Talk:Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

This page is for the inactive talk topics of the article: Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler

Contents 1 Bare bones intros 2 Blockquote 3 Babajobu's criticisms 4 Removal of Payne, Berry 5 "largely anecdotal" 6 Need verification 7 Berry/Payne 8 Toland 9 NYT article 10 Citation cleanup 11 Introductory characterization of conflict 12 POV tag 12.1 Added POV title tag (and original research tag) 12.2 Article title 13 What this article appears to be missing 14 Liver dumplings 15 Idealogical considerations 16 Picture of Hitler with a deer 17 Rotten Library

Bare bones intros

I do like them short and sweet. Wyss 03:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Blockquote

I don't really like the blockquote style, as it hampers readability and makes formal continuity difficult by offsetting certain passages. It might work well on some pages, but I don't see it working here at all. In any case, I'm interested in moving all but the most important quotes to wikiquote and paraphrasing the rest; or shortening the quotes as much as possible, as I did with Berry. --Viriditas | Talk 13:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree too many blockquotes can get in the way. Your reworking and chronology swaps did improve readability.

I've restored Wilson's comment about "free of flesh", also pared down those Fuchs references (he drew from many secondary sources and is not considered a major AH biographer). The Toland reference to liver dumplings is credible (I've always believed it for what that's worth) but as ever, chronology is key to understanding and describing this topic. Wyss 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I restored the Doyle quote but it is understood that using the term vegan to describe AH may be rash (unless Doyle knows something we don't). I've never heard AH ever stopped consuming eggs and dairy, so I qualified the vegan remark. Wyss 15:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, you said earlier I ought to learn about historiography, but you're now using Doyle as a source for an alleged veganism, when he was not in a position to know that, and has anyway misused the word. And writing [sic] after the word is a misuse of that, and doesn't qualify it. That's used for typos and spelling mistakes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your definition of sic is mistaken, please look it up [1] and please stop the unilateral edit-warring and careless remarks about my edits. Wyss 18:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the sic, either. He clearly wasn't a vegan, just as Goebbels clearly didn't "invent" Hitler's vegetarianism. Why don't we just exclude incorrect info from secondary sources from the article? Babajobu 17:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

IMHO? Because the Payne quote, however inaccurate, is too near and dear to the evangelistic, moralizing and purging veggie PoV of Rynn Berry. Wyss 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well done, Slim and Viriditas, as it now stands the article very effectively represents veggie POV. Babajobu 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Not anymore. We can work together or bicker, Viriditas seems willing to work this out and has been contributing sundry helpful cites, IMHO SV is still reverting wantonly and aggressively to her personal and extreme PoV. Wyss 18:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about working together, Wyss, and I appreciate your hard work on this article. IMO, SlimVirgin is one of the most neutral editors I know on Wikipedia, and she is adept at writing for the enemy. As Wyss suggests, let's stick to working on the article and arguing about content, not editors. FWIW, I do not see any "wanton" or "aggressive" reverts from Slim, nor do I see her pushing a pro-Veggie POV; it's just not her style. --Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take the "wanton" and "aggressive" about SV back. :) Wyss 01:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu's criticisms

These questions are directed towards Babajobu, not Wyss. He may answer these questions as an indented, threaded reply to my text if he so wishes.

• You wrote, Well done, Slim and Viriditas, as it now stands the article very effectively represents veggie POV. I would be very interested to see you back up that claim with evidence, Babajobu. Please do so, here. --Viriditas | Talk 00:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• You removed the word "meatless", with the edit summary "unnecessary scare-quoted qualifier". How is that the case when the word was quoted from the following Homes & Gardens article ("Even in his meatless diet Hitler is something of a gourmet")? How is quoting text, a "scare" qualifier? --Viriditas | Talk 01:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Payne, Berry

Wyss, I don't know why I have to remind you, but again, please don't remove controversial content unless we have discussed it on talk first. Your edit summary does not adequately explain why you removed Berry and Payne's content, nor do I see anything on talk about your removal; it looks like you have violated NPOV. Please be so kind as to add the text back into the article until we have discussed its removal, as we did with the Doyle content which Babajobu removed with consensus. This will also demonstrate your good faith in promoting harmonious editing. Off the top of my head, Berry and Payne's argument is based on OSS documents and other anecdotal accounts. I have the information somewhere, but I'm in the middle of a couple things right now. Please don't make me revert your good edits. --Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The OSS Hitler documents were rife with smears and disinformation from disaffected Nazis and other Germans trying to curry favour as best they could, telling the spooks in London what they thought they wanted hear (often trying to prove they hated Hitler in order to get visas, money, commissions, whatever). The OSS did lots of successful work but didn't even know AH was in Berlin at the end of the war. Payne's account directly contradicts Goebbels' own diary. Payne is not a major AH biographer. So far as consensus goes, I didn't say the Doyle quote should be removed, I qualified his use of the term vegan, which Slim Virgin very mistakenly and disruptively thought was an incorrect use of the term sic. If Payne must be restored, please put Doyle back in too (with the [sic]) and let's find a wider solution. I appreciate your good edits but am extremely wary of editing by attrition here, of being pulled into a writing for the enemy chess-game disguised as consensus editing with SV hovering nearby by all the while, ready to rv. Wyss 02:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand your position, but please assume good faith. There's no need for paranoid conspiracy theories. Please facillitate the development of goodwill by treating your fellow editors with respect and they will do the same to you. --Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop gaming the system. Please stop your remarks about the psychological state of other editors. Wyss 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments above speak for themselves. Speaking of "being pulled into a "writing for the enemy chess-game disguised as consensus editing with SV hovering nearby by all the while, ready to rv" is nothing but paranoid and conspiratorial. --Viriditas | Talk 12:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not paranoid, I'm bored. Please stop gaming the system and pay attention to the sources. Wyss 12:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know Berry drew on the OSS stuff but I should have known. 90% of the OSS file on Hitler is worthless and serious AH biographers have known that for decades. Wyss 03:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I said "off the top of my head", so I don't know exactly what sources Berry and Payne are referring to, but I'm familiar with the discussion of asceticism in the OSS source book. While you are partially correct in assuming that much of that information (but not all) is useless, your comment about "serious AH biographers" knowing that 90% of the OSS file is worthless "for decades" is not exactly right, considering there are historically important files still being released, like the 1943 OSS psychological profile of Adolf Hitler published in March of this year [2] which historians still find valuable, even though it looks primitive to us. (Carey, Benedict (2005). "An Early Wartime Profile Depicts a Tormented Hitler". The New York Times. March 31, 2005 pA18(L) col 01) More importantly, there is nothing wrong with including Berry's or Paynes claims in the article as long as they are attributed. In any case, Hitler's "personal asceticism was held up as the model Nazi lifestyle" (Proctor, 134) and Hitler's asceticism "played an important part in the image he projected over Germany". (Berry 33) Hitler "cultivate[d] a reputation for asceticism" with a "clear awareness of role-playing" (Fest 275). Payne (through Berry) describes Hitler's asceticism as a "fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men" (Berry 33). This echoes Goebbels' explanation of Hitler's respect for the animal element in humanity: "Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race...Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Füihrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable." (Proctor 136). Payne's account does not contradict Goebbels. Furthermore, there is no connection between restoring Payne and replacing an erroneous quote by Doyle (describing Hitler as a vegan) when we know Hitler loved liver dumplings, ate cooked and canned fish, and consumed milk, butter, cottage cheese, and sweets. (Redlich 78). Not to mention the pigeon, ham, caviar, and supplements containing animal byproducts. --Viriditas | Talk 08:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Vernon's report [3] which you cited above is replete with errors of fact and by 1943 doesn't even mention Eva Braun, such was the paucity of real information about AH avaiable to Allied intelligence during the war. As I have said before, the OSS material is for the most part worthless (except perhaps for undertsanding how Allied leaders may have viewed Hitler during the war). Wyss 11:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I did not cite "Vernon's report". I cited Murray's report, which I'm sure has errors introduced by sources like Vernon. In any case, this is neither here nor there. Contrary to what you claim, the report is of interest to historians. --Viriditas | Talk 12:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, like a car wreck on the autobahn is of interest to a traffic warden. Anyway your link led me to Vernon who btw padded his report with pages of discredited Freudian boilerplate. So does Murray mention Eva Braun? No. By 1943 she'd been with him for ten years and they had not a clue as to what was going on in his personal/domestic life. Wyss 12:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please review this talk page if you have further questions as to why the outcome of your edits is consistenly unscholarly, utterly PoV, sloppy and unsupported. Wyss 11:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the issues at hand. Attack the evidence, not the editors. And, I have no idea how your comment addresses the points above. Are you trying to distract, again?--Viriditas | Talk 12:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to your edits, not you. Please stop gaming the system with abusive and inappropriate references to WP policy. Wyss 12:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Berry quote claims that Goebbels "invented" Hitler's vegetarianism. This is as accurate as the claim that Hitler was a vegan. Also, is there any source for Hitler's veggie-ism being an aspect of his public image as an ascetic, or is this just Berry's extrapolation? Babajobu 09:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think Payne is referring to the Goebbel quote I posted above, but I'm not entirely sure. Also see the sources above for some quotes on asceticism. I believe Redlich discusses his public image as an ascetic. Proctor also writes: "Hitler is said to have been unable to tolerate the idea of animals' being killed for human consumption, but at least one author has countered that this was an image deliberately crafted to popularize the German leader as kind and gentle. Animal-rights historians Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax have noted that both claims may be true..." --Viriditas | Talk 14:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Berry/Payne quote is starkly mistaken and wholly unsupported by the historical record, please remove it. Wyss 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Now, perhaps you will show how it is mistaken and unsupported. --Viriditas | Talk 12:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have done. Please re-read the talk page and the article and stop trying to edit by attrition. Wyss 12:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about. I think you are confusing me, the editor, with the article itself. Your latest round of edits are totally bizarre and representative of your own personal POV. There were never any "menacing threats" as you claim in the edit summary; only a polite message on your talk page. The chronological nature of Hitler's early meat eating should not have been removed, as it filled in gaps in the record. Also, your addition of a description of Jewish dietary law's in relation to a New York Times article about Hitler's diet is based purely on your own personal POV that has no relationship in the real world. You seem to be insinuating that the author (Otto D. Tolischus ) was Jewish and attempting to malign Hitler. In that case, you've violated the no original research policy. --Viriditas | Talk 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My edit contained zero original research. Furthermore, gratuitous references to soldiers trying to survive in a flooded battlefield trench in a warzone by eating meat are irrelevant to any discussion of vegetarianism. From a WP standpoint, a polite threat to block from someone editing a disputed page is menacing. Generally, if you don't know what I'm talking about and find my edits bizarre, please re-read this talk page completely and let me know if you have any further questions. Wyss 13:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your bizarre edit contained original research pertaining to a NYT article. Jewish dietary laws have nothing to do with that article. Additionally, there is nothing "irrelevant" about filling in gaps in the historical record of Hitler's diet and providing continuity. The cited text, "Hitler is also thought to have eaten meat during his service in World War I and before his imprisonment at Landsberg prison in 1924" is entirely appropriate and as appropriate as any other historical text in the article. Also, I did not threaten to block you, as I'm not an admin. I did, however, leave you a polite message warning you about your edits so you wouldn't get blocked. --Viriditas | Talk 14:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It only seems bizarre because it's so removed from your PoV. I'm still here to collaborate but I think we should slow down and in the meantime make sure that cites we both think are helpful and important are included in the article. Wyss 14:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edit is bizarre, unsourced, unsupported, and evidence of your POV pushing. There is no relationship between the NYT article and Jewish dietary laws. --Viriditas | Talk 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the edit is unsupported? The Jewish prohibition against pork? AH's virulent anti-semitism? Wyss 14:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, you're playing games again. Your entire edit in context consists of the following paragraph with your additions in bold:

In a May 30, 1937 The New York Times article called "At Home With The Fuhrer" Otto D. Tolischus wrote: "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar" (the consumption of ham is forbidden by Jewish dietary law and Hitler's anti-Semitic policies and beliefs were widely publicised by this time).

In justifying this edit, you wrote "I don't trust a NYT story mentioning slices of ham: It's a detail and in my experience likely wrong (even if I did make a flip remark about it in the chronology)...And about that ham... I cannot help thinking that, given AH's widely known anti-Semetism and pesecutions of Jews in Germany by 1937, the mention of "relishing" that slice of ham (as in pork, as in not kosher) had a big, docking sensationalistic/ironic spin. The sort of thing that gets a writer noticed by the editors in New York. I wouldn't believe it without more verification." Wyss, you are violating Wikipedia's policy on original research. I suggest you stop pushing your POV to the detriment of the accuracy of this article. --Viriditas | Talk 14:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're citing stuff from a talk page, while the edit I made to the article is fully supported and contains zero original research. I think it's helpful. Please assume good faith. Wyss 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wyss, but it's fairly obvious what you are doing, here. The irony of course, is that you are "spinning" what you deem to be spin. Unless you can provide a cite criticizing the NYT quote as spin, your additions to the NYT article quote are totally irrelevant. --Viriditas | Talk 14:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In a WP article about food consumption, an NYT cite mentions ham and Hitler, my historically supported edit mentions ham, Hitler, kosher law and anti-semitism, it all sounds rather relevant to me. Wyss 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite, Wyss. What does Jewish dietary law and anti-Semitic policies have to do with a NYT newspaper article describing Hitler's diet? --Viriditas | Talk 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I put that on my talk page earlier today (that's ok though if you haven't read it yet and I'm not tryin' to be snippy :) Wyss 15:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just read it. I appreciate the time you took to explain your position, and I sympathize with your POV. I mean that. But unfortunately, it's still original research. FYI...I'm going to take a break from this page for about eight hours or so, but I would appreciate it if you would reinstate the WWI chronology that you removed and if you have time, expand it. I would like to fill in all the gaps in the timeline, as I'm sure you do too. Ciao. --Viriditas | Talk 15:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have placed zero original research in the article so it matters not a wit what you or I say on its talk page about about any of my edits being original research, they are not. The NYT article mentions Hitler and ham and I've noted two widely documented facts about Hitler and ham, let the reader infer. The WWI chronology is relevant only to PoV warriors who wish to talk about meat eating, meanwhile spitting metaphorical blood at the very notion AH was briefly one of them. Ciao ;) Wyss 17:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edit to the NYT section is pure original research as SlimVirgin and myself have pointed out in the above discussion. Your comments about Jewish dietary law and anti-Semitism have no relationship to the article and clearly represent POV pushing. Your removal of the WWI chronology doesn't seem to make any sense in an article about Adolph Hitler's diet. Your omission of it is a violation of NPOV and represents your edits as a POV warrior. I suggest you take the time to consult the NPOV policy as both of your edits are in clear, outstanding violation of Wikipedia policies. I'm adding the POV template and the original research templates until you have fixed these errors. --Viriditas | Talk 22:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"largely anecdotal"

As far as I can tell, all of these "pieces of evidence", for whether Hitler ate meat or did not, are anecdotes. Singling out one side in a controversy and calling those reports "anecdotal" while failing to do so for others is not neutral. Calling them "anecdotal" (and especially "largely anecdotal"--implying the conclusion of a comprehensive survey of the evidence which is not supported by the article text) adds nothing to the introduction. Since the article is mostly an enumeration of reports, let's just call them that.

The one item that might not be considered anecdotal is the Hitler quote from Spencer ("I don't touch meat largely because of what Wagner says on the subject."). That's a source I don't have, but in any case it doesn't establish anything but a claim of avoiding meat (that is, it doesn't strengthen one side or the other of this controversy to the extent that we should regard one or another as more established in the introduction).

Demi ^T/_C 21:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The reports of his meat eating are largely (if not wholly) anecdotal, whereas his claims to vegetarianism and the witness reports of those close to him which support his having avoided meat altogether are widely documented and are not anecdotal, so it's not only helpful but crucial to make the distinction. Wyss 21:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Demi is correct, and I've brought up this point before. You are failing to adhere to the NPOV policy by calling one side anecdotal and the other "documented", when in fact they are both anecdotal. I'm not clear on how you are using the term "documented", but it's the wrong word. His meat eating is no more documented than his vegetarianism, and both are based on anecdotal evidence.--Viriditas | Talk 22:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

His vegetarianism is widely documented. The meat eating reports are anecdotes. Please stop mis-appropriating the term NPoV. This sort of argument is an attempt to re-write history (some people call it Historical revisionism (political)) by treating all sources as if they were of equal weight and provenance, which they aren't. Wyss 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Then I can only conclude you don't understand the definition of anecdotal in this context. Demi is correct. I am adding the NPOV template to the article for this reason and the reasons I have explained here. I wish you would stop pushing your POV over and above the historical record. --Viriditas | Talk 22:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, your conclusion is mistaken. I wish you would stop pushing your PoV over the historical record, Viriditas. I told you before we don't agree. I can accept that. Can you? Wyss 22:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess the tag's ok by me. IMHO the article is rather still a wholly slanted, historically misleading but very effective presentation of the evangelistic, politicised and purging wing of vegetarianism represented by Rynn Berry. Wyss 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, then perhaps you will help remove the slant, starting with your own edits, particularly the NYT addendum (original research) and adding back in historical timeline data that you removed for no reason (meat eating during WWI, prison). Your critcism regarding Berry is not only empty but lacks any evidence. The article is fully sourced, and except for Berry's name (and your POV description of Berry's claims) and quote from Payne, the entire article has nothing to do with Berry or an invisible "purging wing" of vegetarian paper tigers. --Viriditas | Talk 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should remove the Payne quote first, since it's wholly unsupported by most Hitler biographers and directly contradicts Goebbels' diary and the historical record (your last attempt to reconcile that citation with the historical record was unconvincing btw). When the Berry/Payne reference is gone, however, there will still be an overwhelming Berry-influenced spin to the article, but we can work on fixing that step by step. I'm patient. Wyss 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I gave my reason for removing the irrelevant reference to eating meat down in trenches in a war zone. Please stop mis-representing my edits, edit summaries and posts, thanks. Wyss 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You gave no reason, nor is a reference to Adolph Hitler's meat-eating diet "irrelevant" in the context of this article; it fills in gaps in the timeline and provides historical continuity. There is no reason why you removed it other than to distort the facts in the article, as you seem to be doing on a daily basis. --Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't plain enough. Soldiers struggling to survive in a trench in France or Belgium in 1917 often didn't have the luxury of choosing a meat-free diet, never mind the reference pre-dates AH's consistent claims of and efforts towards vegetarianism (beginning over a decade later, in 1931), as documented in the historical record and cited by most of his biographers. Also, as I've said repeatedly, we disagree on who's distorting and spinning the article with little or no regard to the historical record and consensus by opportunistically dragging out worthless, long-discredited OSS reports and spurious quotes from minor, seldom cited biographies (for starters). Wyss 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed reference to jewish dietary laws, as i think this was only example of OR in article. The info was not OR, but the implication that this explains the NYT reference to ham probably was. I'll now remove the OR tag. I don't see how pre-1931 instances of meat-eating are relevant to this article, sice at that time hitler did not claim to be veggie, and made no efforts to be veggie. regardless, the article is now the best it's been, though it still needs narrative flow. Babajobu 07:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Chronology also needs to be made more explicit. Even a sentence at opening of evidence section would help. Having comp problems, won't be able to contribute much for a while. Babajobu 07:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

By far my biggest problem with this article has been as Babajobu confirms above. My other serious concerns relate to the Payne quote followed (less severely) by the NYT article (although we can agree to disagree on the ham and the OR of mentioning jewish dietary law and AH's attitudes about jewish people) and mentioning one or two other minor biographers. Mentioning the liver dumplings is ok, the sources indicate he kept eating them for awhile during the early 30s but notice the NYT article does not mention them and by the time Junge came along, according to her, he was abstaining altogether. Wyss 12:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

My issue with the introduction hasn't been addressed. In an effort to keep things clear (and my, how the discussion elaborates!) I'd like to keep the discussion here relevant to how the article is summarized in the introduction. I have two main problems:

1. "Anecdotal" evidence means "consisting of anecdotes." A "report" (as all of these are) is an anecdote. Again, with the exception of the one quote from Spencer, there is no "evidence" here that doesn't consist of stories someone else is telling about Hitler--either way. Non-anecdotal evidence would consist of some kind of medical, forensic, or physical evidence, or documentation, such as orders signed by Hitler or other things originating with the man himself. It doesn't make sense to call some reports "anecdotes" and contrast them with others when they are the same thing (stories told by others about Hitler's behavior at dinner parties, hotels and party meetings).
2. Worse is the addition of "largely", which evaluates all the evidence for the reader and tells them what to think about it. As I said, it implies a survey or synthesis which arrives at a conclusion about how many reports are anecdotal and how many are not. It would probably be interesting to cover other "overall evaluations" of the issue, but writing our own borders on original research, and I don't think our "list of items" constitutes such a survey anyway.

The introduction is therefore improved by removing the phrase "largely anecdotal" from it, though if someone can find another phrasing that addresses these issues, that would be great.

Demi ^T/_C 15:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

They aren't the same things. The witness testimonies of AH's vegetarianism are tightly triangulated as to source, provenance and date, are specific as to chronology and are widely documented. The scattered remarks about meat eating in the 1930s are undated as to time of origin, undated as to chronology, are all hearsay from vague, general remarks made to historians and journalists. This doesn't mean they aren't encyclopedic, but they should be clearly qualified as to (lack of) clear provenance, specificity and possible accuracy. They are largely anecdotes. The Lucas quote is the only reference to meat eating in the 1930s which I wouldn't call an anecdote but barely so, since the incident can only be dated by extrapolating her employment in Hamburg- the early 1930s (by the mid-late thirties she was founding a Cordon Bleu cooking school in London). Wyss 15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Demi, "largely anecdotal" is inaccurate and unduly prejudices the reader. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

All sources are not equal in provenance and reliability. Wyss 21:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• In which case, we are using the term "anecdotal" in an inappropriate way--to imply, without explicitly stating it, that the reports of AH being vegetarian are more credible than those of his eating meat. This may entirely be the case, and if there's a sustainable way to show this (preferably through another analysis we can cover, rather than through our own) it should be stated that way. But again, the things AH might have done to entertain his guests at dinner parties or how he may have reacted to being slipped meat products in soup are also anecdotes, credible ones though they may be. Demi ^T/_C 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the reports of AH being vegetarian from the mid-1930s until his death are much more credible than those few and scattered, unspecific anecdotes about meat eating. Moreover the chronology matters (as it would with discussing the diet history of many vegetarians). Wyss 10:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Who decides which sources are more credible, using what critera? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

How 'bout us editors, working together in good faith, following WP policy? :) Wyss 15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you're still misunderstanding. One anecdote may be more or less credible than another, but they are still both anecdotes. And it isn't really Wikipedia policy to tell the reader what conclusion to come to regarding the credibility of sources, but to present information relevant to credibility. I'm not sure why I'm having trouble explaining myself, so maybe you can help me out... since both "sides" are supported by several anecdotes, it is not neutral to describe the "evidence" on one side as anecdotal and not the other (credible though it may be). Demi ^T/_C 17:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding. We disagree they're all "anecdotes" is all. IMHO, considering all historical records as "anecdotal" and therefore "equivalent" is an abuse of the principle of objectivity and balance (NPoV). Some call it deconstructionism. Anyway all PoVs are not equal. All interpretations of history are not equal. All sources are not equal. The whole pith of an encyclopedia is to reflect that stark reality in its content, as an academically rigorous service to its readers. If we disagree on any of this, that's ok, we can still work together using WP policy as our guide and find a way to build a stable article. Wyss 18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not claiming all historical evidence is anecdotal; but the items presented in this article certainly are (with the exception of the Spencer quote I referred to above). You're implying now that there are several pieces of evidence that are not anecdotal; and you've said that they are "tightly triangulated", which would imply corroboration of specific incidents my more than one source. If these exist, then please add them to the article, because they aren't there now. Secondly, I have never described "all sources as equal," in fact I have rather taken pains to explain that's not what I'm saying at all. Demi ^T/_C 14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, almost every source cited in the article describes AH as a vegetarian. It's widely documented. Wyss 14:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Need verification

I've temporarily removed the following two passages from the article, pending verification. Both seem to have been lifted into Wikipedia verbatim directly from the many, many vegetarian websites seeking to portray AH as non-vegetarian. I have been unable to verify the full context of the "Hess-liver dumplings" quote in Toland, and the NYT article was originally presented here as being from a 1990s reprint. Since these passages have been lifted from websites of dubious scholarship without independent verification of the secondary sources they originated in, I think they're insufficiently verified for inclusion for now. Wyss 20:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The irony of your false claim is that the exact opposite is true. All of the claims that were added seeking to portray Adolph Hitler as a vegetarian were lifted from a website of dubious scholarship without independent verification of the secondary sources they originated in, and you and a couple of other users did just that by lifting quotes from a geocities website entitled, "Hitler was a Vegetarian". The edit history to this article demonstrates that is exactly what you did. Instead, you turned this around and blamed other editors for doing exactly what you did (when in fact they didn't), while I sourced and confirmed each statement that you and others lifted from that dubious website. You claim that the anti-vegetarian passags are "insufficiently verified" is absurd, since I'm the one who verified them from the books themselves, going so far as to add the page numbers. Please stop accusing others of your own actions and removing content in order to further your POV pushing. --Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You're deeply (and rather sadly) mistaken about my interaction with that Geocities site (although Slim Virgin lifted a couple of pictures from it). I think you're confusing historical sources and evidence with spurious PoVs and misleading citation practices. Wyss 23:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• American author and historian John Toland also quoted Hitler's close friend Frau Hess as saying that, after Raubal's death, Hitler "never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings. Suddenly! He ate meat before that. It is very difficult to understand or explain." ^[4]

Confirmed by me in Toland, John. (1991). Adolf Hitler : The Definitive Biography. Anchor; Reissue edition. pp. 256, 782. ISBN 0385420536.

Where? Amazon? The book? What's the full passage? Who is Frau Hess? Wyss 22:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop playing games. While your questions are important, you keep changing the standards of evidence to suit your own agenda. Wikipedia has clear rules on original research. While it would be interesting to find out more, I've done what is required. You are currently playing very deceptive games, claiming that something isn't verified, and when I go the trouble of verifying it, you remove the verifying text from the article. You did this with the New York Times quote, which I had verified in multiple sources, including Robert N. Proctor's 1999 book, The Nazi War on Cancer (page number cited) and in an April 14th, 1996 reprint of the NYT. In both cases, you removed the verifying information, only to later remove the content altogether, claiming it wasn't verified. I'm sorry, Wyss, but you are not editing in good faith. --Viriditas | Talk 00:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• In a May 30, 1937 The New York Times article called "At Home With The Fuhrer" Otto D. Tolischus wrote: "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar".

Confirmed by me in the NYT. --Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

How? Microfiche? Their paid web site? Wyss 22:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how. I've previously mentioned that the content was republished in The New York Times Magazine, April 14, 1996 p77 col 1 (62 col in). Somebody removed my confirming date in a previous edit, and now you are claiming it hasn't been verified. Same thing you did with Toland and Berry. Your game is tiring, Wyss. Please stop. --Viriditas | Talk 00:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally, the Berry/Payne cite at the end of the article has been similarly lifted from one of the numerous vegetarian sites as described above. First, it flatly contradicts the historical record, including Goebbels' own diary (a quote from which is included in the article) and second, its context and verification in the original 1973 by biography by Payne are uncertain. I think it should be removed altogether as erroneous (as we have done with other citations in this article). Wyss 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, again. The Berry cite was lifted directly from his book. --Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Read on. Wyss 23:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Wyss. You claimed it was lifted from a dubious website. I've told you that I've confirmed all the quotes, or at least most of them. I haven't seen you do anything of the sort, other than remove quotes you have a personal disagreement with in the article. Perhaps you will learn how to write and edit for the enemy by treating each citation with fairness. Perhaps not. --Viriditas | Talk 00:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me, though we should try to verify the Hess and NYT quotes. The Berry/Payne quote doesn't belong in the article, even if it can be verified in Payne, because it's plainly incorrect. Babajobu 20:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This quotes have all been verified by me, and somone has repeatedly removed verifying information from the article, including refs to Proctor and the NYT publishing dates. --Viriditas | Talk 00:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether we think its incorrect or not, the NPOV policy is quite clear on including opposing viewpoints. --Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken about Wikipedia's NPOV policy. NPoV does not imply sacrificing the historical record in favour of presenting spurious points of view. Please re-read it. Wyss 22:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never said anything of the sort, nor is what you say the case. You have merely represented your own POV. --Viriditas | Talk 00:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to verify the Toland but couldn't. I'm concerned about the context, and whether or not "Frau Hess" is the wife of Rudolf Hess, which also would have significant bearing on the context. Wyss 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I verified Toland quite some ago, and added the reference and page number as a result. Stop playing games. --Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the vegetarian websites got these two cites from Rynn Berry's book, which is in itself a problematic source, see the discussion below for more on that. Wyss 21:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're incorrect. The quote is directly from Berry's book. --Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah, that's what I said. Wyss 22:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The quotes in the present article (that were recently reverted by Baba) were quoted from the book (by me) not from the website. That's not what you said. --Viriditas | Talk 08:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read this post more carefully, then read the section below. If you got the Toland page number from Amazon's index, that's not enough to verify context. Wyss 22:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Berry/Payne

The following citation was lifted verbatim from one of many vegetarian websites of dubious scholarship, which editorially work to deny the veggie-ness of AH (rather than present an unbiased, scholarly and NPoV study). The Payne quote is used to support an assertion that directly contradicts the historical record, the Wikipedia article, and the Goebbels diary (an excerpt of which is included in the article). Given the lengthy dispute tag, which involves this citation, I have moved it here for discussion following Babajobu's and my comments but believe it should be permanently removed from the article as erroneous. Wyss 20:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's incorrect. All of these citations have been verified by me in actual publications, and I've added the page numbers as a result. Further, the exact opposite of what you claim is true. Most of the cites claiming Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian were originally lifted by you and other from a dubious Geocities website, and it was me who went and verified them and added page numbers while you were quite content with your failure to cite sources. --Viriditas | Talk 22:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Furthermore, given your response, I can only think you have completely misunderstood what I wrote. Please re-read it, thanks. Wyss 22:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I am correct. Furthermore, I have cited sources for 90 percent of the article, including statements you stole off a dubious Geocities website. I won't bring up your citation of a Holocaust revisionist website since you've already admitted your mistake. --Viriditas | Talk 22:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You did bring it up again. Not only have you abusively accused me of promoting Holocaust revisionism, but you have accused me of being a troll and a thief (all because we don't agree on the very existence of this article). Do you have anything else to add? Wyss 23:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't done anything of the sort. Your recent edits to this article and explanation below are in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course you have. If I have to root it out in your contribution history and cite the personal attacks and accusations, I will, but I don't want to draw this out that way, Viriditas. Wyss 23:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The only personal attacks and accusations I've seen are from you. I'm merely responding to your empty critcism to point out that you are accusing others of your own errors. [5] --Viriditas | Talk 23:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Readers will note the use of the term empty criticism. If you keep pushing this Viriditas, I might have to cite your personal attacks (the troll accusations were quickly removed but of course are in the history). Wyss 23:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've documented your empty criticism above and below. You are playing games and editing in bad faith. You are removing content that verifies cites, and then later, you remove the cited content claiming that it hasn't been verified. You did this with Toland, the NYT article, and with Berry. Please stop. --Viriditas | Talk 00:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

As an indication of the sort of abusive citation practices this topic has been subjected to on both the Internet and Wikipedia, and further reason why this citation shouldn't be included in the article, please note that the Robert Payne quote itself contains zero mention of vegetarianism. The word had to be "weaseled" into the introductory sentence, apparently done originally by Mr Berry for his book, then copy-pasted onto dozens of highly PoV websites (the intro here has gone through several WP edits, so it differs somewhat from those versions).

Wrong, again, on both points. The abusive citation practices by you have been largely fixed by me citing sources for many of your claims that you ripped off of a Geocities website. Payne does indeed mention vegetarianism, and Berry quotes him directly on p. 33: "According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently , had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun, who lived with him quietly in the Berghof. There had been other discreet affairs with women. His asceticism was a fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control , the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact, he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic. His cook, an enormously fat man named Willi Kannenberg Willy Kannenberg, produced exquisite meals and acted as court jester. Although Hitler had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages, and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar. He was a connoisseur of sweets, crystallized fruit and cream cakes, which he consumed in astonishing quantities. He drank tea and coffee drowned in cream and sugar. No dictator ever had a sweeter tooth." (Berry, p. 33-34, attributed to Payne, Robert. (1973). The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. New York: Praeger, pp. 346-7.) --Viriditas | Talk 22:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Payne quote in the article. Please stop mis-representing my edits (and your remark about the geocities cite is both mistaken and abusive). Wyss 23:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your claim has been refuted. You are the one who is mis-representing other editors, and it was your claim which was mistaken and abusive. I've been quoting actual publications while you've been stealing quotes from dubious websites. Your use of a Holocaust revisionist website as a citation in a previous argument on Talk:List of vegetarians is well documented. --Viriditas | Talk 23:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Stealing? That's an interesting choice of words. Anyway, list them. Meanwhile, there you go again with Holocaust revisionism. I revert neo-Nazis over at Adolf Hitler all the time, and have re-inserted 6-12 million (murdered by industrial genocide) into various WP articles more times than I care to count or remember. Holocaust revisionist... thief... troll... doesn't agree with Viriditas... Wyss 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

When the geocities quotes were first added to this article, they were unattributed to that site. I had to go track down the publications and cite them directly. You are the one who has quoted from dubious websites in the past, including IHR. I admit that this may have been sloppy research and sheer laziness on your part. --Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Readers will note that Viriditas cannot resist bringing up Holocaust revisionist sites in a discussion about AH's vegetarianism. Wyss 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Vegetarian historian Rynn Berry contradicts most serious historians in Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover by citing Robert Payne's 1973 biography, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, which argues that Hitler's vegetarianism was a myth invented by Joseph Goebbels to give Hitler the aura of an ascetic: "Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany...His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people."

Again, note that the Payne quote does not argue anything about vegetarianism and contains no reference to vegetarianism, making it utterly spurious. The "vegetarian myth" notion is entirely Berry's and even he can't support it with a citation from the historical record in his own book.

Your claim has been refuted above. Payne describes Hitler's alleged meatless diet, which is a reference to vegetarianism. I provided the full quote above. --Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Not in the article, it doesn't. Wyss 23:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You're attempting to waste my time on this talk page, Wyss. I've documented your empty criticism above and below. You are playing games and editing in bad faith. You are removing content that verifies cites, and then later, you remove the cited content claiming that it hasn't been verified. You did this with Toland, the NYT article, and with Berry. Please stop. --Viriditas | Talk 00:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First, stop attacking me (stole, troll, holocaust revisionism, playing games, paranoid, waste my time, bad faith). Second, please start reading my posts instead of skimming them and replying with an automatic rebuttal. Third, please start paying attention to source quality, provenance and the chronology of this topic. Finally, please start posting at the bottom of each section instead of interspersing attacks and emotional remarks in the body of the text I've written, making it impossible for other readers to follow much of anything. Meanwhile, if we must start over again entirely, I'm willing. Wyss 08:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the Amazon link [6] to Berry's book, published by Pythagorean Publishers, a small Candian vegetarian/animal rights imprint (no website seems to exist for them). Note that the Amazon listing shows zero published or reader reviews. Also see the front cover photo: Hitler at a formally set dinner table with Neville Chamberlain and others, likely in Munich, September 1938. A Slate magazine commentator [7] notes, "There's a plate of appetizers on the table, but it's hard to tell if there's meat in them. In any case, Hitler looks like he has other things on his mind," describes Berry's book as a "slim paperback" which didn't use primary sources, only secondary ones which "seem reputable" (hardly an enthusiastic endorsement) and sums up the article about Berry's book with a shrug at his thesis by asking, "After all, what vegetarian doesn't cheat?" Wyss 21:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To sum up:

• The Payne quote makes zero mention of vegetarianism.

This is incorrect. Payne discusses Hitler's meatless diet, which is a reference to vegetarianism. I've included the quote a few replies above. --Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas didn't notice I was talking about the quote in the article. Wyss 23:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• It is cited by Berry as part of a myth assertion which has no support in the historical record, and he stretches far to make the Payne quote about acseticism fit.
• Payne is not a frequently cited Hitler biographer.

Irrelevant, although Thomas Fuchs and others have quoted him. Consult NPOV. Minority opinions are included. --Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's relevant enough. Wyss 23:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Relevant to what? It doesn't matter what we think. You're so wrapped up in trying to "prove" something that you've completely forgotten our job is to represent views, not promote them. --Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Berry's book is not from a major, historical or scholarly publisher.

Irrelevant. See above. --Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Reliability of source is relevant. Wyss 23:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "book", it's a monograph, and its publishing history has no relevance to Berry's position on this topic. Our job is to represent Berry's view, not debate the publishing history of his views. Berry is a notable source, and that's all that matters. --Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Berry's book did not rely on primary sources.

Unknown, but irrelevant. --Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

See the Slate article, which specifies no primary sources were used. Wyss 23:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The same article concludes that the secondary sources appeared reputable. --Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Berry's book has few reviews (I've found only one which wasn't on a veggie website). Wyss 21:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

False. There are quite a number of reviews. --Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

List them. Wyss 23:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? What will that prove? That vegetarian monographs about Hitler aren't all that popular? This is a niche market, and most reviews are found on vegetarian websites. Publishers Weekly doesn't even call it a book, but an "essay". --Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally, please note how Viriditas inserts rolling commentary into my posts, making them extremely difficult to read. Please stop that, Viriditas. Please post below other editors' contributions, thanks. Wyss 23:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Alex Frangos is not a food writer, and he is not "of Slate". He writes mostly about property and real estate, and seems to be freelance. That is the only article he has written for Slate, and the only article accessible by Google that he has written on a food-related topic. More importantly, while Wikipedia does represent minority points of view, it does not pass off as "another viewpoint" assertions that plainly contradict historical fact. We have chosen not to present "Hitler was a vegan from 1931" as "another viewpoint", even though it was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, because it's flatly false. So is the Berry/Payne assertion that Goebbels "invented" Hitler's vegetarianism. It has no place in the article. Babajobu 05:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting Alex Frangos title. Regarding the topic at hand, I don't see Berry contradicting "historical fact", and the Slate article in particular concluded that while Berry's points might be valid, most historians simply don't care, so your justification for removing the criticism section from this article is in error, especially from a historian who specializes in vegetarianism. Further, by bringing Doyle into this you are conflating the issues. If you read refereed journals, then you know they make errors, as the articles are written by humans not robots (although some might disagree). And, if you read these journals, you also know that many physicians lack proper knowledge of nutrition, and nutrition education is often optional, scant, and underplayed in medical education (Nutr J. 2005 Jan 13;4(1):2, Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Feb;79(2):198-203, Nutr Hosp. 2003 May-Jun;18(3):153-8). This might explain Doyle's mistake or it might not. In any case, Doyle erroneously claims that Hitler was a vegan in the very same statement that shows that he's not. My guess is that Doyle isn't really cognizant of nutrition (see above). Doyle writes: "...though not a vegetarian in his younger days, he became a vegan, as well as tee-total, after the suicide of a much-loved niece and, according to his cook, ate an even more unhealthy diet after he came under the care of Morell." We know that Hitler wasn't a vegan after 1931 (death of his niece) and we know that his "unhealthy diet" was based on animal products, including Morell's animal byproduct-based supplements. Interestingly, these are the types of errors that Berry is talking about, legends that are repeated over and over again, reaching mythological status when historians like John Lukacs (in the Slate article) brazenly admit that they just don't care ("What difference does it make?" said Lukacs). Doyle isn't presenting "another viewpoint", he's repeating myths. Most important of all, Doyle 'is not a historian, and as a physician, his opinions on historical matters are not relevant; OTOH, his opinions on Adolph Hitler's medical care (the title of the journal article) are important. But, no matter. We have only used the journal article to illustrate the content of Morell's supplements, not for the purposes of citing Doyle's opinion of Hitler's diet. Unlike Doyle, Rynn Berry is an actual historian with a focus on vegetarianism (he teaches a college course on it), and is a widely published and notable author in his field. Regardless of what you or I believe, his monograph on Hitler's diet has a direct bearing on this article, and should be characterized according to the NPOV policy, such as, "Rynn Berry argues that...and therefore..." This is exactly what I've done per policy, but in any event, there is always room for improvement. As a counterargument, dissenting vegetarians Janet Barkas and Colin Spencer should be put in the same section. In summary, you have not demonstrated how Berry is in error; Berry is quoting Payne in one of many arguments he proposes against describing Hitler as a vegetarian. If I understand Berry's position, he is criticizing historians and biographers like Doyle, Lukacs et al. for repeating myths about Hitler, and for not acknowledging the contradictory nature of claims made about Hitler's diet. As a notable expert on this subject, Berry's opinion is important and needs to be included whether you agree or disagree with him. OTOH, Doyle is an expert on Hitler's medical care--not history, and in turn, that information has been preserved as relevant. --Viriditas | Talk 10:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, mistakes are made in medical journals. They are also made in works of history. Berry, as the court historian of the vegetarian movement, probably has some useful insights to bring to this topic. But when he cribs from a minor, 1970s biographer of Hitler to state that Goebbels "invented" Hitler's vegetarianism--while numerous independent sources confirm that Hitler's preoccupation with vegetarianism was real--it is as useful and credible as the claim by an expert on Hitler's medical care that AH was a vegan. In other words it's worse than useless, because it's just plain wrong. Berry might as well have written that Hitler only avoided meat because he was a Muslim, and Germany's only good halal kebab shop was destroyed during the war. In other words, it's simply false, and in violation of the acknowledged historical record that Hitler had a very real preoccupation with veggie-ism. Babajobu 10:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that you (and others) are misinterpreting Berry's position based on that one point (which is taken out of context) so it should probably be rewritten. --Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If Berry has other arguments against his veggie-ism, ones that are not patently fictitious, then we should include them. And in fact we do (evidence that he ate meat during the 30s). Babajobu

Agreed. --Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Another thing. I don't want to turn this into some kind of tag team wrestling match: I've disagreed with some of Wyss's edits, reverted a few of them, et cetera, but this talk page is replete with accusations by Viriditas and Virgin that Wyss is editing in bad faith, being a troll, and so on. From where I stand, it's just not true. To me it looks more like V and V are invested in a particular POV, and are using ad hominem attacks in pursuit of that POV. Wyss is for the most part being very restrained in the face of all the accusations. That's how I see it. Obviously, you disagree. But I think you should cut it out with the accusations and just stick to the content. Babajobu 05:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't made any ad hominem attacks, nor has Slim. Neither are we invested in a "particular POV". I have seen Wyss trolling and editing in bad faith, but you obviously haven't for whatever reason (or choose not to see it), so we agree to disagree. --Viriditas | Talk 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Toland

Sadly, because of the blizzard of distracting personal attacks I've received, I must start over on Toland. The reference to Toland, "Frau Hess" and liver dumplings was pulled from Berry's "slim paperback" book and copy-pasted across countless vegetarian websites, whence it ended up in the dispute section of List of vegetarians, then here. Berry must have misquoted it, or did so misleadingly:

American author and historian John Toland also refers to Raubal's death, quoting Hitler's close friend Frau Hess as saying that, after Raubal's death, "Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings." ^[8]

The quote marks indicate these are the words of the unidentified Frau Hess, but they are not. An Amazon index search [9] shows the true passage (although still not in sufficient context):

1. on Page 256:

"... Frau Hess, he meant it. From that moment on, she said, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings. "Suddenly! He ate meat before that. It is very difficult to understand or explain." ..."

Note that the passage quoted in the article contains only Toland's words. However, when taken from the Amazon index, Hess' words are correctly inter-quoted as above. Viriditas says he's verified this quote directly with the source (implying Toland) but he could not have done. If he meant to say he'd verified it in Berry, then he's picked up Berry's misleading quote marks (and lack of context). Readers should note that the Slate article plainly says Berry didn't use primary sources, only secondary ones (when I was around 16 or 17 someone pointed out to me the abusive stuff one can do writing only from secondary sources). Either way, despite his flaming replies and flip remarks that I have been "refuted," Viriditas has not answered my request for this passage in full context. For now, I've added Frau Hess' words to the article, but I have serious concerns about other sources copy-pasted into this article, especially those which do not respect the historically documented chronology of the subject's behavior. (A note on "Frau Hess" - I suspect she is the wife of Rudolf Hess but I'm not sure, it's been awhile since I read Toland)

Finally, I am sorry to all readers that the stark, historically supported evidence Adolf Hitler was a practicing vegetarian between about 1931 to his suicide in 1945 is neither re-affirming nor politically correct, but reality is often like that. I do bring one PoV to my work on this general topic, which is that to know and understand genocide and sociopathy we must be painfully objective, which includes embracing the sad truth that someone directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of some 50 million people (and setting back western civilization at least a generation) not only had intelligence, talent and personal charisma, but did sensible things like not smoking, avoiding alcohol for the most part and pursuing a vegetarian diet (for whatever personal reasons), especially after driving his niece to suicide in 1931.

Or as someone once said, "The SS wore black. I love to wear black. That doesn't make me a supporter of the SS."

Viriditas, please post any answers below my post. If you intersperse your remarks into my text, I will move them to the bottom of the page myself, thanks.Wyss 09:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Berry has nothing to do with this, however you are correct that the quotes should not appear. The original article stated, "Biographer John Toland quotes Hitler's close friend Frau Hess as stating that after Raubal's death, "Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings." The quotes were misplaced, probably by myself. Berry cites the same Toland quote on p.42, so there's no difference or misquote like you claim, and the error appears to be my own. The difference between misattribution and quoting Toland is easy to make. Toland writes, "From that moment on, she said, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings." For accuracy, all you have to do is remove the quotes and you get: Biographer John Toland quotes Hitler's close friend Frau Hess as stating that after Raubal's death, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings--and there's the correction. This has nothing to do with Berry (since he is quoting Toland) and everything to do with removing misplaced quote marks that I added in error. Thanks for catching that. --Viriditas | Talk 10:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Re Toland, yep. Very misleading, thanks for confirming it for yourself. Wyss 13:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it as "misleading" but as a simple mistake that you found and corrected. --Viriditas | Talk 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you were misleading about it, but I believe whoever (maybe Berry, maybe someone else) phrased the quote that way purposely edited and spun it in the most PoV, misleading way possible, implying these were Hess' words and leaving out Toland's remark that "he meant it" along with her still-evident surprise that AH had suddenly stopped eating meat. Wyss 13:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

NYT article

I now possess the article in question and will be reverting to the original title. I've also fixed the cite and added more content to the quote. --Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The chocolates etc are fine, those are widely documented. If I may ask, where did you find the article? Wyss 13:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I purchased it from the NYT historical archive. It's in pdf format, although it looks like nothing more than a scan of the original. I have no idea why multiple historians have referred to it by a different name. --Viriditas | Talk 21:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! They likely were all quoting a secondary source that got the title wrong (the article may have been syndicated by the NYT to another newspaper and attributed to them but under a different title). I've found that historical errors in detail tend to multiply very quickly as they get more removed from the primary source :) Speaking of which (and only for the purposes of this talk page, since it's been discussed), I still think the ham reference is more of a sniggering reference to his racial policies (targeted at a 1930s audience). Wyss 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Frangos' article in Slate mentions that "Hitler apparently celebrated Germany's 1938 annexation of Czechoslovakia with a slice of ham, a Prague specialty". I don't understand what that has to do with an article written in 1937, but I suppose it lends credence to the claim. --Viriditas | Talk 22:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like some sort of a running joke to me, maybe even in Goebbels' ministry. These people were openly and aggressively virulent about their anti-semitism by the late 1930s, you wouldn't believe some of the cartoon drawings (you know what I mean, anyway). However, while I'm sure the NYT ham has some sort of a spoofy aspect (but don't know if I could ever find a cite for it), there may have been some sort of a celebration party regarding Czechoslovakia.

In both tales it's a single slice of ham, which to me indicates symbolic ritual or storytelling and that, Viriditas, is original research (never mind blatant speculation) which mustn't go in the article. :) Wyss 22:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The NYT article is quite serious (nothing spoofy about it), doesn't refer to a single slice of ham ("occasional") and I don't see any evidence for ritual storytelling. In any case, it's our job to report the facts. I don't see any "original research", here. --Viriditas | Talk 23:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The NYT article does not seem to be "symbolic ritual or storytelling", and in any event certainly does not meet the Wikipedia definition of original research. It can (and should) be quoted in the article, listing the New York Times as the source (a source which is considered reasonably reliable by Wikipedia standards). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

(talk), you may have mis-understood, nobody has said the NYT article is original research, nobody has said the NYT article is "symbolic ritual or storytelling" (I certainly didn't). Wyss 19:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We can disagree on stuff and still write, through WP policy, a helpful article we all can agree on. For example, as it stands at the moment, I don't think there is any original research in the article. Truth be told, without the Payne reference to AH's veggie-ness being a total myth invented by Goebbels, all I think it needs is some sort of clarification that AH went vegetarian in 1931, cheated now and then, but not much, during the 1930s and by around 1940 had succeeded in removing meat from his diet altogether (not including cranky cooks and quacks slipping animal gunk into his soups and veins). I've no notion, however, of how to do that in a way which would meet consensus but am not worried about it. If we're strict about the sources/quotes (and are willing not to use those which have clear errors, like Doyle and Payne) and avoid spin either way in how they're presented, IMO it'll be ok. Wyss 23:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, although I disagree that Payne has been shown to be in error (he's been taken out of context). Berry's criticism will be placed back into the article according to NPOV, as I did yesterday; It was removed due to a misunderstanding over Payne's comment. I would feel better if you would write the Berry criticism section--it would go a long way towards compromise (and demonstrate your goodwill). Be sure to mention the two vegetarians whom he disagrees with as well. I'll be happy to fill in any gaps as long as you frame the criticism. --Viriditas | Talk 23:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

(A very friendly request here, Viriditas, please don't suggest I do something because it might demonstrate my "good faith" or "good will"- since this could imply a reprimand or insinuation I don't already bring these things to the discussion. However, IMO asking that I do something in the spirit of compromise or NPoV is more than ok by me, even if we have to discuss it. My sincere thanks in advance for taking this to heart, if you would please :) Wyss 13:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize; I didn't mean it that way. --Viriditas | Talk 09:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Before restoring, please explain how Berry's claims about Goebbels have been misunderstood, rather than simply stating that they have. Babajobu 06:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI...I'm working on a response to your query. --Viriditas | Talk 05:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Only as a discussion point (not my final word or whatever), I don't think Berry is credible enough to even mention in the article, unless he is characterised as having written a poorly researched book with an usupportable thesis published by a very small vegetarian/animal rights imprint. Wyss 13:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thankfully, Wikipedia isn't concerned with what you or I find credible. If you could find a good, reputable source which claims Berry isn't credible (someone who has actually read his book(s), please) then you would have a point. To the best of my knowledge, Berry's points haven't been disputed by any reputable historians. I did find one criticism of Berry on a website, but it was by a web author who admitted he hadn't read his book, and was merely criticizing something Berry said completely out of context. In fact, the criticism in question had nothing to do with Berry's claims, and everything to do with demonstrating the Reductio ad Hitlerum based on a point that Berry had made. As an actual vegetarian historian, Berry's views should be placed in the article for NPOV. I'll expand on this in my reply to Babjobu so no need to reply just yet. --Viriditas | Talk 05:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Slate article is ok by me. Wyss 12:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Citation cleanup

The footnote numbering didn't match--with footnote3 you can't rearrange the order of the footnote references without rearranging the footnotes; and you can't mix it with numbered external links. I fixed these (I think) according to the practices in footnote3. I also commented out the Berry and Toland references because they are not actually cited in the text, and I removed the link to the geocities site (in the photo caption) because I didn't know what the link was supposed to be showing (the source of the picture? More quotes?). Demi ^T/_C 07:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue with the Berry citation is that the Berry information is apparently being kept out of the article. I can't find a policy driven reason for doing so; are there credible external sources which dispute Berry's research or neutrality? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The answer is no. The external link (to Slate) in the current article, which takes a brief, critical look at Berry, fails to dispute any of his claims. A bit of googling on Berry shows that he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with some kind of degree, possibly History. He claims that he taught ancient history, archaeology, classical literature and comparative religion at Columbia University; as late as 2000 he claims to have taught a course on history and vegetarianism at The New School. He's the author of the following books:The New Vegetarians (1993) ISBN 0962616907, Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes (2002) ISBN 0962616915, Food for the Gods: Vegetarianism and the World's Religions (1998) ISBN 0962616923 , and the monograph, Why Hitler Was Not a Vegetarian (2004) ISBN 0962616966, as well as co-author of other books (The New York Times dining section recommended his book The Vegan Guide To New York City (2004) ISBN 0962616982) and is also the author of many published essays. Berry co-founded the Big Apple Vegetarian Society, is historical adviser to the North American Vegetarian Society, and was commissioned to write the entry on the history of vegetarianism in America for the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America (2004) ISBN 0195154371. --Viriditas | Talk 09:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Introductory characterization of conflict

Instead of describing one set of reports as anecdotes rather than the other, I've changed "largely anecdotal" to "less well-documented". We're not really getting at the reports themselves in the article (the discussion above did not produce any fruitful improvement in the quality of the reports--we are lacking the "tightly triangulated" evidence Wyss suggests exists. However, the assertion of vegetarianism is "well documented" in the sense that it appears in biographies. I'm putting this forward as a way of trying to accommodate what everyone's trying to say, correctly. Improvements welcome! Demi ^T/_C 15:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Accomodating unencyclopedic PoV is unhelpful. The meat eating reports are anecdotes (save Lucas), so the "correct" way to describe them would be closer to largely anecdotal. Wyss 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The "vegetarian" reports are also anecdotes, and you have so far failed to address this except for insisting that the one view is right. It may be, but it isn't to the point. If there are non-anecdotes supporting Hitler's vegetarianism, please include them. While you're at it, please include your "tight triangulations" of provenance, time and place. Until these are in the article, please don't revert the introduction. Thanks! Demi ^T/_C 19:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you read this talk page? You ask me to repeat my remarks, then "accuse" me of repeating them. Please have a look at the definition of anecdotal [10] (Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems” (C. Claiborne Ray).). This hardly characterizes Junge's consistent, eyewitness testimony, but does match Toland's remark (not quote) that "Frau Hess" said, sort of, that he ate some liver dumplings, with no specificity as to chronology or frequency. Wyss 20:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking you to repeat your remarks. Are you trying to say Junge's anecdote about how Hitler would react when being slipped meat stock constitutes science or rigor? As ever, I'm not saying it's incorrect. I'm not saying it's not credible. I'm saying it is an anecdote. Repeating her story does not constitute rigorous or scientific analysis--I've already explained what would. Characterizing the reports on one side of this as "largely anecdotal" is taking a position of advocacy regarding the question--an non-neutral dictum that the reader reach a certain conclusion. If the article develops into a form with anecdotes on one side and not on another, then it might be included in an accurate introduction. As it stands, it does not. And disagreements are fine, but please don't admonish me for "editing to make a point" when I am trying to do is improve the article. Thank you. Demi ^T/_C 21:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted three things:

• History
• The difference between anecdote and documentation
• What an encyclopedia is

When you flip back and forth between calling all the sources "anecdotes" or not, that seem to me like editing to make a point. Finally, if the historical record happens to have "anecdote" on one "side" (as you put it) and documented testimony, not to mention most if not all of the major biographers, on the other, then the article should reflect that for the readers. You're certainly not discussing this with me. You're dictating and reverting. Wyss 21:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't misinterpreted these things--I'm not sure why you feel you have to widen the discussion to include my personal abilities and why I am editing the article. That aside, I did try--without success--to discuss the issues with the introduction, and they weren't addressed. I thank you for trying a different version of the introduction--I've edited it further. I think if we both focus on trying to improve the introduction, we will approach something useful. Demi ^T/_C 22:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The intro as of your last edit is barely ok with me (speaking only for me). I think it's still somewhat PoV. Some vegetarians and those who regard vegetarianism as somehow morally or ethically superior (rather than plain healthy) tend to spit blood at the thought that a person so ethically-challenged as Mr Hitler could have been a vegetarian for the last dozen years of his life. They cite anything they can to "disqualify" him from the club... Frau Hess (sort of) says he ate liver dumplings... Morell pumped him with animal gunk... his cooks despised vegetarian cuisine and luzzed bone marrow into his soup and so on. What the intro still fails at is chronology. He ate meat until Geli died. He was essentially vegetarian but "cheated" now and then with liver dumplings. The NYT ham reference is dodgy (see above). Most 1930s era newspaper articles are replete with errors of detail, I know because I've done scholarly historical research and have found basic errors in almost every newspaper article from the 1930s I've ever read on microfiche. Today's journalism is only somewhat better by the bye. Anyway by around 1941 he was hard core vegetarian in terms of effort and general diet. All his major biographers say so. Moreover, even most of the citations that do mention anecdotes about meat eating characterise him as vegetarian. If the same sort of dietary citations were available for Churchill or Eisenhower, I suspect only cranks would dispute them. Wyss 23:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That is pretty much how I see it. Anyway--right now the introduction says the reports are "from the 1930s", which is all it says on chronology. Can we/should we make that more specific? Demi ^T/_C 23:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Either characterise them as "largely anecdotal" or somehow stress that the meat eating was of an infrequent, "cheating" variety and tapered off completely sometime during the mid-late 1930s. Wyss 23:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please provide cites for your statement, "Anyway by around 1941 he was hard core vegetarian in terms of effort and general diet. All his major biographers say so." Also, your claim that "meat eating was of an infrequent, "cheating" variety and tapered off completely sometime during the mid-late 1930s" appears to be original research. --Viriditas | Talk 13:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, cites for claims please, and no original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

As near as I can tell, User:Viriditas added the POV tag with the following issues:

• POV title
• omission of historical facts
• bias over anecdotal evidence

To which User:Wyss has added (current list)

• PoV suggestions that title is PoV
• distortion of anecdotal evidence
• bias over unrelated historical facts
• omission of chronology
• conflation of historical facts
• lack of context
• lack of historical balance
• failure to accurately represent the provenance and reliability of sources

I'm going to remove the "title" issues because I can't think how the article would be better titled. It seems to me like each source is cited and appropriately referenced. I would like to remove the POV tag and allow additional context and overview (which is what I think the article needs) to grow.

Demi ^T/_C 23:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I think some of the issues listed in the PoV tag persist, I never thought it was necessary and would also rather that it was removed. Wyss 23:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I vote to remove. The article in its present form has shortcomings, but is relatively NPOV. Babajobu 00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

So I've removed the tag and have had a go at pithy chronology in the intro. Wyss 00:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

(I think what I've done still over-emphasizes whatever cheating went on) Wyss 00:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Added POV title tag (and original research tag)

The issues described above have not been resolved (as detailed in above sections) and the article would be more appropriately and inclusively titled Adolph Hitler's diet. --Viriditas | Talk 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've read through the talk page and I think it's hard to follow, especially with several issues identified en masse. Can we tackle them one at a time, starting with the article title? I think Adolf Hitler's Diet (or Diet of Adolf Hitler) isn't as good because what's being discussed here is not his diet in general but specifically if he was vegetarian (which issue might even range outside diet). I don't think that having the article about the assertion here says that the assertion is true (just that it's the subject of the article, which it is). Demi ^T/_C 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Adolf Hitler's medical health and notice how it is structured. We don't have articles titled Cocaine addiction of Adolph Hitler or Methamphetamine addiction of Adolph Hitler or even Candy addiction of Adolph Hitler. These topics are covered to some extent in Adolph Hitler's medical health, as they should be. The current article is but a subset of Adolph Hitler's diet; once all the qoutes are moved to wikiquote and the main points are paraphrased--little will be left. The main article should be appropriately titled, "Adolph Hitler's diet" as that is what is being discussed in the article; whether or not Hitler was a vegetarian can be determined by covering the topic of his diet throughout his life using the historical record as a guide. The current title, "Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler" is a springboard for original research, as it introduces a theory, original ideas, new definitions of old terms and arguments without citing sources (see the present lead) which purport to refute or support the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian at some point in his life using contradictory anecdotal evidence. I am presently unaware of any primary or secondary source that covers the topic of the Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler except to comment on specific dietary behavior that demonstrates a reduction of meat-intake in addition to continued consumption of animal products--this contradicts the definition of vegetarianism unless you redefine old terms without sources, and again, you're back to original research. There are many other POV issues (such as the deliberate omission of competing POV's -- a violation of NPOV) but for the moment I am just addressing the title (I am adding the original research tag as well). See also: Wikipedia:Naming conflict: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Naming the article by the neutral and descriptive title "Adolph Hitler's diet" will help achieve consensus over the long-term and prevent edit wars; whether Hitler was or wasn't a vegetarian can be easily deduced from an examination of his diet.--Viriditas | Talk 13:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Viriditas, I have a lot of respect for you as a Wikipedia editor, likewise for your highly developed sense of perspective but we have a docking big problem: I interpret your entire post here as 100% PoV and mistaken, both historically and academically. This is not a provocation, but a plea for understanding. Taken in the context that we both know this article is at the utter nexus of "hot button" issues and conflicting takes on both history and how a project like WP works, what shall we do? Wyss 14:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

How it is original research to state that he avoided meat in the '40s when numerous primary (Tabletalk) and secondary sources attest to this. Perhaps you should amend the template to indicate that you, personally, would prefer that Hitler had not avoided meat in the 1940s. More accurate. Likewise, numerous sources discuss Hitler's vegetarian habits qua vegetarian habits. If you would like to collate evidence and discussions of other aspects his life as well chronicled, I encourage you to do so. Babajobu 15:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on the content of the article, rather than your beliefs about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Babajobu's first sentence does refer to the content and explicitly references supporting cites (the article is replete with them by the way). Wyss 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The final two sentences of my comment also referred to the content of the article. Purged of references to other editors' POV, it reads: "How it is original research to state that he avoided meat in the '40s when numerous primary (Tabletalk) and secondary sources attest to this. Likewise, numerous sources discuss Hitler's vegetarian habits qua vegetarian habits. If you would like to collate evidence and discussions of other aspects his life as well chronicled, I encourage you to do so." Babajobu 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jayjg, funny that you were hardly so conscientious about such things when Viriditas and Slimvirgin were filling this talkpage with their thoughts on Wyss's motivation for editing this article. A simple oversight on your part, surely. Babajobu 17:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please use the Talk: page to comment on the contents of the article, and not on other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In my humble and honest opinion, all of Babajobu's comments are related to content. Note that I have been directly attacked with utterly unfounded, personal political accusations on this page, repeatedly, to the point where I even considered referring the editor to RfC but I loathe the notion of using formal process to resolve disputes and issues. I also realize that this topic has the potential to bring out the worst in even sincere, good faith editors. Anyway the objectivity here has at times been zero. The intro is fully supported by the citations given in the article. I don't know if you've read them, if you haven't please do, thanks. Wyss 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Suppositions about what editors would "personally prefer" to have in the article, or comments about alleged "oversights" in "conscientiousness" can hardly be considered content-related. As well, if you can provide a specific citation for your thesis that Hitler "seems to have made consistent efforts to avoid it [meat] entirely after around 1940" please do so; otherwise it smacks of original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, if the evidence is overwhelming, the comment is acceptable. Also, I've been personally attacked (with wholly mistaken remarks) several times on this page. Finally, please tell me, have you read the citations I've mentioned? Please tell me yes or no, since they fully support the introductory text. If you have not read them, please do so. After I have recieved an acknowledgement from you that you have indeed read all the citations, if you have further questions of a specific nature, I'll then be happy to discuss specific points. Thanks. Wyss 18:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Both the talk page and article are laced with citations of sources that claim Hitler was a vegetarian from 1931. The only evidence of exceptions to this vegetarianism pertains to the 1930s. Perhaps this is how it should be stated in the lead, to avoid allegations of OR. And I'm glad that Wyss is being lectured on the inappropriateness of making suppositions about editors' motivations. Because he has been subjected to incessant speculations about his motives for editing this article, and because no admins ever called anybody out on such suppositions, Wyss may have concluded that such behavior is perfectly acceptable. Glad we straightened him out on that one. Babajobu 16:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Truth be told, like most people, some editors and admins think they know what they're talking about when it comes to that charismatic genocidal sociopath Adolf Hitler, who in trying to follow his personal, mistaken notions for "saving the world" set Western civilization back at least a generation, but they don't. Stir in a wholly unsupported belief that the ingestion of a vegetarian diet (healthy as it is) has anything to do with an individual vegetarian's personal capacity for ethical behavior and compassion... and this talk page is the result. Wyss 16:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No, this talk page is about how to best represent the historical record according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Viriditas | Talk 07:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Okay, this started with some good discussion on the article title and then wandered from there. I'd like to attack each of the issues and eventually get to a point where we can remove the POV tag. So far, I and Viridatas have weighed in on the naming issue specifically. What are some other opinions and/or suggested approaches? Demi ^T/_C 06:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts: Hitler considered himself a vegetarian. He was passionate about the benefits of his vegetarianism. This article is an examination of his vegetarianism. The title is the only possible choice for an article on this topic. Babajobu 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a silly conclusion. The "only possible choice"? IMO, one cannot understand the so-called "vegetarianism" of Hitler without examining his diet. An article about Adolph Hitler's diet is neutral and "steers clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view...The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Quoted from: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Viriditas | Talk 11:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What this article appears to be missing

1. History of meat eating: multiple, corroborating evidence for Hitler's love of liver dumplings, including Wagner's daughter and the head of the Gestapo, in addition to Hess. There's also the WWI chronology (sausage eating), and a report of Hitler eating meat in his bunker the week he killed himself.
2. Criticism of Hitler's vegetarianism: Berry, et al.

Why is this not in the article? WP:NPOV would seem to demand that it be there. Under which policy has it been excluded? I was unable to find a specific policy reason for excluding this information in the discussions above. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

WWI chronology is not in here because Hitler did not claim/attempt to be vegetarian until 1931 (except for a brief attempt in 1911). Is it not enough to mention that Hitler was a garden-variety meat eater until the death of his niece, or must we describe his menu at length during his full-blown carnivorous days? His love of dumplings is attested to...but are there multiple, corroborating pieces of evidence regarding his eating of dumplings in the 30s and 40s? Babajobu 21:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. As an example, I've seen reports by Wagner's daughter, Hess, and Gestapo chief Rudolf Diels -- all attesting to dumpling consumption. Regarding Berry (and other writers), I don't see any reason why they can't be added without giving undue attention to Payne. There's no reason to mention Payne, if that's a problem, however according to Robert N. Proctor, animal rights historians Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax appear to bolster some of Payne's claims. I also want to point out that other vegetarian historians (Spencer) disagree with Berry. There's really a lot missing from this article (including Fritz Redlich's contadictory description of Hitler as a "strict vegetarian" who eats meat in Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet; Michael Musmanno's portrayal of Hitler's meat consumption; and Proctor's description of Hitler's aversion to meat in the 1920's) concerning Hitler's diet in general, which leads me into the argument for changing the title, but I'll save that for another section, as I find its better to tackle one issue at a time. In any case, I've added back in the POV tag. --Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Mutiple independent accounts of dumplng consumption, yes. But do these accounts refer to the relevant timeframe, ie after 1931? Babajobu 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We disagree as to what the "relevant timeframe" is, as there is relevant pre-1931 content that needs to be added, such as the incident where Hitler scolded his date for ordering Wienerschnitzel in the 1920s. As for when the dumpling consumption occurred, according to Wagner, Redlich, and Hess it was after 1931 (I assume the same for Diels, but don't know offhand). Your personal insistence on limiting the discussion of vegetarianism to specific dates appears to be an artificial restriction you are imposing on this article which prevents a balanced, historical presention of Hitler's diet which is accurately viewed as a historical continuum, rather than an isolated incident. --Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the article must be restricted to events after 1931. I've already cited Hitler's brief dalliance with vegetarianism in 1911 as something that should be included in the article. Also, any pre-1931 events that shed light on his motivation for attempting vegetarianism should also be included. However, with the exception of the 1911 attempt, Hitler *did not claim to be a vegetarian* before 1931. We can probably produce dozens of pages of accounts of his eating meat before 1931, because he did so almost every day. Imagine the lists we could produce!!! Not just liver dumplngs and ham, but chicken, fish, veal, meatballs, beef stew, chicken soup, sweetbread, vennison, beef sausages, chicken sausages, ground beef, catfish...and that's just a start! However, it is enough simply to state that Adolph Hitler was not a vegetarian at that time. Similarly, if we do end up creating a Vegetarianism of Albert Einstein article, we need not dwell endlessly on the contents of his meals in the many decades before he became a vegetarian. It will be enough simply to state that he was a meat-eater during those decades. Babajobu 12:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, Viriditas wants to use the liver dumpling anecdotes, along with citing every possible documented reference to his meat eating with no regard to chronology, to exclude AH from being referred to as a vegetarian in this encyclopedia. Since most of his major biographers have described AH as a vegetarian, I suggest Viriditas is engaging in original research. However, according to WP policy, if Viriditas wants to cite some published "vegetarian historians," that's ok. Wyss 12:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have neither said nor implied anything of the sort. Please refrain from wild speculation about my motives, assume good faith, and stick to the discussion at hand. --Viriditas | Talk 13:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Then you're ok with the existence of this article and its title? Wyss 13:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should refer both to historians who say he was a vegetarian, and others who say he was not. While the view that he was a vegetarian is amply supported in the current article, views that he was not are still excluded. Also, the time-frame does seem to be chosen specifically to exclude accounts of him being a meat eater. This is troubling. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, the involved timeframe is consequence of the fact that everyone agrees that he regularly ate meat before 1931. Only then did he become, or claim to become, a vegetarian. This is why accounts of his meals in, say, 1924, are irrelevant: because we all know he consumed an endless laundry list of meat dishes at that time. Accounts of his eating meat after 1931 are very relevant because by then he was largely avoiding meat and claiming to be a vegetarian. Again, I offer this simple analogy: Einstein was only a veggie for the last couple years of his life. Would an article that examined his vegetarianism cite any of the countless instances of his eating meat prior to his vegetarian years as evidence that "Einstein was not a vegetarian"? I don't think so. Babajobu 22:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And I of course agree with you that we should cite reputable biographers of every position. Babajobu 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The time frame wasn't chosen by the editors. He declared his vegetarianism (and began making documented efforts to adhere to hit, liver dumplings or not) beginning with Geli's death in 1931. Any references to meat eating before that time aren't relevant at all. What I find troubling is the way some editors leap at spurious and/or vaguely dated citations in an effort to refute AH's vegetarianism, which amounts to original research. Moreover, citing "vegetarian" historians who have obvious philosophical and even financial biases is dodgy as can be. His major, scholarly biographers overwhelmingly characterize him as vegetarian. Wyss 22:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the chronology is quite so clear-cut. In particular, I'd like more information on the incident of Hitler scolding someone for eating Wienerschnitzel in the 1920s (if this happened, and if there's a good source for it). Unlike general meat-eating before the 30s, this would be a relevant piece of information speaking to Hitler's willingness to be a hypocrite on the subject. It's true that the agendas of various sources have to be taken into account, but that also goes for biographers uninterested in the question (and therefore likely to accept orthodoxy). An extra biography or two that doesn't say any more than "Hitler was a vegetarian" is neither here nor there, I think, as far as we're concerned. And being a vegetarian--even someone who has taken a particular interest in the history of vegetarianism--does not disqualify someone from being objective or rigorous. Demi ^T/_C 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The chronology is manifestly clear-cut. Moreover, so many anecdotal smears were circulated about AH during the 1930s (he had many people killed during his consolidation of power and made many enemies) one must learn to be extremely wary about accounts of stuff like "Wienerschnitzel hypocracy" and I agree with Babajobu, but for the double standard being applied on this talk page by some editors, Einstein, who was a veg for only a couple of years before he died, would come out rather "less" of a vegetarian than Hitler. Wyss 00:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Liver dumplings

Can someone please post a recipe for the liver dumplings of which Hitler was so fond? Thanks in advance. THB

Idealogical considerations

24.14.50.182 (talk · contribs) added the italicized comments to the article. My reasons for removal is stated as a response:

Much of the debate over Hitler's vegetarianism, or lack thereof, is fueled by idealogy rather than facts, primarily because its perceived implications.

I don't see a citation for this claim. The attempt by the user to frame this "debate" appears to be the users opinion.

Individuals on both sides of vegetarian, vegan, and animal rights issues bring up Hitler, and as a result, the entire issue becomes extremely argumentative.

That might be the opinion of the editor. No cite, though.

For example, according to the below-linked Slate article, activist Rynn Berry works to disprove Hitler's vegetarianism partly because his opponents point to Hitler's supposed vegetarianism to make his lifestyle look bad.

This is a criticism made by one web author who admittedly hasn't read Berry's book. This criticism is deceiving in a number of ways; first, it claims Berry is attempting to actively "disprove" Hitler's alleged vegetarianism, when all Berry appears to be doing is quoting historical sources regarding Hitler's diet; secondly, the editor attempts to portray Berry's argument as reductio ad Hitlerum which is a straw man. Berry himself states that "hostile non-vegetarians" wondered why Berry didn't include Hitler in his book, Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes. Berry's book is an attempt to answer this question. So, Berry's argument is not reductio ad Hitlerum as the editor/web critic claims.

Likewise, pro-hunting groups have pointed to Hitler's preoccupation with animal rights legislation in an attempt to link hunting foes with Nazism [11].

Possibly true, but irrelevant to this article.

Whatever the case, such arguments are considered logical fallacies and ad hominen attacks.

True, which is why I have removed them.--Viriditas | Talk 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of that content. Babajobu 18:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing is original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Hitler with a deer

While I understand the connection, it seems out of place. The article only contains small portion at the end mentioning Hitler's interest in animal rights and no significant links. Selecting this as one of the only two pictures displayed seems to imply it played a primary role. It seems either the article should make more mention of it if it was really such a factor, or perhaps a better picture could be used.

Awesome picture as far as i'm concerned and super relevent, Hitler feeding a baby deer where do they get their stuff Rubedeau 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Rotten Library

I recently found this information within the archives of rotten.com. If true, or if further verification exists, it certainly warrants attention: "...truth be told, he wasn't actually much of a vegetarian... or at least, not a principled one. Hitler promoted the myth that he was following a healthy regimen, insisting that the ideal man did not consume meat. But this was probably just a rationalization, as he himself could not digest meat without suffering from excruciating stomach cramps and embarrassing flatulence. Nevertheless Hitler's diet included the occasional serving of Bavarian sausage, liver dumpling, caviar, ham, or wild game..." --AWF