of the southern front near Ypres. He and several comrades, rereating from their dug-out during a gas-attack, were partially blinded by the gas and found their way to safety only by clinging on to each other and following a comrade who was slightly badly afflicted. After initial treatment in Flanders, Hitler was transported on 21 October 1918 to the military hospital in Pasewalk, near Stetting, in Pomerania.

AFAIK, the temporary blinding effect of mustard gas is well known. See: Use of poison gas in World War I. So what's the source for this hysterical blindness stuff?

nyenyec ☎ 00:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks strange to me too, and I dug in and found out when it was added. Turns out it's from a February 16 edit by user:Male1979 who added lots of stuff back then. I have asked him for a reference and to comment on it here. Shanes 01:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me for the references. I just came back from holiday and found the note. I changed a lot back then. I relied heavily on the German article. I will check whether there is a source given there and then post you again. Ben talk contr 06:47, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think a lot of my edits have been removed, when I didn't come back any more to check. So, to add some background to the edit, I copyedited the following paragraphs from de (in keywords):
Before the end of the war, after a gas attack, Hitler was instutionalized in the military hospital at Pasewalk. He argued in Mein Kampf that the temporary blindness, because of which he was treated, was caused by the gas. Newer research, based on the hospital's records, also give way for speculations, the blindness may have been a hysterical reaction to Germany's military defeat. In any case, Hitler was treated by a psychiatrist and classified as a psychopath, uncapable for leadership.

His superior is cited with "I will never promote this hysteric!" (Heiden [5][source of the German article). Therefore, it was not only because of Hitler's austrian citizenship, he was never promoted beyond the Gefreiter (private first class), inspite of being wounded several times and being awarded the Eiserne Kreuz of both classes and other honors. Sebastian Haffner calls his time in the military "the only educational event in his life".

That was more or less what I copyedited back then. My goal back then was more generally to remove the strong NPOV in favor of Hitler. If you see the next section on this page here, you will find, that some things have been changed again back to where it was, many things remained though. It is important for this article especially, what kind of sources you cite. I think, about this guy, nearly anything possible has been written, so a lot depends on your choice of sources. The German is more anti-Hitler in tendency than the article here. I was criticed and reverted a lot when I introduced these and other changes. So, anyway, I just posted a request for sources on the German discussion page and tell you if anything comes up. Ben talk contr 07:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ben talk contr 03:56, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mustard gas and hysterical?

Thanks for digging up the source. However, I think the current version of the text is misleading (even if that source is trustworthy). My German is not very good, but I think according to the page you linked, he got temporary blindness from the mustard gas (not disputed) and then may have been a victim of hysterical blindness in addition to that, after he got admitted to the hospital.

On October 15, 1918, shortly before the end of war, Hitler was admitted to a field hospital, temporarily blind following a poison gas attack. Recent research by Bernhard Horstmann however indicates the blindness may have been the result of an hysterical reaction to Germany's military defeat.

Or maybe I misunderstood something. nyenyec ☎ 05:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The text to the book says, the mustard gas attacked his eyes, but doesn't say he became blind thereafter. It says, he was treated in a hospital and then treated for hysterical blindness after the German capitulation. I don't know, whether the source (i.e. the book) is trustworthy, but the publishing house is well-established and has a good name, so I guess the book has to be taken seriously. Ben talk contr 08:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Nathan Ladd's version

First off, he is disregarding any of the consensus reached on the talk page, and attempting to start everything with a clean slate. No.

Please specify what concensus you are talking about. My changes aren't informational in any significant way. I'm only cleaning up usage/grammar/style problems.--Nate Ladd 09:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I don't care about the date ordering.
  2. ", Founder of the Third Reich," sounds pretty bad right after his name.
    • "sounds pretty bad" is your POV. The sentence commits no errors. And the phrase comes after his dates, not after his name. It is modeled on the opening sentences of other biographical articles in this encyclopedia. E.g. "Joe Shmo (1888 - 1920), President of the United States ... " --Nate Ladd 09:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you provide sample articles that are worded this way. This is only a minor quibble. --brian0918™ 10:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I gave Franklin Roosevelt and Churchill as examples before. See also any article on an American President. The pattern is "Name (dates), most significant office/achievement, ..."
          • I still think it sounds odd, but don't care if it gets changed. --brian0918™ 10:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. "A charismatic orator and skilled politician, Hitler was born in in Braunau am Inn, Austria-Hungary and died in in Berlin, Germany." This sentence is beyond poorly worded. We don't need information about his birth and death into the lead section (the photo box has all that info right at the top right)
    • I agree. This isn't my sentence. I'd like to see it gone. --Nate Ladd 09:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • If this isn't your sentence, why did you readd it at least 3 times? --brian0918™ 10:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I tried to get rid of it some weeks ago and I was told it was a "concensus" that it stay. So this week, when I tried again to fix the usage of that paragraph I left it in. Apparently, in the meantime, someone managed to delete and I didn't notice. (More power to 'em.)
  4. If you would've read above, it is preferred that there be a link to genocide in the lead section. Besides, "genocide" is more accurate than simply "murder".
    • They are both perfectly accurate. But I don't care which word is used. Stick with genocide if that's what you want. It is bad sentence/paragraph structure that concerns me. --Nate Ladd 09:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. The extensive list of undesirables is unnecessary--that's the purpose of the link to the Holocaust.
    • Well, that's fine, but if we don't identify all the significant groups of victims, then we shouldn't identify any. The version I changed identified only Jews and Slavs. --Nate Ladd 09:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, you can identify all other groups within the article, but not in the lead section. The point of the lead section is to summarize, not explain every single detail. The groups that were affected the most are those that should be in the lead section. You can say "Jews, Slavs, and other groups" instead.
        • But the handicapped and the political opponents (etc.) WERE among the groups that were affected the most. They, too, were nearly obliterated. (The Slavs, by the way, were NOT.) Moreover, the fact that he tried to extinguish all handicapped and homosexuals gives the reader information about Hitler's mind that is every bit as interesting/valuable as the fact that he tried to extinguish Jews. Finally, please note that when you list some, but not all categories of victims, you are not summarizing. You are being selective. Summarizing would be "Hitler tried to extinguish many different groups of people."
          • The Jews are the most oft-mentioned, and most drastically affected, group in connection with the Holocaust. You can't leave them out. Saying "Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other groups" or even "about six million Jews and five million others" would work.
            • By what measure do you say that the Jews were the "most drastically affected"? I'll bet the percentage of handicapped and political opponents that were killed is higher than the percentage of Jews that were killed. But I can live with "about six million Jews and five million others" for now.
              • Total numbers are what matter for most people, not percentages. If you want a percentage: one group (the Jews) suffered 20% more deaths than all other groups combined. --brian0918™ 11:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. The last sentence of the lead section sounds better, though; more neutral, less confusing.

--brian0918™ 09:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the 11 million number is totally dubious. Supposedly, Simon Wiesenthal basically made it up so that the number of non-Jews killed would be nearly the number of Jews, but not quite. If you count the total number of people killed by the Nazis who weren't actually soldiers under arms, it's far more than 11 million. If you only consider those killed in a similar way to how the Jews were killed, it's considerably less. We shouldn't repeat that number unless we have a serious source for it. john k 05:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"He was never promoted beyond corporal because he wasn't a German citizen."

The current version of the article says: "He was never promoted beyond corporal because he wasn't a German citizen."

Another thing that doesn't sound right. In Hubris Kershaw writes (p.91):

On 3 November 1914, (with effect from 1 November), Hitler was promoted to corporal. It was his last promotion of the war, though he could certainly have been expected to advance further, at least as far as non-commissioned offizier (Unteroffizier). Later in the war, he was in fact nominated by Max Amman, then a staff sergeant, subsequently Hitler's press baron, and the regimental staff considered making him Unteroffizier [1]. Fritz Wiedermann, the regimental regimental adjutant who in the 1930s became for a time one of the Führer's adjutants, testified after the end of the Third Reich that Hitler's superiors had thought him lacking in leadership qualities. [2]. However, both Amann and Wiedermann made clear that Hitler, probably because he would have been transferred from the regimental staff, actually refused to be considered for promotion. [3]

[1] Anton Joachimsthaler, Korrektur einer Bibliographie. Adolf Hitler 1908-1920, Munich, 1989., 159-60

[2] Fritz Wiedemann, Der Mann, der Feldherr werden wollte, Velbert/Kettwig, 1964.

[3] Joachimsthaler, 159-60

So it doesn't seem that his citizenship was taken into account or that it was the reason for no further promotions. What is the source for that?

nyenyec ☎ 02:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I saw a special on the History Channel recently which said that he refused further promotion.... and the History Channel is never wrong. --brian0918™ 03:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The history channel is usually wrong ;) Sam Spade 06:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was joking. --brian0918™ 14:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Please see the Heiden sources for that. Heiden states he was extremely unpopular with his colleagues and with his superior. Before the text explicitly said it didn't have to do with his citizenship. Ben talk contr 08:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

How come such serious errors slip through in such a prominent article?

I consider myself an experienced Wikipedian (although I do most of my work in the Hungarian version), but after seeing errors such as this being included in such a well known article my trust is seriously shaken in Wikipedia.

What's the excuse this time? (My excuses to critics are usually, "yes but this can't happen in better known topics" or "yes, you're right something stupid was included, but this can't happen in EnWiki, since they have a lot of editors").

If it's because of a specific policy, than let's change that policy! (E.g. if a page sees more than x vandalisms a months, it should be protected, since important changes that need to be reviewed get lost in the "noise" generated by vandals and the reverts. I think x > 100 for this article.)

Or is it a technical shortcoming in the Wikipedia software? Then let's fix it. I believe built in support for something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check would help. What do you think?

Or is it business as usual and I should get used to it? There is no way Wikipedia can get more reliable than this?

nyenyec ☎ 15:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the excuse is fairly simple: Wikipedia is finite. No matter how well-known an article is or how many people watch it, even the most prominent articles will contain errors every now and then. This is business as usual, yes, and the only policy to blame is that Wikipedia is a wiki—though blaming that doesn't really make sense, because this article wouldn't exist in the first place if Wikipedia were not. Of course something like this wouldn't happen in, say, Britannica... or would it? The difference is, of course, that we needn't tear our hair out over the terrible mistakes so committed, because we can just fix them.
Can Wikipedia get more reliable? Probably. How? I have no idea. People have suggested a lot; the most common suggestions are a rating system for specific revisions and/or an "approved" version that is updated with edits from "draft" as they are deemed reliable. If you are bent on fixing these problems once and for all, though, you're probably going to do more harm than good, because it can't be done. Even brilliant editors with good sources can slip up, undetected by the careful scrutiny of others. Is there still lots of room for improvement in Wikipedia's reliability? Sure. Is this due to some obvious deficiency we can simply fix? I daresay not. JRM · Talk 15:28, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I'm a software guy, I'm used to having bugs in everything I use or write. One of the things that we, software people try to do is making sure, that once a bug is fixed, it won't show up again. What will prevent this same mistake being re-added say 6 months from now and staying there for a year?
I agree that we can't fix Wikipedia "once and for all". Just like you can't write bug-free software. But there are ways to improve the reliability. Maybe my time as a software developer would be better spent adding features to Mediawiki than reviewing articles. This "draft" and "approved" version seems like a good idea. I can see that combined with new referencing features it can be a boost to reliability. Can you point me to a page where it is being discussed?
nyenyec ☎ 15:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Hard... these ideas crop up everywhere but they can't seem to stay in one place. There's Wikipedia 1.0, which aims to produce a half-decent print/CD-ROM version. We've got Category:Editorial validation with all sorts of nifty pages, including the quite recent Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Wikipedia:Trust model looks closest to what I mentioned, though this isn't where I heard the idea originally... But I'm guessing this material shoud be enough to keep you busy for a while. :-) Rest assured you're far from alone in worrying about these matters. JRM · Talk 16:02, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
And while I'm on the subject, though there's no editorial equivalent of the regression testing you mention, in practice this does happen after getting burned enough times. If a particular misgiving about an article is so common as to need debunking multiple times, then either the article will be clearly updated to deny the error, or if not notable or common enough, will be added to the talk page. Since this sort of thing can't be automated, unlike with software, it's naturally harder. JRM · Talk 16:05, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Well, if this article was thoroughly referenced like the Wikipedia article, I think that would help. Also I feel that the constant struggle against vandals and fanatics generates a lot of noise which makes it hard to keep track of what really changed. I believe that this article can serve as a case study for pointing out several shortcomings of Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for the links, I'll keep thinking about this. I feel that the software can be improved to address some of the problems and help save editor's valuable time. nyenyec ☎ 18:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to say it, because it's almost Wikipedia blasphemy, but if we ever want to get to the point where Wikipedia's information is to be really trusted, we have to have some system where there are restrictions on who can edit. My own view is that we should move towards a system where certain articles should be marked as 'trusted' or some such, and that after that only a list of 'trusted' editors can change them. It would be nice if we could then have an 'additional information' section which would still be visible, and which anyone could edit where people could add new facts. DJ Clayworth 13:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Extreme noise generated by vandalism

Am I the only one who feels that there is so much noise generated by vandals and editors reverting vandals that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's going on in the page history, especially when one leaves for a couple of days?

Would you agree, that a switch "Hide vandalism" (similar to hide minor edits in Recent changes) would help? Editors could mark vandalism reverts with a flag, so you can filter out these changes in the page history.

(Otherwise I'd simply protect pages like this that receive too much vandalism.)

nyenyec ☎ 18:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

There are two pictures of Hitler smiling with a little girl. I don't have any problem with those kinds of portrayals in principle, but we ought to at least not have two that are so similar. Everyking 06:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

My edits

[9] why did you revert them? 62.0.146.145 05:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The are some controversies regarding the number of the Jews victims, According to Yad Vashem
To begin with, atrocious grammar. More significantly, your simplistic, misleadingly narrow qualification is misplaced in the article, within the passage you've inserted it into. El_C 09:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
ok, you are right about the grammar
There are some controversies regarding the number of Jewish victims, according to Yad Vashem
Why this version isn't acceptable? 217.132.147.45
Because this article is about Hitler and we don't want to sidetrack the reader with a discussion about the deathtoll which belongs in Holocaust; and ~6 million is not a view limited to Yad Vasehm, it more-or-less comprises the current historiographical consensus, and as such, is enough for our immediate purposes here. El_C 14:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"Reportedly by suicide"...

Right now the intro part about his death reads:

Although he wanted his reich to last a thousand years, it ended shortly after his death, reportedly by suicide, in his Berlin Führerbunker. (See Hitler's death.)

I find this "reportedly by suicide" strange looking. What else did he die of in the Führerbunker, if not suicide? I've read many obscure theories about Hitler's death, but him being killed by someone else in the Führerbunker is not one of them. So I'd like to change that line to something like:

Although he wanted his reich to last a thousand years, it ended shortly after his suicide in the Berlin Führerbunker. (See Hitler's death.)

Or some variant thereof. Maybe wikilink "his suicide" to Hitler's death, and save some precious intro-space. But that "reportedly by suicide" thing is just silly. No? Shanes 01:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe wikilink "his suicide" to Hitler's death, and save some precious intro-space. Do we have to? I changed this, and while I will readily admit it's clunky, it's still better than producing easter egg links. See Wikipedia:Piped link. In this case it's not quite so bad because it's obvious "his suicide" must link to some specific article on Hitler's death, but still. (Oh, and yeah, "reportedly" is needlessly POV. :-) JRM · Talk 01:52, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
Well, this is the intro and we want to keep it short. There are many places where we could have inserted a "see also" (invasions of Czechoslovakia, see also: Munich Agreement, Poland (see also Polish September Campaign) to name a few), but we generally don't do it in intros. At least it's my impression that we shouldn't do it. The reader knows that he'll have to read the article to learn more about stuff written in the intro, and putting in "see also" stuff there seems wrong to me. Shanes 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree, have any of you read hitlers death? The circumstances couldn't be any less clear. Sam Spade 01:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"Couldn't be any less clear" is stretching it... I know that some still think there are room for doubt wether he maybe managed to escape, but as long as we don't want to mention that in the intro (which is right IMO, a link to the death-article is enough) and we are speaking about him dying in the bunker, I feel that "reportedly" is needless NPOV. Or are there any sourses documenting that Eva Braun or any others might have shot Hitler while he was still alive? Not even the Hitler's death article mentions that as a theory. Shanes 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe the "reportedly" is there to let there be room for the escape theory? In that case we should remove the "," after suicide. But I don't like that either. If this is the theory you have in mind with that word, that is. Is it? Shanes 02:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Meh. It's not as bad as "allegedly", I suppose. Do we really need to go over this in the intro, though? The "defeat and death" section is there for a reason. I think we can afford to not give the minority POVs (and they are a small minority) a spotlight in the first paragraph. "Reportedly"... I dunno. Still iffy.JRM · Talk 02:32, 2005 May 9 (UTC)


It is just possible for a highly imaginative person to read the present rather messily written article Hitler's death and come to the conclusion that there is a serious question mark over whether Hitler killed himself. However such questions don't belong in this article. "Death by suicide" is preferable here to the needless and misleading "Death, reportedly by suicide". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No serious historian or biographer of Hitler that I am aware of has ever doubted that he committed suicide. "reportedly by suicide" is highly misleading. john k 15:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No one "reportedly" eyewitnessed the event either, so "reportedly by suicide" is a possible correct phrasing. Also, it would be a hint as to why there are other wild speculations about his death abound. Mikkalai 23:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
This interpretation is unnecessarily strained. We don't let the witterings of conspiracy nuts dictate the wording we use in our articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)