Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Anti-Catholic?

Wasn't he also anti-Catholic as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:554E:7801:51DB:9A18:681A:740E (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Was he, RS please?Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

He was - at times - anti-christian rather than specifically anti-catholic. See summary of his religious views here + fuller account. Pincrete (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by RS? Do you think I'm a Retarded Shit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:554e:7801:707a:4450:c4ff:76e8 (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

How the hell do you get that? Read wp:agf, by the way RS means reliable sources, read wp:rs).Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The entire question of Hitler's personal views about religion is a complex one, as it needs to be carefully separated from his political actions, especially in regard to the Catholic Church, as well as the views and actions of other Nazis such as Rosenberg. I haven't explored Hitler's table talk thoroughly enough to know what he might have said about the Church in that relaxed context, but after reading numerous biographies and histories, I'd say that religion just wasn't very important to him except in how it could be used to influence people (i.e. his frequent references to "Providence" having protected him so he could do his great work) or how the religious institutions could be manipulated or'suppressed to further his cause. In any case, I don;t believe that there's sufficient evidence to support calling him "anti-Catholic" in this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

DNA Research

I recently made an edit to Hitler's ancestry adding information from DNA research on his family in 2010, which has been removed and I'm not sure why. I specified "39 supposed relatives" because the study keeps most of them anonymous and can't be checked by the public, but one of them is Hitler's half-brother's son, which is sufficient enough to provide their shared Y-DNA haplogroup, E1b1b. Since Hitler's father was born to an unknown man and Hitler's half brother was born illegitimate at the time (because their father could not remarry until the death of his wife), questions are naturally raised so a second paternal relative was compared to be sure, called Norbert H., whose identity is kept private (but might be a paternal descendant from one of Hitler's father's affairs). This triangulation of results backs up the likeliness that Hitler's haplogroup was E1b1b. Haplogroups do not determine one's ethnic makeup, but E1b1b is uncommon among Germans and today happens to be most prevalent among Moroccan Berbers and about a 5th of Ashkenazi and a 3rd of Sephardic Jews (the exact estimates were in my edit). This foreign ancestor could have entered Hitler's paternal line anywhere within the last few hundred years and does not necessarily prove the ethnicity of his grandfather, but is simply a factual curiosity for his ancestry. Jonnychiwa (talk) 13 February 2021 (UTC)

One reason for not including the DNA information is that the article is already very long, and adding information on a "factual curiosity" is not a good reason for expanding it.

But there are more fundamental problems. (1) The source you've used for the information about Hitler's DNA is the Daily Mail, which is no longer an acceptable reliable source for Wikipedia, having made up stuff in the past. Any inclusion of DNA material would need to be sourced to a better RS, preferably the research paper itself. (2) You're citing a 2010 report, that's 10-11 years ago. Has there been a reproduction of the study in the years since then? Have other RS academic papers reinforced its conclusions? Certainly by now someone should have looked into it and made a determination of its legitimacy. (3) Your material is essentially what we call a WP:SYNTHESIS, in that you take the results as reported by the Daily Mail and then you've interpreted them using another study. We don't allow that. To add information about Hitler's ancestry resulting from DNA tests, the conclusions about Hitler's ancestry must come from the study itself, not from your interpretation of the results of the study using another study. Such original research is simply not allowed to be included on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The DM itself says "Journalist Jean-Paul Mulders and historian Marc Vermeeren used DNA to track down 39 of the Fuhrer's relatives earlier this year". So this scientific research was done by a journalist and a little known 'historian'. There are so many ifs and buts along the path (apart from the SYNTH argument made by BMK above) that even if better sourced, this would at best be a curiosity, a speculative possibility. Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If it was "scientific research" it would have been done by a geneticist and published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, not the DM.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past and there’s no reason to change the conclusion that was reached then. Falls into the category of speculation, conjecture and surmise. It should not be included as under WP:Fringe, WP:Synthesis and WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hitler

He was pr--37.72.113.230 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)obably not a nice man

He was what?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2021 (2)

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian statesman who ruled the Third Reich (Nazi Germany) from 1933 to 1945. Hitler was a loner as an adolescent, but grew up to be one of the most influencial people in human history. His anti-semitic philosophy got him a lot of support in a war-torn Germany (after WWI). Today, Hitler is seen as one of the worst humans in history because of his horrific speeches and policies. Germanman0909 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

See above.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

To editors Germanman0909 and Slatersteven: Not done for now:  Additional information needed: it would be very helpful if you would explain the changes you would like to make in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian politician born in the city of Braun am Inn. From 1933 to 1945, he was the head of German politics. From 1934 to his death in April 30, 1945, Hitler was the Fuhrer or absolute leader of the Third Reich. Germanman0909 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Except when he ruled Germany he was a German citizen.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

To editor Slatersteven:  Not done for now:  Additional information needed: it would be very helpful if you would explain the changes you would like to make in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

PS. To editor Germanman0909: as well. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian politician and statesman. He ruled over Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In 1933, he assumed the title of Chancellor. In March of 1934, he became dictator of Germany after using emergency powers under President Hindenburg. TheRealGermanMan09 (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. And assuming that this is intended to replace the beginning of the lead, it does not seem like an improvement to me. Meters (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

hellloooo i have some info about hitler i would like to add as i am his grandson 153.107.27.44 (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. General Ization ^Talk 03:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

That's really weird, because 'I'm Kaiser Wilhelm II's great-great-grandson. What are the odds? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Aber Ich war der Putzer vom Kaiser - wirklich! Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

No proof Adolfo hitler was in bunker when they said 2.25.27.74 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Your edit request fails to follow the instructions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, because it would have been denied anyway. There is abundant evidence of Hitler being in the bunker from 16 January 1945 to 30 April when he committed suicide. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or a fool. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

TheRealGermanMan09 (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian politician who served as the Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1934 and the Fuhrer of Germany from 1934 to 1945.

When was he an Austrian politician? You probably mean a German politician, who had been born Austrian (more accurately born in the Austrian part of Austria-Hungary). He was German throughout almost all of his adulthood, and most certainly German in the period for which he is known. We deal with his origins in para 2 and in the body. This is fairly standard WP practice, to give greater emphasis to someone's citizenship when notable rather than at birth. Pincrete (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Reichstag fire

Our job is to report the consensus of modern scholarship. Shirer finished his book in 1959 before the new work by Tobias appeared--he never revised it and while popular his book is no longer current with modern scholarship of the last 60 years. Bullock originally held to the old ideas but now leans in favor of the Tobias interpretation. Bullock have one sentence that it's an "open question" --with no explanation and he is the only scholar who says that so he is either pro-consensus or perhaps "fringe" on this issue.
Historian Benjamin Carter Hett stated in 2014:

Today the overwhelming consensus among historians who specialize in Nazi Germany remains that Marinus van der Lubbe burned the Reichstag all by himself.

Richard J. Evans in 2014 summarized the consensus of academic historians that, "the bulk of the historical profession [agrees] that Tobias was right, and that the sole author of the Reichstag fire was Marinus van der Lubbe". Rjensen (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Timeline of when suppression of Hitler and the Nazis took place

I'm not sure if this is WP:RS but according to the source the Hitler was originally banned from giving speeches in Bavaria after the putsch, until his parole ended in 1927 however Nazi Party activities could be conducted elsewhere. The Prussian authorities then banned the Nazis from any public speaking in 1925 after the SA beat a pastor who heckled Goebbels, both of these restrictions were lifted in 1927 which i think should be stated more clearly in the 'Rebuilding the Nazi Party' subsection if the source is to be believed. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a reliable soure. See the about page. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What about 'Hitler:1889-1936 Hubris' by Ian Kershaw page 293 (i just grabbed it from List of speeches given by Adolf Hitler)? - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So you haven't actually checked to see if that book on that page supports the information? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm vague on what point you're trying to make here. After the putsch, Hitler was banned from speaking in various states of Germany, and those bans were lifted at different times, as they were determined by the governments of each state and not by the national government of Weimar Germany. What is it you're wanting to add to the article? If it's all the various dates of banning and unbanning I don't think that's particularly useful. Something on the order of "By XXXX, Hitler's speaking ban had been lifted in most German states except for XXXXX and XXXXX, which kept them into effect until XXXX and XXXX, respectively." That might be OK. What, specifically, are you attempting to accomplish? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That the suppression of the Nazis wasn't unified and that there was inconsistent attempts to stop their rise.- || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a topic which is better dealt with at Adolf Hitler's rise to power rather than here, in a biographical article. It's also a rather large topic which can't really be dealt with by adding a couple of dates here and there. Rather than getting into WP:OR or WP:SYNTH territory, it would be best to find some reliable sources, such as Shirer's "Rise and Fall", or the first volume of Evans' "Third Reich" trilogy, or Kershaw's or Volker's biography (or Toland's or Bullock's or Fest's, although they're more out of date) and use them to cover whatever ground you want to deal with -- checking first, of course, to see how the article already deals with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

RuleThe Wiki, what BMK says sounds right. For your information though, and checking my copy of Kershaw’s Hubris, the bans had been imposed on a state-by-state basis starting with Bavaria in March 1925 and other states doing the same in the following months (page 269). All that then happened was that the ban was progressively lifted by individual states (rather than inconsistently applied) as each came to believe “that the Nazi menace had passed” (page 293). Page 292 says the ban was lifted in Saxony in Jan 1927; in Bavaria in March 1927. Page 293 says most German states soon followed Saxony and Bavaria except Prussia and Anhalt which both held out until Autumn 1928. I think it’s just reflective of the federal structure of the Weimar Republic. DeCausa (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Evil replaced by Gravely immoral?

I would like to ask under what absurd initiative "universally regarded as evil" was replaced with the watered-down "universally regarded as gravely immoral," which casts a strikingly different and far less stark tone. 108.29.97.109 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it isn't verifiable, There is also a verifiable and attributed quote "Never in history has such ruination – physical and moral – been associated with the name of one man." - which is a bit less 'watery'. Pincrete (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

'Gravely immoral' sounds odd in context. Kershaw also says: "His place in history has certainly been secured – though in a way he had not anticipated: as the embodiment of modern political evil. However, evil is a theological or philosophical, rather than a historical, concept. To call Hitler evil may well be both true and morally satisfying." Although he goes on to say that this is a barrier to understanding Hitler, I think replacing the 'universally regarded as gravely immoral' with 'the embodiment of modern political evil' (quoting Kershaw) would be more appropriate. DeCausa (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the IP that 'gravely immoral' is wishy-washy, but another editor some time ago objected to "universally regarded as evil" as unverifiable and for reasons similar to those given by DeCausa, that to some, the concept of evil is vague/undefinable/unhistorical. Pincrete (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a sample discussion from archive 62: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 62#Hitler's evil in first paragraph? I think that is the most recent discussion on this phrase.— Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That was a quite a shambles, by the looks of it! DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the IP and DeCausa. The current phrase is awkward and weaselly, and should be replaced with some version of "evil". I'm certain that we can come up with additional citations for it from very reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Using the direct quote from Kershaw would be fine, since there's hardly a more reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We can verify that he's considered gravely immoral but we can't verify that he's considered evil? I'm sorry but with all due respect that's just ridiculous. This is the single most verifiably evil figure in history, literally the archetypal example of it. If Hitler can't be verified as evil, then the very meaning and purpose of verification must be called into question. 108.29.97.109 (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and change the wording here, according to my understanding of MOS:INTRO, MOS:JARGON, and WP:BOLD. I'll also add a citation more directly mentioning Hitler as being almost universally considered evil as well, just in case, and out of respect for the more pedantically minded among us. Yitz (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we just remove it altogether. It is an opinion. This is an encyclopedia not an inverted popularity contest. What about Genghis Khan, or Joe Stalin or..., etc., etc? Plus the word ’evil’ is a religious concept that I suggest should have no place in an article about a historical personage. Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

We report the opinions of subject experts all the time, and if they say that Hitler was "evil", then we report that he is considered "evil", which is as much a moral concept as a religious one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree too. I still think a direct quote from one of the leading historians on Hitler (Kershaw) is the way to go, namely: “the embodiment of modern political evil”. DeCausa (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the edit as well as the two citations, because they don't actually support the edit very well at all. The Joel Feinberg book states that if measuring by a person's intent to do harm, then Hitler is the most evil person in history. That is not the same thing as saying he is universally regarded as evil, and appears to be Feinberg's own assessment, not a comment on the consensus of historical views. The other source, Hanke et al, states that the survey determined that Hitler was the most negatively viewed historical figure, and does not use the word "evil" at all. @DeCausa:, if you could please provide a full citation for your Kershaw quote? The quote would be a good replacement for the one we currently have in the lead. It looks like it might be from the preface of Nemesis but we need a page number. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

New suggestions: replace "gravely immoral" with "gravely immoral or evil". Or remove it altogether, as we are unlikely to ever find a citation that directly supports either contention, and we don't want to be drawing conclusions that are not actually present in the sources (WP:OR). Better to just use the Kershaw quote "the embodiment of modern political evil" — Diannaa (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For the Kersaw quote and fascinating analysis see his book Hitler: Nemesis preface p xvii here Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an e-book. The pagination might not be the same as the edition we already have in the bibliography: ISBN 978-0-393-32252-1 published by Norton & Company in 2000.— Diannaa (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but we are far better off leaving it out entirely than calling him gravely immoral. It really looks as we are calling a man responsible for millions of deaths "a bad man" just about the most timid description of him we can make. If we can't source evil, and are worried about leaving it unsourced, then lets leave it out entirely. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Best to remove if we are thinking of using a phrase not sourced whatsoever. If we are not able to use the source correctly because people are uncomfortable with the terminologies historians are using.... it shouldn't be used at all. Wikipedia is not the place for new terminology not in sources.--Moxy- 16:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm with DeCausa - what's wrong with using the Kershaw quote? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on this growing consensus I have removed "gravely immoral" from both the body and the lead and replaced with the new quote suggested by DeCausa. We will have to assume for now that the page number is xvii - the preface is short so even if we're wrong on the page number we will be able to find the quote and make a correction at a later date. — Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for making that change. I confirm from my copy of Nemesis that the page number "xvii" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

So you’ve chosen to go with the OPINION of one man, Ian Kershaw, and ignored all the arguments against using a value based upon religious concepts. Disappointing. I would like to again suggest that the maintenance and editing of this stub on this particular historical personage should avoid being motivated by a personal, emotional antipathy. No other historical leader from the most destructive and deadly conflict of modern times gets the same treatment. The stubs on Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman do not make moral judgements about them. Nor do they quote historians with personal antipathy venting their personal opinions. Nor do they compile totals of deaths that can be ascribed to their policies and decisions as war leaders. All of which it would be very easy to do. E.g. it would be very easy to quote similar personal opinions against Winston Churchill. Instead the stub intro lauds him and merely adds he has ”received criticism”. Does no-one else see the hypocrisy here? E.D. Morel wrote that he looked “upon Churchill as a personal force for evil”. And that was in 1922, BEFORE his war crimes and deliberate policies for mass-murder of civilians. Does anyone here think that quote from Morel would be allowed into the intro on Churchill? Similarly the stub on Stalin describes that mass-murderer thusly: ”widely considered one of the 20th century's most significant figures”. That’s wiki neutrality?? I fear this insistence over years to include opinions in the intro on Hitler designed to make readers of wikipedia to believe that this particular war leader was the ”incarnation of wickedness” (or ”embodiment of political evil”) or some other emotive value judgement is why Wikipedia is still not taken seriously as an encyclopedia.Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Pol Pot.--Moxy- 09:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Kershaw is one of the pre-eminent scholars of Hitler and the Nazi regime, and that his two-volume biography of Hitler is now the standard by which all others are measured, I think it's pretty safe to quote his views about Hitler. Remember, we're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice, we're quoting the opinion of an expert on the subject, and while we're not allowed to express our personal opinions, and we must be very careful about expressing opinions in Wikipedia's voice, it's entirely normal for us to quote the opinions of experts. We do it all the time, in articles on every subject under the sun. And as far as "emotive" statements go, "the embodiment of modern political evil" is pretty tame stuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, that stuff about Wikipedia not being taken seriously is pretty old hat, very 10 years ago. In fact, just a few days ago, I read this in The Atlantic: "It's ironic that Wikipedia, a social platform once demonized by educators as unreliable, is now a global avatar of strict adherence to a set of retro principles about how to properly establish and document information through objectivity, references to authoritative sources, and appealing to generally accepted facts." Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mystichumwipe, that’s quite an extraordinary post on a variety of levels. Let’s be clear: WP:NPOV requires us to “fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources”. As can be seen in the WP:YESPOV section that includes opinion of the RS (aka ‘assessment’). Kershaw is not some lone voice “with personal antipathy”. He is a (possibly the) leading scholar on the subject. More than that, it is fairly absurd to suggest that he is on his own. We all know he’s expressing something that is a broadly held view across all sources. It’s just a well-crafted and pithy phrase from the leading historian reflecting the way that Hitler is represented in RS generally. It’s not controversial, for goodness sake. As for the comparisons to other articles you make: Kershaw himself describes in his intro to Nemesis, uniqueness of Hitler’s place in history. The appropriateness of the comparisons you make is troubling. It’s also troubling that you think Hitler is getting a “bad rap” in this article - all those pesky “totals of deaths” getting in the way. DeCausa (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

One other point about the quote. Although Kershaw goes on to say he finds Hitler personally detestable (and points out the irrelevance of that) the context of the quote is actually how Hitler is perceived in history. DeCausa (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point DeCausa, and that's why (in my opinion anyways) it makes a good substitute for the statement that he is almost universally regarded as evil, a statement we are having trouble backing up with sources.— Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

What has been put into the article at this point I believe is good for what needs to be conveyed, and covers the concerns expressed by some in this thread, above. Certainly, BMK is correct that Kershaw is the standard on which all other biographies on Hitler is measured. Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

To the guy who says evil is a religious concept is simply not true

You can have morals and be an atheist. Let's break that stigma comment first.

And I agree with IP, I don't understand the skirting around saying big words in a wikipedia article about Adolf Hitler. A collection of any historical document on the man will come up with things such as "the evolution of evil"

There are plenty examples, not sure if I can link in the talk section, and I know I can't just link 20 different references to convince this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 01:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

TFD discussion of note

Contributors to this article talk page may be interested in this TfD discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Military rank and years of service

The infobox says Hitler’s rank was Gefreiter, yet displays his years of service with the Third Reich as 1939-1945. I would assume since it is treating him as an active servicemember past 1920, he must have either assumed an active rank automatically as Führer, or as Supreme Commander. He became Führer and Chancellor in 1933, and Supreme Commander in 1941. Is there a specific reason that it shows 1939? If he was active service during the Third Reich, what military rank would he have then? Wouldn’t it be better to show his rank as the one he had during the Third Reich years? SoulMaster38 06:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hitler held no military rank once he was mustered out in 1920 after World War I. His various positions held while Führer, as "commander-in-chief" of this-and-that, were civilian ones. For this reason I have removed "1939-1945" from the infobox. Anyone who wishes to restore it must present evidence that Hitler held actual rank in the Wehrmacht, which I think it is not possible to do. He outranked everyone, obviously, but as a civilian, not as military personnel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

So one would assume the years “1939-1945” under Years of service, “Nazi Germany” under Allegiance, and “World War 2” under Battles/wars be removed from the “Military Service” section in the infobox. SoulMaster38 07:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed "allegiance" and "wars" and have now removed them. That section is for "military service", and Hitler ran the military as Führer, but was not part of the military, he was above it. (Just as the President of the United States is "Commander-in-Chief" ex officio, but holds no military rank.) Hitler is, of course, unusual in that he kept taking on direct command positions which would normally be held by general officers, but holding those command positions still didn't make him a military officer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification SoulMaster38 07:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The infobox in this article has him, as his only C-in-C role, becoming army C-in-C. in 1941. I notice that in Military career of Adolf Hitler it says, in addition to that, he replaced Blomberg with himself as armed forces C-in-C in 1938, sourced to Strawson Hitler as Military Commander. One would think armed forces C-in-C would be the one to highlight?DeCausa (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

He also took direct command of an Army or an Army Group (IIRC) during Barbarossa, but neither that nor his taking over C-in-C of the Armed Forces means that he became a member of the military, he was still a civilian acting in what is normally a military role. It's true that those positions are usually held by general officers, but he never became one, he was always a civilian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I know that. That’s not what I’m referring to. I’m only saying that the Infobox currently has him C-in-C of the Army from 1941. Nothing to do whether it’s military or not - it’s in the box right now. If he was C-in-C of the whole armed forces since 1938 shouldn’t that be there as well or instead as it’s ‘top of the tree’? Or delete C-in-C Army? DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It was added to the infobox only recently. I'd be fine with removing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2021

Add a short description in the infobox, example: {{short description|German Dictator}} Iatethanosforbreakfast (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The article already has a short description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

World war 1 expanded

can we expand the world war 1 section by talking about how he was saved by a british soldier? Robert Beryman (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that story is apocryphal. IIRC, it does not appear in Kershaw or Ullrich. Do you have a reliable source to support it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t even see why this needs to be included when there’s no evidence from a RS source that it actually took place. Kierzek (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to add information

"Due to the growing pressure and Hindenburg's threat of dismissing him as chancellor, Hitler purged the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives which took place from 30 June to 2 July 1934."

The bold part is the information I want to add. I think this is a crucial information on why Hitler decided to move against Röhm, his long time supporter. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source book. But our article Night of the Long Knives says that Hindenburg was threatening to enact martial law, not threatening to dismiss Hitler. It uses the same book and pages as a source. Evans 2005 page 30 says the same thing: Hindenburg was threatening to enact martial law.— Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa I'm well-aware. "He then told Hitler that Hindenburg was close to declaring martial law and turning the government over to the Reichswehr..." The only way to let the armed force rule is to dismiss Hitler. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are drawing a conclusion that is not actually present in the source book. We can't do that.— Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa It sounds to me that you lack knowledge on this topic. It's not a conclusion I invented since they are equivalent statements. Read 1934 German referendum (background) for more information. I'll wait for input from experts in the field. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa is, of course, correct. For it not to be original research which is not permitted to be the basis of a Wikipedia edit, the text has to be explicitly supported by the citation. What you propose is not. DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa It is explicit because they're equivalent statements with different wordings. You're actually demanding for "exact wording" which is absurd since we have to paraphrase information from the source anyway. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa is correct. Hindenburg never threatened to oust Hitler - and I am damn well-versed in the subject, as is Diannaa -- so don't give me the guff you gave her. What you're doing is WP:Original research and it's forbidden.

I find it rather incredible that you're a 'crat on Wiktionary with the kind of attitude you're throwing around here - 6 years with 57 edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I find it incredible that your claim to being well-versed may not be authentic. My kind of attitude is the same as you guys'. Take a closer look at when I first joined Vi Wikipedia (xtools); let me give you a hint, it was before you. As for you, 12 years with 0 edit in Vi Wikipedia.

Taking from 1934 German referendum, "In the wake of escalating Nazi excesses, Hindenburg threatened to sack Hitler and to declare martial law unless Hitler took immediate steps to end the tension. Hitler responded by ordering the Night of the Long Knives, in which several SA leaders, most notably Ernst Röhm, were murdered along with several of Hitler's other past rivals." Nguyentrongphu (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware of what happened on the Night of the Long Knives, and why it happened, thanks so much for assuming otherwise (you'll find that I;m in the top 10 in edits and text added on our article [1]). As for my lack of editing on Vietnamese Wikipedia, I'm not trying to edit there, you are trying to edit here. I have no idea what vi.wiki's policies and procedures are, but I know what they are on English Wikipedia, whereas you, clearly, do not. So stop trying to throw your weight around and bully people, and listen to what 3 very senior editors are telling you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken The policies and procedures are the same actually. I don't edit here often, but I do edit when I see little things that can be improved there and there. What's your interpretation on "sack Hitler"? I take it to mean that Hindenburg threatened to dismiss Hitler as chancellor. Funny how the bully calls his victim a bully. And, I'm sorry my seniority is higher than all of you since I first joined in 2008 with this account. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn’t realise you are “higher” than all of us. You’re trying to quote another Wikipedia article in support? You don’t have the equivalent of WP:CIRC on vi.wiki? It’s a quote from a start-class article, from a section tagged {{refimprove}} and from a sentence with a a page-less citation tagged {{page number}} over 6 months ago. Is that the gold standard we should be aspiring to on en.wp? DeCausa (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa I wasn't the first one who started to talk about "seniority". Higher or lower doesn't matter to me. What matters is the strength of an argument. I was just making a point that don't start to talk about seniority when you joined Wikipedia after me. Anyway, I've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source. I'm using its sources to support my position, not the Wikipedia article itself. Granted, the pages are missing. Fine, I'll come back in a near future when I find something with a page number. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dianaa and BMK, what is being proposed is bootstrapping or synthesis of the facts. Kierzek (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Chaplin

Chaplin's trademark character "the Tramp" debuts in Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914), Chaplin's second released film

In a BBC documentary, a film clip, visually similar (Hitler is on the opposite side of frame) to Kid Auto Races at Venice, is presented as Hitler's first newsreel appearance. The event was moments before a passing parade.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Private Henry Tandey

Rather than edit war over whether or how to qualify the anecdote added here, please discuss on this talk page instead.

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other, but did notice that, in the quoted source, Thomas Weber calls it an "unlikely story" ("[Hitler] told Chamberlain an unlikely story of how Private Tandey had encountered him personally during the war and how Tandey could have shot him dead but had refused to do so.", my emphasis). The way that footnote is written right now, readers don't learn about Weber's assessement of the story's likelihood. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it for now. Hitler said a lot of things, — Diannaa (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said in a related section to this above, there’s no reason to mention this as there’s no strong supporting RS evidence that it actually took place. It reminds me of the published “story” that Hitler visited Liverpool, England in his youth. Rubbish. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa and Kierzek. I hadn't noticed that section above, "World war 1 expanded". ---Sluzzelin talk 12:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't actually noticed it either. But if it's not proven to be true, it's likely just something Hitler made up one day, so removal is a good idea in my opinion.— Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Richard Meinertzhagen also told a story that he had met Hitler with a pistol in his pocket but decided not to shoot him. Even if true (very unlikely in both cases) these stories are trivia compared to the bulk of the article. Zero^talk 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal is, I think, the correct decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't really make a opinion as there isn't any evidence of either scenario though I will state that its a rather minor detail in a article like this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

When I added this Tandey story, it was as a "note" not in the main body of the text. It merely acknowledges this alleged encounter, but I have no issue with its removal since its veracity is doubted. My thinking was it (this story) by implication demonstrated his delusional nature but it's omission is fine too.--Obenritter (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There are two additional considerations here that make this more significant than many of you are presuming. First, Hitler made this claim not to his minions or while stomping around in one of his offices but to another high-ranking foreign official. Secondly, it also demonstrates to some degree his wish to earn British approval by glorifying their most decorated WW1 combat veteran. Nonetheless, I remain in agreement that if by consensus you decide it's not worth mentioning.--Obenritter (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your second consideration, I don't think that point was made clear at all the way you added the footnote. You added it to the sentence "In Hitler's view, the British-brokered peace, although favourable to the ostensible German demands, was a diplomatic defeat which spurred his intent of limiting British power to pave the way for the eastern expansion of Germany." I did not get that the footnote was trying to say anything about wishing to earn British approval by glorification of a British soldier, and nowhere was I informed that historians consider this tale Hitler told a tall one. The context Weber givs is about Hitler using his personal war experience in order to convince Chamberlain that "all Germany wants was to undo peacefully the injustices of the Versailles Treaty." That, again, isn't exactly congruent with your second consideration. I have nothing against anecdotes illustrating a point in biographical articles, but I think we should be far clearer and far more careful about what it is supposed to illustrate. Ideally, the source should have already made that connection. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear that I said I am OK with consensus already. Where else would one include this footnote given the very light treatment of Hitler's negotiations with Britain on this page? BTW -- nothing is stopping an editor from including the historian's opinion that this tale was likely bunk...which is obvious, since what would be the mathematical odds that Britain's greatest soldier had come face-to-face with Hitler? Yes -- it could be made clearer. It was just an inclusion given who the interaction was between. Concerning my second point (which you think incongruent) if you are familiar with Hitler's admiration for the British Empire, yes this was glorification to win favor. --Obenritter (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Partially fair enough, I didn't mean to attack you. Personally, I'm excessively familiar with Hitler's biography, I'm taking the perspective of readers who come here to learn more about the topic of this article, and I think things in the article need to be spelled out for those who aren't as familiar. I never said I agree with the consensus to exclude this info, period, I just think, if it gets included, it needs to be embedded with due context, understandable to readers who are not "familiar with Hitler's admiration for the British Empire" as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting tale even if it was false. I see no harm in including it in a footnote. However, a better context must be given + including the historian's opinion that this tale was likely bunk. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sluzzelin: Understand your perspective entirely, so no worries. Many of us around here would be considered SMEs, so we sometimes need to police one another and remember that the audience is the general reader. --Obenritter (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you should put the footnote after after this sentence, "On 29 September Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, and Mussolini attended a one-day conference in Munich that led to the Munich Agreement, which handed over the Sudetenland districts to Germany." My suggestion for the footnote beginning, "Earlier, while Hitler was negotiating with Chamberlain in the Führer's alpine retreat, Chamberlain saw a painting and asked about it..." Nguyentrongphu (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That still would neither put it in relevant context nor make it clear, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion isn't meant to spell out everything. The footnote writer needs to address 2 more things in the footnote: historian's opinion + Hitler did it to win favor with the Britain. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to change 2

"In response to Hindenburg's threat of declaring martial law, Hitler purged the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives, which took place from 30 June to 2 July 1934." (the bold part is the new change)

Source: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, page 281

…Blomberg instead was now the stern Prussian general and he brusquely informed Hitler that he was authorized by the Field Marshal to tell him that unless the present state of tension in Germany was brought quickly to an end the President would declare martial law and turn over the control of the State to the Army. When Hitler was permitted to see Hindenburg for a few minutes in the presence of Blomberg, the old President confirmed the ultimatum…

Rationale: it was clear that Hitler was hesitant to move against Rohm due to his prominence in the SA and perhaps partially to his long term friendship (and his long term support to Hitler) with Hitler. The ultimatum was the final catalyst that pushed Hitler toward action. Hitler didn't act in response to "anxiety among military, industrial, and political leaders." If anything, the old wording was misleading and gave the wrong impression of the situation. Hitler had a strong support from every level of society in Germany, and he knew it. Hindenburg was his last obstacle and the only one who could declare martial law and also dismiss Hitler (if he wanted). This article is not even close to be complete, and there are a lot of room for improvement! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does Shirer say that was why Hitler purged the SA? DeCausa (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa "Hitler had hesitated for months in moving against Röhm, in part due to Röhm's visibility as the leader of a national militia with millions of members. However, the threat of a declaration of martial law from Hindenburg, the only person in Germany with the authority to potentially depose the Nazi regime, put Hitler under pressure to act. He left Neudeck with the intention of both destroying Röhm and settling scores with old enemies. Both Himmler and Göring welcomed Hitler's decision, since both had much to gain by Röhm's downfall – the independence of the SS for Himmler, and the removal of a rival for the future command of the army for Göring." There you have it (from a different author though). Clearly, Hitler made up his mind immediately after the threat. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

To be clear, not only is that not Shirer, it’s not Evans either. You’ve cut and paste it from our own Night of the Long Knives article and claimed it as a quote from Evans. Misleading and WP:CIRC again. Nevertheless, that’s an FA so I’m sure the sourcing is correct in that article. In the Night of the Long Knives article the passage forms part of a much longer narrative of the lead-up to the purge. You’ve plucked it out and put it into a shorter narrative thereby changing the emphasis. WP:UNDUE. That’s the way I read anyway. Others, including two editors on this page who are in the top 10 number of edits for that FA, will be in a better position to comment. DeCausa (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa I made 0 attempt to hide or mislead the fact that I copied and pasted from that article. Note a big difference in my citing style of original source vs sources embedded in Wikipedia here and section above. Again like I said in the section above, I'm using the sources in the article, not the article itself as source. I assumed the editors paraphrased it faithfully from the source. It's a reasonable assumption given its FA status. I'm well aware which is reliable sources vs non reliable sources given my 13 years of experience in editing Wikipedia.

Due weight argument is irrelevant here for 2 reasons. First: the old wording was misleading and partially untrue. Second: I proposed to add 7 words, not the whole paragraph, based on established facts with reliable sources. The biggest reason for Hitler to purge the SA deserves 7 words mention.

Lastly, top 10 editors in that articles may not be experts in Hitler as the whole. Surely, they're experts in that 1 single important event. I would like to hear input from top 10 editors in this article, whose input would be more valuable in my opinion. All opinions are welcomed though. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nguyentrongphu: You are again synthesizing text and also giving the reader the impression that was the only reason for the purge of the SA leadership. There were multiple reasons for the purge. See Kershaw (2008), pp. 301-316. For example, he states on page 302 that the military “leadership was intensely and increasingly alarmed by the military pretenses of the SA. Failure on Hitler‘s part to solve the problem of the SA would conceivably lead to army leaders favoring an alternative head of state on Hindenburg‘s death.” He also writes about how Hitler‘s unruly party army had outlived its purpose, which was to win power. He talks about how the SA was “threatening to become completely uncontrollable. Steps had to be taken” and “Hindenburg himself requested Hitler to restore order.” He then goes on to talk about Rohm’s ambitions and how he wanted to continue the “German revolution”, etc. As a note, you stated you wanted to hear from the “top 10 editors” of this article, I am certainly one of them and I also helped bring this article up to GA status, as did Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm using information from the sources, not synthesizing anything. There were other minor factors sure, but the biggest factor was army's threat. Hindenburg made Hitler realize that. Also, your whole paragraph was only about army's threat which is equivalent to my requested statement. Okay, I respect your opinion, but there is still room for improvement though. "Anxiety among military, industrial, and political leaders" put pressure on Hitler sure, but that didn't make him act until Hindenburg's personal threat. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You first write the sole reason is "Hindenburg's threat of declaring martial law" (at the outset of the section thread). Now, you say the "biggest factor was army's threat" and in the same paragraph above, that no action was taken until "Hindenburg's personal threat"; that is not logical. To give you another RS source, in looking at The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, pp. 806-809. Not once do they list as a factor "a personal threat" by Hindenburg. They talk about Papen's Marburg speech of June 17th, being the last catalyst to make Hitler act (although he had already by then "steered toward a violent confrontation" [with Rohm and the SA]. Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Martial law, army's threat and Hindenburg's threat are the same thing though. Hindenburg's threat was to declare martial law and let the army take over the state. It's logical when things are equivalent of each other. The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich doesn't list the personal threat, but I'm sure it mentions of army's threat.

It's known from Evans source that Hitler was hesitant for months in going against Rohm. Had Hindenburg not made the threat, it's debatable whether Hitler would take action right away. If Hitler hesitated for 1 more month until Hindenburg's death, the army would surely make a coup, and a civil war would ensure with SA vs the army. It's a fact that there is a reliable source saying Hitler made up his mind about the purge right after Hindenburg's threat. Sure, he was leaning toward violent purge before but didn't make up his mind until then. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I never write Hindenburg's threat as the sole reason. My proposed statement + the sentence before it would give the readers an impression that Hitler did the purge in response to Hindenburg's threat amidst tense situation intertwined with many different factors. Also, note that Hindenburg's ultimatum clearly (from the source above) stated Hitler has to act quickly before he calls martial law. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to argue semantics with you. Your words and writings speak for themselves. I am not going to comment further on this thread, at this point, either. If others wish to do so, that is up to them. At this time, you do not have consensus for changes to be made. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Your argument falls flat when your own stated source is actually agreeing with my position. You ran out of valid points to argue and started to blame semantics. Yes, my words and writings do speak for me loud and clear, so does yours. Let the community decide who makes more sense and has a stronger point. Lastly, I can't edit this article anyway due to protection, so someone eventually has to make the edit for me assuming I get consensus in the end. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise if you can present a better statement that incorporates my position and yours, but it does seem that you're unwilling to try to improve the article further. The current sentence is partially untrue, incomplete and doesn't show the whole story to the readers. 7 more words are super concise and improving readers' understanding of the situation significantly. There are definitely many other ways to improve the sentence. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

And he still doesn't have consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, for now, that is true. It's still early though. Consensus usually takes a few days up to a few months to develop. I'm a patient type of guy. I'll wait for more input from others who are willing to discuss with an open mind plus strong rational points instead of blaming semantics and wanting to improve this article further (also willing to let go of the ego). I'll consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if there aren't enough participation here. 1 to 2 people objecting is not considered to be a consensus to not add. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

First source in supporting my claim:

…This was a disastrous turn of affairs for the Nazi Chancellor. Not only was his plan to succeed the President in jeopardy; if the Army took over, that would be the end of him and of Nazi government. Flying back to Berlin the same day he must have reflected that he had only one choice to make if he were to survive. He must honor his pact with the Army, suppress the S.A. and halt the continuance of the revolution for which the storm troop leaders were pressing. The Army, backed by the venerable President, it was obvious, would accept no less…

— The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, page 281–82

Second source in supporting my claim: Richard Evans (2005). The Third Reich in Power, page 31

Both sources basically claim that Hitler was forced to initiate the purge as soon as possible right after hearing Hindenburg's ultimatum. If not, he would be faced with serious consequences. Prior to that, Hitler had been hesitant to move against Rohm for months due to their long term friendship and Rohm's prominence in the SA (this was also stated in the source). My rationale: there was no reason to believe Hitler would purge his long term friend and suppoter Rohm if Hindenburg didn't make the threat. At most, Hitler would make a compromise with Rohm. Hindenburg died a month later. Had Hitler hesitated for another month, he would most likely have been overthrown by the army. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is not a great source in 2021. It would make sense to cite it if we were trying to write this article in 1965, but there has been much better scholarship published in the last fifty years. Longerich's and Kershaw's biographies are both much stronger sources. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have all the sources with me. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding more information about Adolf's paintings.

In an effort to make this historical figure seem more human and balanced, I was considering adding more information about his youth and interest in painting if that is okay with everyone? Seems like it would make for a better article if a more human approach was done in telling his story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5b02:703c:6539:5ecd:a3a7:702b (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not OK. (1) The article is already quite long enough; (2) We are not here to "humanize" Adolf Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

... and note that the article does link to Paintings by Adolf Hitler, where it becomes rather clear that the world is only interested in his paintings because of his other, later "story". ---Sluzzelin talk 01:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we have to all seriously consider and respond to "let's be nice to Hitler" threads whenever they pop up here? Seems like we're getting into 'AGF as a suicide pact' territory here. I would love for someone uninvolved to just sweep this whole section away, and I don't mind my comment getting trashed in the cleanup. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Please reply.

Adolf was born in Braunau am Inn! I please need the right to edit this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.90.243 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's already there, please read the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's in the Adolf Hitler#Early years section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

The legacy section reads:

"Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil". "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man", he adds."

This is in incorrect tense. It should be:

Kershaw described Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil". "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man", he added. Ardenter (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Does Kershaw's book no longer exist? If I pick up my copy, will those words not still be there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Ardenter, it isn't a grammatical error - it's a stylistic choice when recording opinions expressed in books etc - as BMK implies, it suggests the views are still 'alive'. "Chaucer writes of the Wife of Bath as being …", is legitimate and is how we ALWAYS record plots or summaries of books films plays etc ("Hamlet meets the ghost of his father, who tells him he must revenge … "). When used to record the views of a historian, or similar, I personally find it a little grating and unnatural - but it is a standard usage and not grammatically wrong. This article uses a mixture of present and past tenses in such situations, but whether we should be consistent, I've no idea, probably not. Pincrete (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Third proposal

"In response to the army's threat, Hitler purged the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives, which took place from 30 June to 2 July 1934." (the bold part is the new change)

Sources supporting my claim:

• The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, page 281–82
• Richard Evans (2005). The Third Reich in Power, page 31
• Ian Kershaw (2008). Hitler, page 302: "leadership was intensely and increasingly alarmed by the military pretenses of the SA. Failure on Hitler‘s part to solve the problem of the SA would conceivably lead to army leaders favoring an alternative head of state on Hindenburg‘s death."

Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The army did not threaten anyone! Pincrete (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, Blomberg and Hindenburg did in fact threaten Hitler that the army would seize power if Hitler didn't act quickly. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a literal threat. Dictionary's definition of threat (one of the possible definitions): "an indication or warning of probable trouble, or of being at risk for something terrible." Hitler knew he had to act quickly before the army would have seized power. In any case, the sources are supporting my position. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The current sentence is untrue and misleading. Hitler didn't do the purge because of some people's anxiety. Of course, there were other factors, but the army's threat was no doubt the biggest factor. It's impossible to fit everything in 1 sentence. Interested readers can read more in detail at Night of the Long Knives article. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no point in continuing this discussion. We have entered an Alice in Wonderland world where words mean whatever you want them to mean. The army apparently means Hindenburg and a threat does not have to mean a literal threat! Apart from inanimate objects (the car threatened to leave the road) or abstract concepts (the weather threatened to deteriorate), I cannot think of any situation in which the word 'threat' does not necessitate an actual threat!

How on earth would the reader be expected to understand that "the army" does not mean "the army" and that "threat" does not mean an actual "threat". All that of course before even asking whether this is the explanation offered by the best, currently respected sources. Apologies, I will not engage any more - discussion at this level is pointless. Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't invent the definition. They're from the dictionary. Hindenburg only made Hitler realize about the army's threat. The army doesn't mean Hindenburg. Hindenburg was only informing to Hitler. The army had been planning to seize power even before Hindenburg talked to Hitler. The threat here was an indication that the army would seize power if Hitler didn't act soon enough. The army does mean the army, and threat means an indication of something terrible. Ian Kershaw's biography is actually currently one of the best respected sources on Hitler. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So, you're just going to ignore the warning [2] just issued to you by admin Bishonen and continue to WP:Bludgeon this discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have asked on AN/I for an admin to suggest to Nguyentrongphu that they stop WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hitler's Last Public Speaking was on July 4, 1944

MODERATOR: This article should include... Hitler gave his last public speaking engagement for a private group of 200 German industry leaders on July 4, 1944. 2601:589:4802:AB0:80F4:8C3:9BBD:C5A (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, YouTube is not a reliable source. There are a plethora of good books on Hitler, any fact to to added to the article should be sourced by one of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

I want to write about my charity Kreedinnikora (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. — IVORK _Talk 06:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No, they may not "write about their charity" in the article about Adolf Hitler. Further, your suggestion that they ask for additional user rights is misleading, since ECP must be earned, and is not usually given out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

i wouldlike to add extra info GamerTay7 (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please show us the information you wish to add, with reliable sources, and it will be considered, as per usual practice here. Britmax (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Anti-semite in the lead

Regarding this addition to the lead. Firstly, no one regularly editing this article is going to dispute that Hitler was a virulent anti-semite. But to me putting it into the opening sentence is almost as redundant as saying that the Pope believes in God. Of course he does, but the specifics of saying how and when and why any particular Pope has influnced RC church's beliefs is infinitely more informative that recording the raw fact that he is a theist. Similarly the fact that AH's antipathy to Jews led his regime to attempt to remove an entire people from the face of the earth - and to succeed in eliminating around 6 million of them, as well as many other people - is a good deal more specific, and therefore more informative than the raw fact that AH was an anti-semite. AH is notable for putting his anti-semitism into lethal effect, not for not liking Jews, which was commonplace.

I also think that the list of AH's antipathies is so long (anti-Slav, anti-black, anti-communist, anti-liberal, anti-Christian, anti-Romany, anti-practically-everyone-except-German-Nazis), that we set a dangerous precedent by putting this 'label' in the opening sentence - rather than simply recording the impact that he had, which is pretty damning in itself. Pincrete (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I favor keeping the lede as is. The opening sentence should be a precis of the vital aspects of the subject, and anti-semitism is at the very core of Hitler's being, as important as being German and more important than being Austrian-born. It informed every part of his life, and to leave it as a secondary consideration is not serving the reader well. If any one word summed up Hitler, "antisemite" would probably be that word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the lead as-is as well. Thin end of the wedge, as Pincrete so aptly points out, to start listing everybody Hitler hated.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that by 'as is', BMK means include anti-semite in the opening sentence. I think, (but I'm not sure), that Diannaa means exclude from opening sentence. I would rather exclude, but would prefer giving more detail to his sins, if they are felt to be not given sufficient weight, rather than simply attaching labels. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've got it right, I got it wrong, "anti-Semite" was an add, not part of the status quo. I'm going to disagree with my esteemed colleague, Diannaa, whom I very much respect, and say that I think it's a good add, for the reasons I give above: anti-semitism was the very core of Hitler's being. I would not, however, favor a shopping list of things he hated, just the one thing which it seems to me is essential about the man. I'm happy to bow to consensus, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the addition mostly because if it is the consensus to add - the four/five/six "references" used were not only overkill, but not the best for sourcing this fact. I slightly lean against using antisemite in the lead sentence, but I'm not wedded to not having it. I do think the overkill on the crappy references is not needed. If consensus is for including the information - we can use much better sources. (I'll also point out that it appears that it was added based off a discussion at Talk:Louis Farrakhan#antisemite / anti-Semite in lead where it was pointed out that LF doesn't need that label because Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford didn't have it ... and the editor who after that added it here also added it to Ford ... so there's the WP:POINT issue involved...) Ealdgyth (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting. I wouldn't support having "antisemite" in the lede sentence of either Farrakhan's or Ford's articles, despite the fact that both men were demonstrably antisemitic. I see Hitler as a different case, sui generis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete’s original post. There’s something deeply inadequate about merely describing Hitler as an anti-Semite in the opening sentence. Of course he was. Ford or Ezra Pound held unpleasant views and could be called anti-semites, and may be that would be appropriate in the opening of those articles. Hitler did more than hold unpleasant views and to summarise what Hitler did to the Jews as just being an “anti-Semite” seems not enough and even down-plays what he was responsible for. If that issue was to be addressed in the opening sentence (and I’m not saying it should be) then something along the lines of having “responsibility for the mass murder of 6m Jews” would be much more appropriate than “anti-Semite”. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a very interesting way of looking at it, DeCausa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete, DeCausa (and, I think, with Dianaa). It looks amateurish to put labels like that in the initial sentence. Despite the intention, it tends to minimise Hitler's role. Antisemitism is a belief system, but what Hitler believed is totally insignificant compared to what Hitler did. Emphasising his beliefs over his actions is a bad idea. I would support DeCausa's idea of emphasising Hitler's role in the Holocaust more in the lead. The current "central to the perpetration of the Holocaust" isn't strong enough in my opinion. Zero^talk 04:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think it belongs in the lead; I agree with Pincrete's supposition that it could soon become a laundry list. DeCausa also makes a very good point.— Diannaa (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Should evil be wikilinked?

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but should we be linking evil as Historian and biographer Ian Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil"? I'd add the wikilink myself but for an article as prominent as this I'd imagine changes to the lead should probably be discussed first. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't normally wikilink common English words any more. We don't normally add wikilinks within quotations. So my opinion is No.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree on the conclusion (that linking achieves nothing useful), if not the logic. There ARE questions the reader might ask - and historians/commentators do sometimes ask - about AH/the Nazis and evil (why precisely he/they have such a terribe reputation? If AH why not Stalin, Pol Pot? Was it AH or an entire nation? etc) - but those questions aren't going to be asked, let alone addressed, on the Evil page, and in fact are more likely to be addressed implicitly on THIS page. Conversely there are a multitude of perennial philosophical, quasi-religious questions about what evil is - but those questions aren't going to inform anyone about AH. I don't want to trivialise this matter, but ultimately recording that AH is sometimes seen as the epitome of that extreme and inexplicable cruelty, indifference and moral degeneracy that we generally refer to as "evil', is simply recording a "reputational superlative" - it would be remiss to fail to record it as much as it would be remiss to not record that certain sports figures, politicians or artistic figures are widely seen as being 'great' . Pincrete (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well, but in particular, I wanted to applaud Pincrete's excellent summation of the matter. Kudos for stating some complex and challenging (defensible) ideas so well/in such a short span. Xanthos IV (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"Gravely immoral" would be better as "evil" in unencyclopedic and POV. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC))

"Evil" received consensus approval, this discussion is not about that, it's about whether it should be Wikilinked or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit Ancestry ... New study suggests Adolf Hitler was a quarter Jewish

Adolf Hitler was a Jew, Latest Study

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/study-suggests-adolf-hitler-was-a-quarter-jewish-597966

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0047244119837477?journalCode=jesa

https://www.leonardsax.com/JES_MS.pdf

https://www.leonardsax.com/aus-den-gemeinden-von-burgenland/

"In 2019, Leonard Sax published a scholarly paper titled "Aus den Gemeinden von Burgenland: revisiting the question of Adolf Hitler's paternal grandfather".[1]"

"In July 1938, four months after the annexation of Austria to the German Reich, Hitler ordered a survey of Döllersheim, Maria Anna’s home town in Upper Austria, ostensibly to determine whether the terrain was suitable for army maneuvers. In 1939, the citizens were forcibly evacuated, “and the village, along with its heavily wooded countryside, was blasted beyond recognition by mortar shells and thoroughly ploughed over by army tanks” (Fischer, 1996: 74, 584n1; see also Hamann, 1996: 73). This episode has never been satisfactorily explained. No justification has ever been offered for Hitler’s decision to raze to the ground the entire village in which his grandmother had lived. Perhaps Hitler believed that the town might contain some clue to his ancestry which he was anxious to obliterate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6llersheim

"The local authorities had bestowed honorary citizenship upon Hitler and re-constructed a grave of honour (Ehrengrab) for his grandmother, though to no avail. In the period up to 31 October 1941, Wehrmacht troops forcibly resettled all 2000 villagers before bombing their houses as part of the training exercises.[1]"

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rosenbaum-hitler.html

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/12235967/maria-anna-hitler

I suggest an edit to Ancestry, and a new section Latest Studies.

SteveBenassi (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done All this stuff has been debunked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As BMK states, we’ve been through this and it’s been debunked. It’s all speculation, conjecture and bootstrapping surmise. Kierzek (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Leonard Sax is a Reliable Source for the Adolf Hitler Wikipedia page. His new paper published in 2019 in the Journal of European Studies, debunks, or exposes as false, the main assertions from the past that were once thought to be true statements of fact, including the assertion that no Jews were living in Graz in 1836 when Hitler’s father Alois Schicklgruber was conceived. This is a high quality, thorough study, published by a reputable journal, and it should be included in the Adolf Hitler Wikipedia page. SteveBenassi (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Since it's only one person espousing this theory, it's WP:FRINGE, and given that it's been debunked (no matter where it was published -- plenty of garbage has been published in "reputable journals"), it would be WP:UNDUE to include it. Hitler's modern biographers, including Kershaw and Ullrich, have all rejected the theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, Leonard Sax is not a historian or otherwise a subject expert, he's a psychologist who writes books about gender issues. In other words, as regards Hitler's ancestory or the history of the Jewish population of the area of Austria, he's a rank amateur. [3]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should wait until other historians have looked at it seriously (which means, more seriously than off-the-cuff quips to journalists). I don't agree with SteveBenassi's summary of Sax's article. The claim that Hitler was part Jewish came from Hitler's personal attorney Hans Frank. The contribution of Sax is not to support Frank but to challenge the claim that Frank has been debunked. There is a big difference. The most disturbing assertion of Sax is that the supposed disproof came from an article in a right-wing brochure celebrating the centenary of Hitler's birth and was not confirmed by anyone else. If Sax is correct, the matter is again open. However, until there is more serious research on the subject it should be considered fringe. Zero^talk 04:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Stranger things have happened, but it may be unlikely that a hobbyist history article written by a psychologist and published in a second flight cultural studies journal (SJR 0.05) would gain much attention from actual historians. DeCausa (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Even if it was true (and I do not think that it is), anti-semites do not become Jewish because their father's father was Jewish. That's an absurd notion to anyone who knows anything about Jewish identity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If you can figure out the psychology of Hitler you should write a book about it, since nobody else has succeeded despite writing many books. Anyway, the question is only one of historical fact and Hitler's reaction (or lack of) is a different issue. Incidentally, Sax quotes the guy Preradovich who produced the standard disproof of Frank as later writing "Day by day, I admire Hitler more". I'm waiting for a respected historian to reevaluate the evidence in detail. We shouldn't have to rely on either a Hitler-lover or a writer who hasn't written much history before. Zero^talk 08:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Richard Evans (Who I would put as easily one of the top experts on this subject) has already directly responded here. “even if there were Jews living in Graz in the 1830s, at the time when Adolf Hitler’s father Alois was born, this does not prove anything at all about the identity of Hitler’s paternal grandfather.” “There is no contemporary evidence that Hitler’s mother was ever in Graz, or that there was a Jewish family called Frankenberger living there. There was a family in Graz called Frankenreiter but it was not Jewish. No correspondence between Hitler’s father or paternal grandmother has ever been found. Nor is there any evidence for Frank’s claim that Hitler’s half-nephew knew about it and was blackmailing Hitler, as Frank claimed”. NonReproBlue (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence Hans Frank is lying, it is just wishful thinking on the part of the victors, the historians who don't want to believe it. Here is the passage in question from Kindle with Google translation from German to English ... Hans Frank ... Facing the Gallows: Interpretation of Hitler and his time on the basis of personal experiences and findings - Written in the Nuremberg prison (German edition) ... <copyvio redacted> SteveBenassi (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, If the text above is copied, it will almost certainly be removed from here very soon. We are not allowed to copy or quote more than a few sentences for copyright reasons - even on talk page. I'm telling you so that you don't misunderstand the reasons for removal. Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio redacted. Oversight sought. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is there is no evidence that Hans Frank was lying in his Manuscript, written in prison while facing death. He wrote "I don't want to go out of life without talking openly about everything." He also said "So I have to say that it is not entirely out of the question that Hitler's father was therefore a half-Jew, a result of the extramarital relationship between the Schickelgruber and the Graz Jew". This is hard evidence that is being suppressed by the victors of WWII, because no one wants it to be true but anti-semites, and any historian who pushes this information as fact risks being smeared, and risks their career and livelihood. This is the only source that proves Hitler was a Jew, this is not fringe, because there is no proof that Hitler was not a Jew based on this manuscript, no matter what Historians may speculate. I contacted the copyright holder of this book, https://www.sketecverlag.de/ to ask for permission to use this excerpt, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SteveBenassi#Hans_Frank_..._Facing_the_Gallows:_Interpretation_of_Hitler_and_his_time_on_the_basis_of_personal_experiences_and_findings_-_Written_in_the_Nuremberg_prison_(German_edition). SteveBenassi (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The question of whether Frank was lying or not in his memoirs is not something that Wikipedia editors get to decide. Frank's memoirs are a primary source (he was not a trained historian so his "investigation" is not a secondary source). Interpretation of his memoiors is what historians do. Wikipedia editors are not historians, so we just relate what the historians conclude, not what we conclude. Pretty much the consensus of historians is that Frank's tale was nonsense, so that's what we report. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, You might want to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. What you’re trying to do will go nowhere here because of what Ealdgyth says. Also, I suggest you take off the massive copyvio you posted to your talk page before you get blocked. DeCausa (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is a huge leap of faith needed to get from one man (without access to historical records, or expertise) saying that something "is not entirely out of the question" to the rest of us believing it is probably, or even plausibly true. In history, almost anything might be true. "There is no proof that Hitler was not a Jew" but there is no proof that Hitler wasn't a Martian. Pincrete (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hence, Leonard Sax, a Reliable Source, coming out with new information in 2019, https://www.leonardsax.com/JES_MS.pdf, that debunks the debunkers, he debunks the historians from the past. And my quote was "there is no proof that Hitler was not a Jew based on this manuscript, no matter what Historians may speculate". There is nothing about Martians in this manuscript. I am not trying to right great wrongs, or push a certain POV, I am trying to get the truth out there, based on the facts. I accept that new research will have to be done to resolve this issue as Zero0000 stated above. My goal was to bring this to your attention, and suggest edits. SteveBenassi (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but Sax, whose previous work includes Girls on the Edge, has no expertise in this area and as has been demonstrated by the link to the Times of Israel article above has already been shot down by those that do. “I am trying to get the truth out there” is exactly what WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is addressing. Have you taken that copyvio of your talk page? DeCausa (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

See ... https://www.leonardsax.com/aus-den-gemeinden-von-burgenland/, "A word about my background relative to this paper: My paper titled “What was the cause of Nietzsche’s dementia?” was published in 2003 by the Journal of Medical Biography. In that paper, I challenged the long-held consensus that Friedrich Nietzsche had syphilis. My paper has now been cited by numerous scholars, and the previous consensus no longer stands. I also wrote a short biography of Ignatz Bubis for the B’nai B’rith International Jewish Monthly." And in regards to the magazine article you cite, they present no research debunking Leonard Sax. SteveBenassi (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly: as I said, Sax has no expertise in this area (and those that do have shot him down). DeCausa (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, you keep repeating that Sax is a "Reliable Source". He is not. He is not a subject expert, he is not a trained historian, he is not even a scholar with any kind of background in this area. He is psychologist who specializes in gender issues, and is qualified to write on that subject, and nothing else

In a controversial subject area such as this, the quality of sources we accept must be exemplary, which is why we rely on well-qualified scholars and subject experts such as Kershaw, Evans, Bullock, Fest, Overy, Burleigh and others. Sax is not included in that grouping: he's a dilettante, an amateur, working in a subject area he's not at all qualified for.

If and when Sax's attempt to resurrect Frank's opinions is accepted by actual historians, subject experts and qualified scholar, then and only then can we consider giving it more coverage than it already has in this article. That has not happened, and is unlikely to happen. It is also clear that there is no consensus among Wikipedia's editors to accept your contention. Lacking acceptance by experts and consensus by editors, this issue should be considered -- once again -- closed.

Please do not continue to press the issue, such commentary would be WP:DISRUPTIVE at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

Shouldn't he be added to totalitarian rulers? Lasha2008 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This article already includes the category Category:Fascist rulers, which is a subcategory of totalitarian. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Died in office

Like many other Wikipedia articles that feature an individual who died in office, the opening paragraph should acknowledge the fact that he died in office. In addition, the current format may cause some readers (who have not yet looked at the info box and found out the fact that it was until his death) to at first think that he left in 1945 and died later that same year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence 979 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Hitler officially named—via a final will and testament—Admiral Dönitz his successor as Staatsoberhaupt, Reichspräsident, and Supreme Commander of the German military and Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels the new Reichskanzler (Chancellor) before he committed suicide. Thereto, he did not die in office. He had resigned and assigned others to his posts before he died. For that reason, no changes to this article in this regard need to be made. --Obenritter (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I just checked the wording of Hitler's political testament [4], and it says nothing about his appointments taking effect on his death. He simply writes "I appoint the following members of the new Cabinet as leaders of the nation: ..." This "political testament" was separate from his personal will, which presumably took effect on this death (but which, in actuality, remained in limbo for some years because it took some time for a court to officially pronounce Hitler as being dead). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

From our point of view, why is whether he died in office important enough to be made explicit? I don't see any good reason, especially in an opening para. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see that as being necessarily a norm for opening paragraphs (as implied by the OP) e.g. Stalin, Lenin. I suppose the end of the first sentence could read “...from 1933 to his suicide in 1945.” which would provide info on how his life ended - potentially significant enough for the first para of his bio and currently at the end of the lead. But it’s marginal. (It’s certainly not worth getting into whether he “died in office” or whether there was technically a few hours gap. Secondary sources would need to be provided and that’s surely not worth the search!) DeCausa (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Jew killer" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jew killer. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10#Jew killer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

i think it should be kept. if people can't remember Hitler's name and can only remember that he killed jews, the redirect "jew killer" can help people find the person they're looking for SadInAShed (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(1) It is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would have trouble remembering Hitler's name. (2) Comment on the redirect discussion page, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Most seats" is "majority"

In the lead:

By November 1932, the Nazi Party had the most seats in the German Reichstag but did not have a majority.

Option 1:

By November 1932, the Nazi Party was the biggest one in the German Reichstag but did not have a majority..

Option 2: ... --2A01:C22:88C3:6E00:ECF4:94E1:FF6B:B1A2 (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it works as is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

note a parliamentary majority means most of the parlimetary seats, not the most seats.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Making the point more clearly would IMO require something longer eg By November 1932, the Nazi Party was the largest party in the German Reichstag but did not have an overall majority - but I think it is sufficiently clear at present. Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think Americans use the word “plurality” for this. DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A majority is over 50%. The Nazis had the most seats but not more than 50% of seats. PassedDown (talk | contribs) 21:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Add “Führer” title

Someone who is able to edit this article should add the title “Führer” to reflect its use under his dictatorship. BakedGoods357 (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

its in the second line of the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes I can see that but isn’t it more proper to have it right above the name like it is done here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

I am sorry I’m new to Wikipedia editing and do not know what that is called. BakedGoods357 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, what title is right above his name?Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

“His Excellency” followed by “Duce” then below it his name BakedGoods357 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Our first and second line on Hitler "Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] (About this soundlisten); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[a] becoming Chancellor in 1933 and then assuming the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934."

On Musilioni "Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian: [beˈniːto mussoˈliːni];[1] 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician and journalist who founded and led the National Fascist Party. He was Prime Minister of Italy from the March on Rome in 1922 until his deposition in 1943, and "Duce" of Italian Fascism from the establishment of the Italian Fasces of Combat in 1919 until his execution in 1945 by Italian partisans." (not I do not see "His Excellency" in either line).

I am not seeing the difference.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh, The infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Then I agree it does seem odd to not have his tiel in the infobox.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the info box, that’s what it was lol. Do you have the ability to edit it? BakedGoods357 (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if anyone comes up with a reason why not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright sounds good BakedGoods357 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• In general, I am opposed to anything that in any way glorifies or dignifies Nazis and fascists in even the tiniest way. These people are the global equivalent of axe murderers, and I wouldn't put "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss" or "Ms" in infoboxes about them. Therefore, I've removed "His Excellency" and "Duce" from the Mussolini infobox (someone will likely restore it soon), and I'm strongly opposed to adding any honorifics to this article's infobox. "Adolf Hitler" all alone, by itself is quite sufficient, we don't need to refer to him by the title that he preferred. His titles are explained in the article itself, which is fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think showing the titles these leaders held at the time glorifies them in any way, it simply shows what the government at the time officially recognized, and should be kept for historical accuracy. Kim il Sung and Kim Jong-il’s articles have the “eternal leader” title, almost making them look like gods despite being mass murderers themself. However, it shows the extent of their cult of personalities, just like the title of any dictator. BakedGoods357 (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We should follow the MOS (if it covers this issue) or the general practice (if it doesn't). I don't see a reason to treat major criminals differently. Zero^talk 05:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s difficult to discern whether there’s a general practice. It seems to be quite inconsistent - political leaders infoboxes seem to have a wide variety of treatments eg FDR, Hideki Tojo and Stalin have nothing, Winston Churchill and Mannerheim have some honorifics but not prime minister, Francisco Franco has everything. I looked at a dozen others and they seem equally random. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

'Prime Minister' (or indeed any UK Govt minister), is only used for the current office holder, it's no different from 'headmaster' or many other job titles, therefore Churchill's does have ALL the apt honorifics (the various orders of his knighthood etc). I believe US presidents keep 'Mr President' for life, but it is not substantially used outside interviews. Partly at issue here is whether the honorific is used beyond the person's incumbency or death. Also, no one I think would refer to "The Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler", so I'm not sure if it is actually an honorific (in the sense of something attached to the name) . I sympathise with BMK, that it would seem bizarre to appear to be according AH any title. There is a distinction between recording and according a title, but how that plays out in practice I'm unsure. Pincrete (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Dash style

@BaxçeyêReş and Beyond My Ken: em dashes or en dashes are both fine, but this article should stay consistent in its usage. It looks like em dashes are currently used throughout the article for sentence punctuation. BMK, if you want, you could change all uses to en dashes. If not, we should restore the em dashes to the lead. I have a preference for emdashes but no compelling reason to insist on their usage; I am frequently on mobile and don't find any difference between the two in readability. If you do want to change to all en dashes, you may want to use the  – template to incorporate the spacing style recommended by MOS:DASH. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your position makes perfect sense, Firefangledfeathers; thank you sincerely for dropping in. I will leave this decision to @Beyond My Ken: I don't wish to be accused of edit warring for pointing out a simple mistake, and they seem to be a more experienced authority in regards to the Hitler article regardless. Have a fantastic day! BaxçeyêReş (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool with me. I used Template:snd to get the spacing right on the en dashes. My bad for not putting the template into <nowiki> tags in my above message. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you recently reverted my switch to Template:snd citing concerns that it makes the editing page harder to read. I am unconvinced by that point. Editors have to contend with all manner of wiki markup that interferes with normal prose reading, but we generally put up with it to improve the experience for readers. Use of the template or the more unwieldy  – is recommended by MOS:DASH and I don't believe there's a reason for this article to diverge from MOS. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Recommended, not required. I've been editing here for 16 years and I think I know what makes an editing page easier to read and navigate, no matter what MOS says. The snd template has to be butted up against the word that follows it, and that is awkward and visually difficult. Please do not revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I know it's hard to nail the tone when communicating online, but genuinely and seriously: thank you for the many years you have been working on Wikipedia. That said, your point about editor readability is absolutely true, but doesn't address my point – that it's almost always true that wiki markup designed to optimize readability for readers interferes with editor readability. Your point is also true of every use of en dashes as sentence punctuation on every article; I presume that the community consensus that created and upheld MOS:DASH was comfortable with the benefits outweighing the harm. If you feel that point wasn't raised or properly considered, you are welcome to start a discussion about changing MOS:DASH. For now, is there any reason not to go against the recommended format here? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I am as fully committed as anyone on Wikipedia to serving the reader, but an ndash with a space before it and after it is rendered precisely the same as the snd template butted up against the words before and after it. There is no benefit to the reader in using the snd template, it's simply a shorthand for (space)(ndash)(space):

word – word

word – word

Same same. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not true. You may want to read the template documentation, but the short version is that the template inserts a non-breaking space before the dash. The point is to avoid a line break occurring just before the dash, and the dash therefore confusingly starting a new line – a typographical no-no that predates and applies beyond Wikipedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and BaxçeyêReş: any further thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• No further thoughts, it's fine as it is now. A dash at the beginning of a line is not a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• I can only repeat BMK's stance :) BaxçeyêReş (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Sunnyfine (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

hi according to History channel and FBI and CIA investigating and documentary film about hitler and new evidence , hitler was seen in italy and other places so he didn't die in that bunker.

I think we need better sources than the history channel. Care to actually provide the name of a better source?Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

“Austrian-born” - is it really necessary?

Is it really worth including “Austrian-born” when the article states he was born in Austria in the lede anyway? Without trying to cause any offence to Austrians and Germans today respectively, the general national identity of Austrians during the late 19th century and early 20th century was not the same as it has been for the last few decades. Whilst it’s irrelevant to include in the article what Adolf Hitler and the Nazis thought of who were Germans and who were not Germans, I can’t help but feel this article is putting too much emphasis on Hitler’s Austrian origin.--82.47.115.109 (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

People still talk about Napoleon being Corsican, and it's mentioned in the lead. So why not mention Hitler's place of birth.— Diannaa (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, it was part of who he was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This one seems to have gone round and round since I first started watching this page. The most recent discussion is here. To be honest, I've forgotten what I originally thought about this - but I understood the reasons for it NOT being there. Where I think the IP is definitely right is repeating “Austrian-born”/" born in Austria" in paras 1 and 2 is clumsy phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This distinction of Hitler's birthplace is mentioned in every major biography ever written about him. Omitting it seems ridiculous. --Obenritter (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested NOT recording that he was born in Austria - the question I think was whether it need be in the opening sentence, (was an Austrian-born German politician) when it is also expanded at the beginning of para 2 (Hitler was born in Austria, then part of Austria-Hungary, and was raised near Linz. He moved to Germany in 1913). Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

How would you word the opening sentence in that case? Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. is a possibility. Compare Napoleon— Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That's what we actually had for quite a few years - complete with a warning not to add "Austrian-born” to the opening sentence. To be honest, I didn't notice it had changed and I've ceased to remember which version 'reads better' for me, since it has changed quite a few times, BUT I do think the present duplication of place of birth in the openings of paras 1 & 2 very 'clunky' - so we should rephrase the first sentence of para 2 if we REALLY want "Austrian-born” in sentence 1. I understood that nationality at the point of notability was the usual criteria for opening sentence - that would be what we used to have ie German, with "Born in Austria delayed till para 2. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There's discussions in so many archives that it's hard to know what to look at. One reason to leave it in the opening sentence would be so that it appears in the Google search results sidebar, aka Google Knowledge Graph.— Diannaa (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The most recent discussion is here, though it's fairly peremptory. I dimly remember in-depth discussions 3 or 4 years ago, but wasn't able to locate them. Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent infobox changes

The recent spate of editing over the infobox has left some anomalies and oddities and I suspect the present result is more the result of "where the ball stopped rolling", rather than any agreement about the issues. I'm relatively neutral about some of those matters, so long as the final effect is clear and consistent with the article text (as well being WP:V by WP:RS of course), but think the matters worth discussing.

First of all Hitler's main title. It has been wrongly argued that WP:COMMONNAME applies. It doesn't since that is a guideline for article titles and anyway the actual practice for political offices is to use a semi-formal title ('Prime Minister of the United Kingdom', not 'British Prime Minister', 'President of the United States', not 'American President' or 'President of America'). However, even if we choose to go for the common nam-ish title, would that not be "Führer" rather than "Führer of Germany", which I think is neither fish nor fowl, neither the formality of the actual title 'Führer und Reichskanzler' in English or German, or both, nor the commonly used 'Führer'. No one I suspect has ever referred to the "Führer of Germany", partly because there has never been any 'Führers' of anywhere else. My own reaction is that this 'job title' is akin to 'President of America' and would be more educative if it were more formal or more accessible if more informal.

Secondly, did Hitler cease to be Chancellor in 1934 (when the powers of Chancellor were incorporated into those of Führer) or was he still Chancellor at his death? The sources seem to me to favour the first reading but I claim no special expertise. I know titles were merged (Hitler became Führer und Reichskanzler – although eventually Reichskanzler was quietly dropped), but can you meaningfully hold an office and function which has ceased to exist as an independent entity? Of course the key is what do sources say. I'm happy to go with consensus on this, but the infobox needs to reflect what is decided. If Hitler ceased to be Chancellor in 1934 because that function became part of the Führer function, then the office of Chancellor was vacant from 1934 until his death 11 years later and some way of noting that or simply ommitting his successor needs to happen (Goebbels only technically inherited the office for one day anyway). The old infobox wrongly implied that Goebbels took over in 1934 and needed fixing.

Lastly is "Nazi Germany" needed anywhere in the infobox (it was previously underneath both the Führer and the Chancellor job titles). This was discussed relatively recently and I can't remember what was decided. Personally I can see the benefit of using it as a shorthand form of "Germany-during-the-Nazi-period" when the linking of it can give context. I'm neutral here but would rather see only ONE use under Führer.

The principal changes are hers in between edits proposed various compromises.

Overall, are people happy with the recent changes? Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, the articles for those countries are titled United Kingdom and United States, not "Britain" or "America", and the articles for the offices are titled Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and President of the United States. So, having those links in the infoboxes is entirely in line with respecting the common names of the offices. Per WP:PLA, we should be linking to the common name article titles for the offices. For Chancellor, that article is titled Chancellor of Germany. For Führer, you are correct, that is just Führer without the "of Germany", so I could go either way there, but I think the "of Germany" is important for context. That's why there's a redirect. And since they kept both Führer and Chancellor as part of his title (and he opted in his will to keep the offices separate), they should be kept separate in the infobox. If the title was "quietly dropped", I think we should try to figure out exactly when and how that formally occurred without making any assumptions about it.

I am strongly opposed to putting (Nazi Germany) under the offices. It's unnecessary clutter to state which era the country was in, and we don't do that anywhere else. All countries have eras that historians have assigned labels to, that doesn't mean there's any official delineation between them that is relevant to the offices. I believe doing that would require broader consensus.

I think we get a little carried away with trying to cram as much detail as possible into infoboxes sometimes. Infoboxes should be simple, and should not overwhelm readers with extraneous information. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE tells us: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The article titles for UK/US leaders are not COMMONNAME either for the offices, nor the countries, they are semi-formal for both. America/Britain are the commonest ways of referring to either country. But regardless, you don't make the ordinary way of referring to Hitler's 'job' by combining the ordinary way of talking about the job with the ordinary way of referring to the country - the world doesn't always work like that, Mussolini was not "il Duce of Italy". That is part of the reason why the linked article title is actually 'Führer' because I think nobody actually calls the man 'Führer of Germany', nobody did in Germany nor anywhere else during his lifetime or has done since. 'Führer of Germany', IMO is an invention created according to a formula that ignores the real world use. Besides COMMONNAME doesn't apply to infobox content, ordinary considerations of informative value and clarity do. I would favour what we had - the translation of his formal title, but could live with plain 'Führer'.

I think I know your opinion, since frankly you edit-warred it into place without ever once coming to this talk page or consulting archives, a broader consensus DID exist about almost everything on this page. I'm just checking whether the new consensus is that these changes are an improvement by inviting other editors to respond NOW. If others are heppy, I will drop the matter. I don't necessarily disagree about Nazi Germany, but know that in the past strong arguments have been advanced for including it. The key question is the judgement of whether it clarifies or clutters - in this instance, I think it clutters, but the question is worth asking.

Some of these questions are judgements about what is clearest and most informative, but some (like when he ceased to be Chancellor) are questions of what sources say, and are not susceptible to the sort of logical deduction you are advocating. If the post ceased meaningfully to exist, it doesn't matter what title he temporarily adopted. I don't know the answer to that one, I know how I'm inclined to interpret the sources, but will go with the majority opinion. Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, a single revert is not edit-warring. You also did a single revert. I'm not going to go straight to falsely accusing you of misconduct, though. That really undermines your argument.

If you think Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is not a COMMONNAME, then you can start a move discussion for that article. For now, that is the title, so it is a factual matter that that is the current COMMONNAME. I have never said that COMMONNAME as a policy applies to infobox content, I'm saying it makes sense to link the article title (which follows COMMONNAME), unmodified, per WP:PLA. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What do RS call him? post left by Slaterstevens

Tartan, I have not the slightest interest or intention of changing the title of the UK Prime Minister article, but fairly obviously both the name of the article and the name used in infoboxes is semi-formal, therefore it is not common name in the sense of the most frequently used informal term. Article title and infobox content are a compromise - AS THEY SHOULD BE between various factors. Looking at the edit history, you were not warring, apologies another editor partially restored then you completed. But regardless, the issues are worth discussing.

Thinking about it, it makes no sense to say that a new combined post of Führer and Chancellor was created, but at the same time AH retained the old post of Chancellor. I would still rather hear what sources/other editors say, but the most obvious reading is that a new post with unique powers and a merged title was created and the older post simply ceased to exist while he was alive. Of course it is possible to hold two jobs at the same time, but I don't think that is what happened.

Slaterstevens, I think it would be hard to assess google-wise whether 'Führer' or 'Führer of Germany' is more common, since they are unequal searches, my insticts tell me that 'Führer' is more common, the title is so associated with the individual. But that anyway isn't the real issue, which is what is the clearest, most useful, and most informative way to refer to him in the infobox, the short informal term (Führer) or the longer more formal one (Führer and Chancellor of the Reich). Both of these are fully WP:V in WP:RS I think and it is more a judgement than a policy matter. Pincrete (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, agreed, the discussion about how to name the offices is a Wikipedia guidelines matter—all terms under discussion exist in RS depending on context. Where the RS come into this discussion is whether we should treat the offices as separate or merged. I think the use of "and" in the title (Führer and Chancellor) suggests they technically remained distinct, but perhaps RS disagree. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

IF AH did cease to be Chancellor in 1934 (which is my reading of events and sources) - then it is misleading to simply list Goebbels as successor without any explanation. Resolving that anomaly was part of your first edit and I agree 100% with the need to resolve it, even if we disagree as to how. I'm sorry if my initial tone was over-confrontational. Pincrete (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Pincrete, apology accepted. I'm happy to look at the sources if you want to present them. I think the first issue we need to resolve is whether he ceased to be chancellor in 1934, then we can move on to deciding how best to present that information. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't currently have access to original text sources, only to the text and cites incorporated into WP. Usually when something crops up on this page, 2 or 3 'subject experts' are able to pitch in immediately - that is what I had hoped would happen this time! Perhaps it's the holiday season or perhaps no one cares that much. Either way, I'd be extremely grateful for any leg-work you are able to do. As I've already said, my reading has always been that the Chancellor job effectively ceased to exist in 1934 and its powers were 'rolled into' the new 'Führer and Chancellor' role - simultaneously head of govt and head of State and thus answerable to no one. Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hitler’s title

Hitler’s full title is cited on his Wikipedia page. At no point was he ever referred to alone officially as Führer of Germany: it was always Fuhrer and Chancellor. Maybe we can drop the Reich bit: it is a tad unnecessary. ---<font face="Georgia">'''User:Lawrencegordon |<span style="color:#009900">lawrencegordon </span>'''</font><font face="Courier New">_{''[[User talk:Lawrencegordon |<span style="color:#006600">I am the best </span>]]''}</font> (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Lawrencegordon, chancellor is listed as a separate concurrent office, so "Führer and Chancellor" is covered. Combining them in the infobox messes with the successions too much, IMO. See #Recent infobox changes, and feel free to contribute to building a consensus there. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, I've moved this up to a prior related discussion. I partly agree with each of you. I think "Führer of Germany" is an invention - not something used then or now. It's like saying "Dalai Lama of Tibet" or "Taoiseach of Ireland" - there is only one Führer, one Dalai Lama, one place that has a Taoiseach. So "of Germany" is clumsily redundant and has never actually been used by anyone. IMO we either say "Führer" - the simplest solution or we say 'Führer and (Reichs)Chancellor' - which is an approximation of his actual title.

I also think that being "Führer and Chancellor" is not simply being BOTH Führer and Chancellor at the same time. The offices of Führer and Chancellor cannot meaningfully be done at the same time much as President and Vice-President cannot be done at the same time. This analogy is flawed, but my point is that the principal function of head of state in the German system is to act as 'referee' to the executive - led by the Chancellor. You cannot meaningfully be both referee and a player. What you are actually doing is to abolish all constitutional checks and to incorporate all political powers into the new Führer role. This move abolished ordinary politics and ordinary political roles and responsibilities. The clearest way to show this in my opinion is to say that he was Chancellor until 1934 and he was then the new position of "Führer and Chancellor" from 1934-45. I think my interpretation is borne out by the sources, but this is also partly how to render a complex situation clearly. Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your statement that they cannot meaningfully be done at the same time seems to be based on the assumption of a functioning democracy, which Nazi Germany was not. It doesn't really matter what our opinions of the constitutional reasonableness of this arrangement are. This line of reasoning is getting into WP:OR. He was a dictator, and these were the titles he chose to use. He assumed them separately, and he left them separately, so it's easiest for us to treat them separately in the infobox. That's really all it's about—I don't think we'd be implying anything about the power structure by listing them separately or together. The point you raised previously about the chancellor part of the title possibly being dropped is more significant, I think. I haven't seen any evidence of this happening at a specific time, and like I left it at before, I welcome any you're willing to provide.

Putting the country name after the title is something we often do to provide context even if it's not formally part of the title (we don't tend to use full formal names, anyway). However, in this case I'd agree context is not needed since the title Führer is so strongly associated with Hitler, so I'm fine with changing that to just "Führer" if that's what you want to do. Although I will note that "Führer of the Nazi Party" is also listed in his infobox, so there was more than one office with that name in a sense. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to keep this brief. In part I think we are both in WP:OR territory since since there is no substantial disagreement about events, simply how best to render them in an infobox. I also take the opposite view to you in that I think him doing several jobs at once presupposes some established political order/established roles with limits to their powers. There was only one political decision maker in that regime acting in the newly created role of 'Führer', with no limits to his powers. I think we are getting confused by the fact that he incorporated the word 'Chancellor' in his title - which all the sources say was fairly quickly dropped anyway. However I am happy for others to decide what they think is clearest and to 'pitch in' with whatever the sources say. Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Change suicide wording

'committed suicide' → 'died by suicide' }} Less divisive term, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Definitions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holenotahole (talk • contribs) 00:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose --FMSky (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The most recent centralized discussion of this issue (that I'm aware of) was this village pump RfC. In short there is no consensus to change uses of 'committed suicide'. Neither is there any prohibition against using an alternate formulation if we build consensus for it here. I support 'died by suicide' or 'killed himself/themselves'. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing divisive about "committed suicide". HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Divisive wasn't my choice of adjective (maybe you're replying to Holenotahole?), but it's at least trivially true. Some support the term and some do not. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s not divisive, it factually describes the choice of act committed by the person. The wording was reached by consensus and there’s no reason to change it. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would we use the passive voice: "died by..." as if it was something that happened to him. It was a deliberate action on his part, so lets use the active voice in describing it. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to ignore comments that insist the term is not divisive. If anyone feels I need to respond to any, please let me know at my user talk page. I register HiLo48's support for 'committed', without explanation, and yours, with the reason being it's a factual description of the act. I join Holenotahole in opposing 'committed', with the reasons being well summarized at Suicide#Definitions and supported by the AP Style Book (implies criminality, etc.). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

When I say "committed suicide", a term I have used all my quite longish life, I NEVER imply criminality. Comments like yours are actually quite insulting, AND wrong!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think using terms like “divisive” is inflammatory. What would be fair to say is that the term “committed” suicide is increasingly, but by no means universally, seen as outdated. The reason is that its origins lie in the commission of the criminal offence of suicide - although few, if anyone, use it with that in mind now. When it ceased to be an offence in English-speaking jurisdictions the term remained embedded in the language. It probably remains the more common expression. But I would favour not using only because stylistically it sounds outdated to my ear for that reason. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

In my lifetime, I've seen many words and terms—that were previously considered neutral—re-evaluated as groups harmed by them have advocated for change. Sometimes I have also felt insulted and judged by those objecting to previously acceptable language. Language seems to keep evolving whether I come around or not.

To put it another way: even if you don't intend to imply criminality, others may be inferring it from your comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They are simply wrong to infer such a thing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Meters (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I largely agree with Kierzek, DeCausa and HiLo48 that the term is clear and standard, it carries few, if any, negative implications and its origins are now irrelevant (this is the kind of argument that ends up avoiding 'pastoral care' or 'hysterical' because their origins lie respectively in looking after sheep, and the Greek word for womb). But in this instance PLEASE, why on earth would we want to use a modern construction deliberately created to imply that the individual was a, largely passive, victim of mental health issues. If there WERE any negative connotations in its use here, they would be apt. He shot himself to avoid facing the consequences of his actions. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Enabling act votes

I took a closer look at this section and noticed that the text mentions that the position of the Centre Party had been decisive (441 votes for and 84 against) in the passing of this Act. The Centre Party had won 73 seats in the March 1933 elections. Doing simple mathematical equations I noticed that even if the Centre Party voted against the act it still would have passed with 70% of the representatives voting in its favor (368 for and 157 against). Since amendments to the constitution require two thirds of the representatives VOTING AND PRESENT (so basically if the Centre Party voted against the bill: 368/(368+73+84)=70% voting for the passing of the act) is should have passed (as stated here) without the support of the Centre Party. In short, I don't see a logical explanation to why the votes of the Centre Party were decisive.

Another thing I noticed, looking at the table, it clearly states that 444 voted for the act and 94 against it. In this article it says 441 voted for and 84 against which is a bit confusing to me. LukeA1 (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If nobody has anything against I would like to delete the part where the position of the Centre Party was decisive and update for and against votes for the passing of the act. The reasons for this are mentioned in the above comment. LukeA1 (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep 'initiated World War II by invading Poland'

More general and encompassing of the German invasion of Poland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleetimetraveller (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Initiated World War II in Europe, not the Pacific, so the link and language should remain as it was before your change to World War II in general. The Japanese had already bombed Pearl Harbor, and a state of war existed in the Pacific, when he declared war on the United States, for example. Two separate theaters. Kierzek (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

WWII “began” on 1 September 1939. It’s a singular event and was “initiated” only once. Surely, the war in the Pacific was (a) just a later theatre of WWII, from 1941, in which case WWII still began on 1 September 1939 and was still initiated by the invasion of Poland or (b) the “Pacific War” was a separate war, in which case the statement that WWII was initiated by the invasion of Poland remains correct. I can’t see that “in Europe” adds anything either way. DeCausa (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hitler-fighter articles need help: Erhard Auer & Münchener Post

Erhard Auer was the Editor in Chief of the Münchener Post, it was shut down by Hitler in March 1933 immediately after he became the Reich Chancellor. Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party called the newspaper and its editors "Giftküche" (The Poison Kitchen) and "Münchener Pest ("Munich Pestilence" or "Munich Plague"). Hitler considered the paper one of his most vexing public adversaries, and the paper was the target of libel actions by the Nazi Party. The paper was one of the few early warning voices regarding the dangers posed by the rise of the Nazi Party, although their warnings went largely unheeded at the time. Auer was imprisoned in the Dachau concentration camp and died 20 March 1945. The first book written on Erhard Auer and the Münchener Post was in 2013, in Brazil. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Adolph, alternate spelling

MODERATORS: Adolph is an alternate English spelling of Hitler's German first name. A google search of Adolph Hitler shows many sites using this. Adolph should be added as an alternative spelling at the very beginning of this article. 99.169.79.198 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There are no moderators here. Do we have enough sources using that spelling to outweigh the ones that use Adolf? Britmax (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Adolf is the way he spelled his first name and the way the majority of the RS sources spell his first name. I have seen it spelled Adolph before, usually in some older sources. Kierzek (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't Adolph Hitler already redirect to Adolf Hitler, though, just in case some users make this "typo" in the search box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.234.189 (talk • contribs) 05:45, September 20, 2021 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with whether or not we mention the alternate spelling in the article. Meters (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually it has everything to do with it. The only excuse we have for mentioning "Adolph" is that some people might mistakenly search for it. That's what redirects are for. Putting it in the article suggests that it is a valid alternative, but it isn't. It is wrong. Zero^talk 00:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I wasn't suggesting it needed to be added. I didn't take any position on that. I was simply saying the mere existence of a redirect is irrelevant to the decision whether we should mention the alternate spelling in the article. We don't mention it because we have a redirect, and we don't not mention because we have a redirect. We mention it if it is warranted.

As the OP pointed out, there are many sources that use "ph" spelling. Amusingly, we even have an article about one of them. Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler. Meters (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not favor mentioning it in the article at this time, but the notion that an alternative spelling used by a minority of sources is "wrong" is also wrong. English speaking people do not have some official "academy" like the French do, with the power and authority to endorse an official spelling. I favor spelling the name like the Germans do for Hitler. But even in German, the name is sometimes spelled with the "ph", as in Adolph von Carlowitz. There are many famous "Adolphs", such as Adolph Zukor, Adolph Ochs, Adolph Sutro and others. Plus, "Adolph" was the real first name of Harpo Marx. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but we're talking about a specific individual here. That individual spelt his name Adolf, not anything else. At a stretch, we could mention that some sources do mistakenly spell his name Adolph, but that does not make it a valid alternative spelling for Hitler's name. Many people write "I should of done it", instead of "I should have done it", but the weight of examples will never outweigh the correct spelling. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

It is likely that the alternative anglicized spelling is the result of English authorship by people not competent in German. There is likely no need to mention it since the redirect brings people here. Very few of those works that misspell his name would be considered RS nowadays with all the updated scholarship. Let's not perpetuate that error. Germans would not covert John Smith to Johann Smith so let's have a little respect. --Obenritter (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s fair to say German writers are free of the “error”:[5]. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

Change the position "Fuhrer" as a honorific suffix instead of political position, like ottoman sultans holding the title caliph or saudi kings holding the title Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Because I think Hitler only hold Kanzler position. Mhatopzz (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I note at least one contradiction with Führer as to when he gained the title Führer of Germany 34 vs 41. But then again it is quite simple, we just need to reflect its usage in reliable references (none of which I have read in quite a while). Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

White Nationalist?

What sources name Hitler as a white nationalist? To my understanding, white nationalism, at least outside of the United States, is a post WW2 ideology directly inspired from Neo-Nazism and antisemitism, not the other way around. And besides, Hitler's rhetoric was German supremacist, not broadly white nationalist (he promoted the genocide of Slavs).

If there are no objections or cited sources, I'll be removing the White Nationalist category. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Then you need to read the article you link to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, modern-day "white nationalism" draws directly from Nazism as an inspiration, rather than vice versa. However, the ideology of white supremacy, particularly in the United States, dates from well before Hitler, and Hitler was definitely inspired by American ideas, particularly around eugenics. I think some careful rephrasing is appropriate, not the removal of mention of Hitler as a racial supremacist. -- The Anome (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that Hitler was a white supremacist, but is it really appropriate to call him a term that was only itself coined in 1951? I read the article and it seems was if it mostly describes how white nationalism was developed from Nazi ideals, not Nazism itself being a form of white nationalism. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"The white nationalists point out that the bulk of the nation will interpret the failure of the German delegation on these points as a return with empty hands.—The Minneapolis Star (Minneapolis, MN), 14 Oct. 1925".Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I think "racial supremacist" is perhaps the best way to put it. Do we have a category for "German racial supremacists"? -- The Anome (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

How about replacing the category with just "White supremacists?" It has been mentioned that the first usage of "white nationalism" was in 1925, but this was before its conception as an actual ideology and besides, was used in the context of the United States, where the Klu Klux Klan already existed. The term was completely foreign to the German Nazis, however, white supremacy can be established as a trend that has existed for hundreds of years. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I've now created Category:German white supremacists, which should fit better. -- The Anome (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. I still support removing him as a White Nationalist, but that definitely needs more consensus one whatever it is appropriate to call him that beforehand.HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I oppose to a creation of that category for the reason described below. I suggest to delete it. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well it can be pointed out that "White" did not always include all Europeans. Indeed if the Nazis viewed the Slavs as "sub-human" they did not see them as part of the same species, let alone race.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

White nationalists, as they have existed since the 60s, have avoided or rejected anti-Slavic ideology that the Germans had. It's common in Neo-Nazi circles to deny the genocide of Slavs as they do with Jews. While the Nazis did not consider Slavs white, I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of modern-day white nationalists, especially those in Russia and Eastern Europe, do.. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 13:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And they have not been about since only the 1960's onward.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

And you have the entirely bonkers spectacle of Neo-Nazis in Slavic countries, either unaware or simply uncaring that the Nazis would have exterminated them, and every one of their ancestors, if they had had the chance. -- The Anome (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

So? And it is kind of Germain that we was a German (whatever we choose to use).Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) What about Category:Aryanism? Should the article be in that category?— Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I was just typing a post saying that. Per the RS, Aryanism is the normal descriptor, not White supremacy which is problematic for a number of reasons not least because Hitler accepted the Chinese and Japanese as “honorary” Arians. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Racial supremacists needs to be created. Not all racial supremacists are white supremacists; the Nation of Islam comes to mind. -- The Anome (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

They are also not German, as I recall it was "German white nationalists" that you removed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose to creation of any category containing the word "Racial". In modern English anthropology, the term "race" is dramatically misinterpreted, and now it is an umbrella term for many (sometimes, mutually contradicting) concepts. Therefore, it would be better to avoid using it and leave it for professional anthropologists (which still survived in some scientific schools). Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole approach is ahistorical, and it reflects modern trends that universalize "white vs others" tensions in some Western societies (more precisely, in some parts thereof). The primary target of Hitler's aggressive policy was a white population of Europe. WWII in Europe was, by an large, a white vs white conflict, and the most persecuted categories of population were Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and some others. Interestingly, a major Hitler's ally was Japan (Asians), which was fighting against British (by that time, White) and Americans (mostly White). Moreover, Hitler's Nazism was build upon a (now obsolete) racial theory developed mostly in Britain, which linked the term "race" (i.e. a phenotype) with the term "ethnicity" (which is a purely social construct), and, what was especially wrong, declared intrinsic superiority of some of them based on some phenotype criteria.

The essence of Hitler's "theory" was not a superiority of a white race, but a superiority of some specific biological subgroup withing the white race. In that sense, he saw no much difference between e.g. Jews and what was called a negroid race.

Therefore, the very category "German white supremacists" is misleading, and it insults the memory of millions and millions of 'white victims of Nazism. I think it should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see an example of some "German white supremacist" who claimed that there is no difference between Jews and non-Jewish Germans, and that they both are equally better than P.O.C. I am not aware of such examples, and, as far as I know, every "German white supremacist" claims superiority of "Aryans" over "Untermensch" (a category that included mostly white people), which makes the very concept of "German white supremacy" totally misleading. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

I would like to fact check this article Sus102 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

To Do-add information about Hitler and maniac

Hello everyone.It would be possible to write in an article about Hitler,for example,in the section Interesting facts that this maniac- Oleksandr Yuryevich Sergov wielded on Hitler's birthday Nokil83a (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oleksandr Sergov Nokil83a (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahh Oleksandr Sergov, no not really as this is just some loon, its not really relevant to our understanding of Hitler.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

In Chernihiv in 2010 year Nokil83a (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but what real relevance does this have to Hitler, what does it add to our understanding of the man or his impact? This was one serial killer, and serial killers kill for many reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know that he is mentally abnormal, most likely the drugs did their job there, he was put on probation until he came of age, but the fact is that he did all this on Hitler's birthday in order to come to the neo-Nazis. just a request Nokil83a (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

year Nokil83a (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

2010 Nokil83a (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There, those neo-Nazis also did not accept, they immediately realized that he was abnormal and you yourself know what kind of relationship they have with psychos. Maybe it’s true, he had nothing to do and he killed people on Hitler’s birthday. Although he deftly escaped from the police back then, was it a nutcase? True, at the same time, the psyche is a strange thing, there was still a cool lawyer and neo-Nazis did not want problems, that's and said that he was not accepted by them If anything, then I'm sorry, I don't know English and I translate it in the translator from Google Nokil83a (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2021

hello I am a social studies teacher and this article is not accurate please allow me to edit it Deeeeeznutz (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If Hitler was groomed by the aristocrats..

If Hitler was groomed from a young age by the European aristocracy.. what does it mean that the history books as written are wrong about it all, and that their successors insist on continued misinformation (i.e. "secrecy")? -Zahadan (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? clpo13_(talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a top topic, global and fort-wide. -Zahadan (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. This question does not belong on this talk page. Meters (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Math

How old is he 2600:1004:B06B:52BA:559B:6978:2B90:54A8 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

He's dead. The article already says when he was born, when he died, and how old he was when he died. What else is there to say? Meters (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

I would like to edit this page to be able to change the "In office" to "In Leadership". He was the leader of a dictatorship. It's kind of like saying the Hitler was the leader of a Judicial Branch. (Something along the lines of that) On a 1660ti (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. In office seems like a fine way to show when he was the leader of the government, even as a dictator. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The wording "in office" is generated by the infobox template {{Infobox officeholder}}, so it is not something that is easily changed.— Diannaa (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Unclear why saying a dictator was “in office” is a problem anyway. DeCausa (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler coined the term Big lie (große Lüge)

I recently learned that Big Lie (große Lüge) was coined by Hitler. Based on [article], The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

I recommend mentioning this fact around when Mein Kampf is mentioned.

LifeDancePro (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Rise to power

How did adlof hitler rise to power ? 2A02:C7E:461C:DB00:F5BC:CB8F:846:CE3 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article and see? Britmax (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler, who was a spy for the German military at the time, joined the soon-to-be National Socialist German Workers' Party (or Nazi Party) in 1919. Two years after joining, in 1921, Hitler assumed the title of leader of the party from Anton Draxler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryGeekofficial (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2021

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian politician who ruled as Führer (absolute leader) of Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. He is one of the most infamous people of the twentieth century. HistoryGeekofficial (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Is “Austrian-born” necessary?

Is “Austrian-born” really necessary? Especially considering the article states “Hitler was born in Austria”.

No, it's not necessary. Your IP address tell me you're probably in the UK. Be aware that Americans, the dominant breed here on Wikipedia, love making someone's ancestry and place of birth a major factor of their identity. We don't do that where I come from, so I'm with you on this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Britmax (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Historically it has been repeatedly mentioned that Hitler was originally Austrian, not German. Similarly, Napoleon was born on Corsica, which had only recenty been annexed by the French at the time of his birth. So people often refer to him as being Corsican. — Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Time for clarification here methinks. The first words of the second paragraph of the article are "Hitler was born in Austria..." We also have the first paragraph telling us "Adolf Hitler...was an Austrian-born German politician". My impression of the OP's question is that they think mentioning this fact twice in two paragraphs is one too many times. I agree. It's the mention in the first paragraph that is unnecessary. Being born in Austria is certainly worth mentioning, but it's not what he's well known for. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Being "born in Austria" is not quite synonymous with being "Austrian born" of course. First is simply place of birth, whereas second is original 'nationality'. I'm neutral on this one now and have watched these two ideas "come and go" so often that I no longer know what I think, but veer towards thinking the 'repetition' harmless. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as it tells us he was in fact an immigrant to Germany.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

suppression of secret/political societies

one of the dictatorially-political acts of hitler was that he closed the freemasonic lodges. does that warrant inclusion on here? thanks Grandia01 (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that would belong in an article about the German government at the time, or the Nazi government in particular. We could probably shorten this article by moving other political stuff to similar articles for things that Hitler did not do alone. Britmax (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we add a link that directs to the Namibian politician?

There is a Namibian councilor by the name of Adolf Hitler Uunona who was recently re-elected, and I thought it might good to have a link to his wiki page at the top of here. 2603:6010:1500:C38:B8C1:A87F:8768:5150 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Since it's been deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona, there is nothing to link to. FDW777 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

War

Adolf Hitler is not in World War One he is in world war 2 110.137.153.57 (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Read the article. Hitler served in World War I, and was wounded at the Somme. Of course, he was the commander of German forces during World War II, but that does not obviate his well documented World War I service. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler fought in World War 1, and was wounded and gassed. He was decorated for heroism. You have some reading to do, starting with reading the article more carefully next time. Britmax (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

German pronunciation

I’m pretty sure it should be [aːdɔlf] with a long vowel, as per audio. 95.37.206.148 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Needed information

Hitler was a spy for the German Republic, but when he was undercover, he found the Nazi party Sorry for my bag England, I don't speak it good but am in us hotel and have no Korean kebords Bigloversunitedbigshots (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please supply a reliable source for the changes you wish to be made. Britmax (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what they want to make. We mention the fact he was a spy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Hitler was also a writer, his Mein Kampf, proves it. It is important not to forget about that detail because it contains his political speaking abilities and represents the achievements he wanted to reach. 5.90.130.206 (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We mention it, in the lede. So what do you more do you think needs to be done? Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

It should state in the opening line that "... was an Austrian-born German politician who was elected Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 and became the dictator of Germany in March of 1933 until his death in 1945.

This gives a much more informative view that he was elected into power and assumed dictatorial powers within a very short period of time. This distinguishes him from other dictators who assumed control via a military coup for example. 2601:600:8380:2CE0:4D97:A69E:4F5C:E0BE (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

IP, the whole article, and especially the lead, has to succinctly convey an enormous amount of basic factual info, about AH, the Nazi party and Germany and WWII etc etc. Distinguishing AH from other dictators or other leaders or similar wouldn't be a priority and probably wouldn't lead to overall coherence. We have to maximise what info conveyed, balanced against other considerations, such as readability. Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. My other thinking is that it's important for readers of this article to understand that Hitler was democratically elected and then assumed dictatorial powers. Especially considering the world today and the rise of democratically elected leaders, who behave autocratically.

Does this change your thinking? 2601:600:8380:2CE0:29A9:B501:333C:5770 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So the new opening line would be

... was an Austrian-born German politician who was democratically elected Chancellor of Germany in January 1933 and became the dictator of Germany in March of 1933 until his death in 1945.

added the word democratically. 2601:600:8380:2CE0:29A9:B501:333C:5770 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect. He was appointed Chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg on 30 January 1933, and the Enabling Act was passed on 23 March 1933, giving Hitler and the Nazi Party dictatorial powers.— Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dianna, thanks for the reply. Yes he was appointed. But using that word does not convey the fact that Hitler and the Nazi Party received the plurality of seats after the elections. The chancellor had to have the support of the German parliament. 2601:600:8380:2CE0:AC3C:E037:AAF7:CE11 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not right either. They won a minority government in the November 1932 elections, 33% of the votes cast and 194 out of 586 seats (also around 33%). The next election was not held until after Hitler had already been apponted Chancellor. The article states that it was industrialists and businessment who pressured Hindenburg to appont Hitler as chancellor, "independent from parliamentary parties", not pressured or supported by the Reichstag. (If you have sources that say the appointment as chancellor had the support of the Reichstag, please feel free to list them here.) I think you are trying to add to the lead that Hitler was democratically elected to office, and I am pretty sure that is not true. He ran against Hindenberg for the presidency in 1932 and lost, and as far as I can recall he never ran for a seat in the Reichstag at all. — Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Tree list

Hi, I was wondering if World War II should be added to the tree list in the infobox. The article does mention him being CiC of the German Armed Forces and giving military orders on a tactical level, but I'm unsure if this would count or not. I know this matter may seem insignificant for a talk page discussion, but I felt that this would be one of those things that could lead to an edit war, so I thought I might confer with other editors about this here beforehand. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are meaning miltary rank/service/engagements, this has been discussed before, most recently here. If you put military service into the archive search box, it has been raised before that as well. I think the general view is that AH wasn't meaningfully in the military in WWII - being Führer, and thus C-in-C, not meaning he held a rank, any more than Roosevelt, Hirohito or King George did. Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pincrete. I was referring to battles/wars, I really should have specified that, sorry. Thought him being C-in-C and having a direct commanding role would count, but this and the archived discussion pretty much answer it. Thanks for the reply. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

What is the purpose of adding someone's opinion that he believed in Islam or Japanese ... [personal/life=>religion] . And for what Christianity is considered more peaceful than Islam ... the things that are written suggest it is supporting a particular group.. please remove it or change the tone [language] of this line. This is secular platform so please process the request .. i hope you'll understand. Thankyou 2409:4054:1A:C84D:0:0:8F1:E0A1 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

Michael Lanz (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Hitler had a brother name Charles Warren Lanz

Sources? Pincrete (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Bavarian Soviet Republic

There's no mention of Adolf Hitler's involvement in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, why is that precisely? There are plenty of reliable sources which mention his brief affiliation with it.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to show us these sources here so that this can be assessed. I daresay a few people would be interested in this. Britmax (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The article itself mentions Hitler’s involvement in it. Ian Kershaw, Volker Ulrich, Thomas Weber and a few other historians mention Hitler’s involvement in the republic.

Biographer Ian Kershaw in his Hitler biography wrote:

Hitler’s first political duties took place, therefore, in the service of the revolutionary regime run by the SPD and USPD. In fact, he would have had to explain away the even more embarrassing fact of his continued involvement at the very height of Munich’s ‘red dictatorship’. On 14 April, the day after the Communist Räterepublik had been proclaimed, the Munich Soldiers’ Councils approved fresh elections of all barrack representatives to ensure that the Munich garrison stood loyally behind the new regime. In the elections the following day Hitler was chosen as Deputy Battalion Representative. Not only, then, did Hitler do nothing to assist in the crushing of Munich’s ‘Red Republic’; he was an elected representative of his battalion during the whole period of its existence.

How to interpret this evidence is, nevertheless, not altogether clear the obvious implication must be that Hitler, in order to have been elected as a soldiers’ representative, voiced in these months the views of the socialist governments he later denounced with every fibre of his body as ‘criminal’…Already in the 1920s, and continuing into the 1930s, there were rumours, never fully countered, that Hitler had initially sympathized with the Majority SPD following the revolution… a pointed remark when defending Esser in 1921 against attacks from within the party, Hitler commented: ‘Everyone was at one time a Social Democrat.’

In itself, Hitler’s possible support for the Majority Social Democrats in the revolutionary upheaval is less unlikely than it might at first might appear…A number of strange bedfellows, including several who later came to belong to Hitler’s entourage, initially found themselves on the Left during the revolution. Sepp Dietrich, later a general in the Waffen-SS and head of Hitler’s SS-Leibstandarte, was elected chairman of a Soldiers’ Council in November 1918. Hitler’s long-time chauffeur Julius Schreck had served in the ‘Red Army’ at the end of April 1919. Hermann Esser, one of Hitler’s earliest supporters, who became the first propaganda chief of the N S D A P, had been for a while a journalist on a Social Democratic newspaper. Gottfried Feder, whose views on ‘interest slavery’ so gripped Hitler’s imagination in summer 1919, had sent a statement of his position to the socialist government headed by Kurt Eisner the previous November. And Balthasar Brandmayer, one of Hitler’s closest wartime comrades and a later fervent supporter, recounted how he at first welcomed the end of the monarchies, the establishment of a republic, and the onset of a new era.

A number of pointers towards Hitler’s opportunism exist from this period. In Pasewalk, he did not denounce to his superiors (as patriotic duty would have demanded) the sailors who arrived in the hospital preaching sedition and revolution. On leaving the hospital, he avoided committing himself politically, and made no attempt to join any of the numerous Freikorps units which sprang up to engage in the continued fighting on the eastern borders of the Reich and the suppression of left-wing radicalism within Germany, not least in Munich itself. After his return to Munich from Traunstein in February 1919, he most likely took part, since his regiment had issued orders to participate, in a demonstration march of about 10,000 left-wing workers and soldiers in Munich. Probably in April 1919, with Munich ruled by the Communist Councils, he wore, along with almost all the soldiers of the Munich garrison, the revolutionary red armband.

Significant, above all, is that within a week of the end of the rule of the Councils, Hitler had been nominated – by whom is not known – to serve on a three-man committee to explore whether members of the Reserve Battalion of the 2nd Infantry Regiment had been actively involved in the Räterepublik.

--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hitler (ISBN 978-0393337617) is 1030 pages long. How much space does Kershaw dedicate to this episode? Are there any other indications in that source or others that including it here would be due weight? (These are not meant as rhetorical questions, by the way.) --causa sui (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The point isn’t about how many pages Kershaw goes into detail about this short-lived episode of Hitler’s life, but rather that Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest, Alan Bullock, Volker Ullrich, Peter Longerich and other historians mention in their books that Hitler had a brief association with the Bavarian Soviet Republic. Without that association, he would never have been sent to be an intelligence agent to infiltrate the German Workers’ Party. The article at the moment doesn’t mention his earlier involvement in politics that was for roughly five months in 1919. IMO, there should be a few sentences about it.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No that’s not the point. You’re giving your assessment of why it’s important and needs space in the article. That’s not relevant. Per WP:DUE, we need to assess how important/prominent it is in the scholarship about Hitler - that’s why you were asked how much of his 1080 page book Kershaw devoted to it (or indeed any of the historians you mention). They have all produced detailed and substantial works on the subject of this article, and there will inevitably be pieces of information in all of them that won’t be in the article. Per WP:DETAIL the article should and can only give an overview of its subject. That’s why we need to bring out only the points of significance in the scholarship - not every point of detail that individual editors think is important. So the original question put to you is valid and still stands. DeCausa (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hitler’s involvement in the Bavarian Soviet Republic were his first political duties. The Munich Soldiers’ Council agreed to fresh elections and Hitler stood and he was chosen as the Deputy Battalion Representative for his battalion. Without that brief spell then he wouldn’t have been assigned to be an intelligence agent to infiltrate the German Workers’ Party. When I read the article now I can’t really see any thing that isn’t more or less covered. The German article of Adolf Hitler briefly mentions it, so why can’t one or two sentences be added into the English article of Adolf Hitler?--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you ignored what I said (and what causa sui - no relation - asked you) and repeated the point you had already made. DeCausa (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Truth

You zionist jews hated nationalism and started WW2. The communism is destroying the world now. Please, leave the honorable Adolf Hitler alone 2001:8A0:F664:7701:1E0:1A4B:B22:F927 (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not Jewish. I am a Protestant white male Christian. You are entitled to your beliefs, but Wikipedia is not a blog. This article only presents Hitler in a neutral manner with reliable historical content. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

to help

okay Dionaaaa (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the welcome note on your talk page before you make further edits. The quality of your current input suggests that it will be a while before you are in a position to ask for enhanced editing privileges, although you may, as told above, ask here for others to make changes for you. Britmax (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC}

The Haavara Agreement

The Haavara Agreement "transfer agreement" was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.224.173 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Education

As a relatively uneducated fellow, with the tremendous gift of the gab, one wonders who his mentors were. Information on this could be added to the article. The blind followers are known.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WinOrVodka (talk • contribs) 04:14, April 25, 2022 (UTC)

We do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Biography

It remains suspicious and puzxling that an outright failure at University was sufficient to make him write a two volume biography in 1925 and 1926 titled Mein Kampf, unless it was written elsewhere by someone else. Who would not want to put his (their) name as the true author(s)? Some half-brained somebodies from somewhere! WinOrVodka (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It does why? Do wp:rs make the claim he did not author them? Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Defeat and death - grammar tag

A grammar tag was placed on this GA rated article in this section. The edit summary states - "see article talk page". However, there is no new addition of explanation for the tag added to the talk page. So, before removal, it would be helpful to know specifically why it has been placed on the article, as to this section to see if something needs to be tended to, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

As written, in one long sentence, it made no sense: "While news of Hitler's death spread quickly, he was not issued a death certificate until 1956, owing to the difficulties of legally ascertaining his death largely upon eyewitness testimony, resulting in it being filed as an assumption of death" After the first clause, it requires the passive tense, i.e. "While news of Hitler's death spread quickly, no death certificate was issued until 1956." The rest of the material from Joachimsthaler's Preface can probably be summarised in one or two sentences. For example: "The delay arose because of the difficulty in legally establishing his death through eyewitness testimony, and as a result it was officially recorded as 'an assumption of death'." The 1956 newspaper report from the Süddeutsche Zeitung reads

Registration Office certifies Hitler’s death.
Berlin (SZ)—As of Friday 28 December 1956 Hitler is legally dead. His name is now entered under No 29,050 in the ‘Register of Declared Dead’, which Records Office I in Berlin-Dahlem maintains for the Federal Republic and West Berlin. According to the still valid registration law of 1937, Hitler is entered in the records as ‘Fuhrer and Reichs Chancellor’. His demise is entered as an ‘assumption of death’ permanently since none of the more than 40 witnesses interrogated ever saw his body [this is not true]. The declaration by the Federal Court of Berchtesgaden dated 25 October 1956 has been legally binding since 3 December.

Perhaps partially quoting this newspaper report might be the best approach. I don't have any strong feelings. Mathsci (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have re-written the content and removed the tag. There's no need to add too much detail on the death in this article, as we have a separate detailed article at Death of Adolf Hitler. — Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Mathsci, thanks for the explanation and Diannaa, the c/e looks good. Cheers to you, Kierzek (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)