Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64

German politician?

It seems unnecessary to start the article with "German politician". I'd like to remove those two words. This would make the article start with "...was the leader of the..." Any objections? Andrew327 15:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hitler spent 14 years attempting to achieve power before he became chancellor and then the dictator of Nazi Germany. Leaving out "politician" essentially makes those years unaccounted for. Granted, "politician" is perhaps too conventional a word to describe someone like Hitler. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and add "political agitator" to the description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not follow Joseph Stalin's lead and use the phrase "was a German revolutionary and..."? Hitler did attempt to lead a revolution against the German government? Just my two cents because "agitator" suggests that he was largely alone or unpopular in his actions, which sadly he was not.--White Shadows New and improved!
A good point. I've added "revolutionary" (rather than replacing "political agitator" with it), because after the Beer Hall Putsch and the time he spent in prison, Hitler decided that the Nazis would forgo taking power through violent overthrow and would do so by legal means, but they didn't stop political agitation., using the SA to create social chaos which people then reacted against, incorrectly ascribing it to the communists.
BTW, I'm well aware that these are BOLD edits, so I'm prepared for potential reversion and discussion, all I ask is that editors give the changes serious consideration, and perhaps come up with other options for the rather bland, understated and not-quite-on-the-nose "politician". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
He spent most of his political career prior to the takeover as the leader of the Nazi party. I think "politician" and "revolutionary" are superfluous. The best thing, I think, is to look at how RS -- especially his main biographers -- describe him in their ledes. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Because they are -- unlike Wikipedia articles -- books and not encyclopedia entries, biographies rarely start off with a straight-forward statement such as "Rudy Gorgonzola was a record-holding mountaineer and composer of music for the banjo," so I'm not sure how useful that advice would be. Kershaw, for instance, begins "The first of many strokes of good fortune for Adolf Hitler took place thirteen years before he was born"; Fest with "All through his life he made the strongest efforts to conceal as well as to glorify his own personality"; and Bullock with "Adolf Hitler was born at half past six on the evening of 20 April 1889, in the Gasthof zum Pommer, an inn in the small town of Braunau on the River Inn which forms the frontier between Austra and Bavaria." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You make a good point. Maybe I was thinking of the back covers more than the opening pages. I agree with your earlier assessment that "politician" (although accurate) seems way too conventional a term for the lede. He also, of course, was a revolutionary, though a case could be made that Lenin and other Communist leaders are more "deserving" of the term because they were explicit about seeking to wipe out the status quo whereas Hitler harped more on "restoring" Germany. Look back at the talk archives for guidance; the lead sentence has been discussed extensively through the years. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "revolutionary" seems to fit more easily on the Communists than on Hitler, but, in fact, he and the Nazis did talk pretty consistently about the "National Socialist revolution" they desired, and then after Hitler came to power, the SA agitated for a "second revolution", which, of course, was one of the reasons that the SA leadership was wiped out in the Night of the Long Knives. Although you're right that Hitler talked quite a bit about restoring Germany's greatness, he wasn't essentially looking for a literal return to some previously existing socio-political order, but wanted to create an entirely new one from the "best" elements of the past combined with entirely new and very modern "scientific" elements. His desire to create that unique mixture makes him a true revolutionary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I am agreeable to the present wording and believe it describes him over the course of time. Kierzek (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like consensus might already be against me on this one, but I think we should not use that word without a source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Diannaa you raise a good point, it should be RS cited and if one cannot be found, I would be agreeable to it being changed accordingly. I don't have time to look right now. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Diannaa:, I'm reasonably certain I can come up with a source for either "revolutionary" or "political agitator". Which one concerned you, or was it both? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Both, since both are in use in the article! Thanks BMK. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a go at it later today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've added sources, but I'm not entirely satisfied with them, so I'm going to continue to do some research. I've also ordered Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary? to see what conclusions the author comes to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The word ya'all are looking for his "demagogue." Political agitator? Tell it to the Six Million. 76.14.112.104 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
That would be a good word to use instead of "political agitator", if you have a source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
See the quote on my my user page. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
First saw this when it was posted, and totally support its use. Glad to see colleagues reactions too. Can we not use Kershaw's quote? Seems a a start. Demagogue is perfect. Irondome (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Demagogue is perfect. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I personally prefer the word "demagogue" to "political agitator". Political agitator just strikes me as someone who isn't really all that relevant...an outsider who just makes a fuss over things without actually ever wielding power. A demagogue is a much better description of Hitler, especially when we take into account that his oratory skills were vital in his ability to seize control of Germany in time.--White Shadows New and improved!
was Hitler a political revolutionary--yes but Schoenbaum focuses on a different issue--whether NSDAP caused a a social revolution)) Martyn Housden (2002). Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary?. Routledge. pp. 2–3 has much deeper coverage --see pp2-4 at https://books.google.com/books?id=HPKFAgAAQBAJ Rjensen (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we should switch "political agitator" to "demagogue" using Kershaw as the source. Since the amendment has 5 supports so far, I am going to change it right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to object - if anyone was a demagogue, Hitler surely was -- but I will provide my thinking on it, just for the record.
It may seem odd to say about a man who perhaps more closely approached pure evil than anyone in modern history (with Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot close behind him), but I didn't want to use "demagogue" in the lede sentence because it is, essentially, a value judgement, whereas "revolutionary", "political agitator" and "politician" are all fairly straight-forward descriptions of what he did. I would not have objected to using "demagogue" later in the lede, even combined with something on the order of "According to so-and-so, Hitler was the most evil man to rise to lead a major country in the 20th century" (or whatever equivalent of that can be found). I don't mind value judgments such as that near the end (or at the end) of the lede, but I think to have them in the opening sentence is less encyclopedic and more tabloidish than is ideal.
Of course, given the consensus here, I'm not going to change anything, I just wanted to say why I didn't jump on the "demagogue" bandwagon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I fully take your point BMK, however it could be said that the term "demagogue" is actually rather restrained. Rjensen (talk)'s link refers to Hitler as a "revolutionary". However there is at least one account of a deeper, almost messianic pseudo-religious conversion experience in the text given, where an individual recounts attending a meeting This can be confirmed in countless sources which could be cited. The sense of a German messiah, a spiritual awakening in the German Volk, a return to pre-Judeo-Christian values, a blood and soil tribalism, a pagan worldview implanted on one of the most industrialised and advanced peoples on the planet. This is disturbing and creepy stuff. Yet countless contemporary and post-war sources would validate it. Hitler was beyond a demagogue. He was the high priest of the fetid 19th century philosophical racial pseudo-science which reached its culmination in the works of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He was more of a shamen, who in his speeches visited other realms and returned with his revelations. Was Hitler a revolutionary? Yes. The 13 years of the Third Reich saw greatly enhanced social mobility, primarily through the aegis of the Nazi Party, saw unprecedented state control and utilisation of national resources, and a complete upheaval of traditional structures such as the judiciary, the control of the family in nurturing youth and a complete re-ordering of a society purely based on a evil and illogical concept of "race". I would say the use of the term demagogue is frankly, rather tame. Irondome (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
{ec} Yes, I completely agree with your analysis. As I said, I think the addition of "demagogue" to the lede is an improvement, I just wouldn't have put it in the lede sentence, but the editorial consensus to do so is one I can certainly live with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing short of calling Hitler pure evil will ultimately do from a moral perspective...but Wikipedia is about enlightening people and providing them with information. I think that at the beginning of the lead, calling him a "German revolutionary" and "politician" are both acceptable phrases to use in the opening sentences as they are both verifiable accurate statements that have no moral qualifications attributed to them, and if a consensus exists to also add in the phrase "demagogue", then I say we make that change. In order to strike a balance between explaining what Hitler literally was and what Hitler did in the context of human decency and morality, I support the proposition that we add in some value-based statements later on in the lead, such as the numerous references by writers and historians throughout the 20th and 21st centuries who described Hitler and his actions/views as "evil". I think there's a mention to that phrase later on in the article itself actually. If we can take that and also add a variation of it to the lead, I think we may solve the problem of what to call him in the opening paragraphs.--White Shadows New and improved!
I would agree with that approach entirely. Maybe a new section, even a new article even. But it's a tough issue, on many levels. Irondome (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Do we have an article dealing with Morality and Nazism? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I want to make one final bid for a stripped-down lede sentence, mainly because I have a hard-to-articulate (though I'll give it a shot) aversion to labeling Hitler a "revolutionary" so high up in the article. What's wrong with simply "Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ]; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945"? My problem with "revolutionary" is not based on a lack of RS; clearly it's an accurate term for Hitler. I feel, however, that over the years the word has become more identified with positive traits (innovation, ground-breaking, pioneering, etc.), and I'd like to do everything within reason to distance Hitler from those connotations. Later on, the article goes into detail about the literally earth-shattering impact of his ideas and policies -- and that's fine, because it contextualizes them. Bottom line, there's no WP policy preventing us from calling Hitler a revolutionary in the lede. But does that mean we should do it? Scaleshombre (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
That is a good point, but keep in mind that Stalin's article also calls him a revolutionary in the lead, and his regime is usually linked to Hitler's as among the most brutal and evil forms of tyranny to ever take root on this earth. Stalin is routinely listed alongside Hitler as one of the most important, yet also evil, met in history. Calling Stalin a "revolutionary" in the traditional sense is also an accurate statement as he participated in the revolution which brought down the Russian Empire. Likewise, calling Hitler a "revolutionary" is also an accurate statement as he tried to lead one against the Wiemar Republic, before ultimately working to seize power at the ballot box. Even then, the Nazi Party routinely referred to the "National Socialist Revolution" as a thing that happened, and within the party there were calls for a "second revolution" against the non-communist elements of German society after the Nazis took over. From a purely historical analysis, I think it's an accurate statement that Hitler was a revolutionary...not in an idealistic sense, but rather from the perspective that he sought to overthrow the previous order in Germany and replace it wit his own, and he resorted so several means in order to achieve that end.--White Shadows New and improved!

If you read the "Legacy" section, you will see that the moral aspect of both Hitler and the Nazi regime are dealt with; for example: "Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral". And while I agree personally that he was "evil", we do have to present it according to the RS sources and in a non-passionate way. And I must note that User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris quote from Kershaw on his user page is an excellent perspective of Hitler and Germany. In addition, I don't believe the lede sentence should be "stripped down", it gives a summary of the man to the general reader and frankly is the part that shows up on Google search. Further, as some of you will remember, the lede was worked on and worked on and reached by consensus, with even a part going to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. The recent added words of description are appropriate and RS cited. Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The word "revolutionary" has a lot of connotations both positive and negative and I am therefore not in favor of its inclusion. As the current consensus appears to be to leave it in, I have re-ordered the three descriptors, putting "politician" first and "revolutionary" last. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe the re-order of words is better to convey the importance of each; and as far as including the word "revolutionary", I believe it should be included, but with that said, if consensus changes given the connotations of the word that can be drawn, I will not object to its removal. Kierzek (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I have received the Housden book, Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary?, and have replaced the citation to pages 2-3 (where Housden states the scope of his study, without providing any conclusion) with a cite to pages 184-197, in which Housden firmly concludes from the evidence of the rest of the book that Hitler was, indeed, a revolutionary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Somehow or another, this article has slipped off my watchlist, so I haven't noticed above discussions. Re the additions to the opening sentence - there are probably innumerable nouns that could be reffed to describe AH, the ones we choose need to be the ones most widely used in best sources, and the ones that produce a clear readable lead. Following from that, I endorse the use of demagogue - which seems one of the things he is best known for, but question 'revolutionary'. Is this really what he is best known for? Is the meaning of the word clear to the reader - who is as likely to romantically associate the word with Che - as with AH's brutal retrogressive regime. Finally, does the whole sentence read better with the addition of this word? I think not. In fact the demagogue page actually says "Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so." Isn't that a particular flavour of 'revolutionary'? ie the two words are borderline tautologouus in context. I think the real purpose of para one in this article is to get fairly speedily and concisely to why AH is really notable ie Fuhrer, Nazi party, WWII, Holocaust. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
If we're going with what he is best known for, we should use "warmonger" and "mass murderer". I don't endorse that. The lede sentence should be what best describes him, not what he is "best known for". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
"warmonger" is not used in serious writing. see Who are you calling a 'warmonger'? - Los Angeles Times www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kirchick-warmonger-20170809-story.html Aug 9, 2017 - Warmonger belongs to the idiom of propaganda, and its purpose is not to clarify but to condemn. Rjensen (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I wouldn't endorse using it. My point is that by setting out to use what he is "best known for", we limit ourselves to the popular understanding of the subject, whereas if we strive yo use words which "best describe him:, we can rely on what scholarly reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Just a thought here, but I think counter-revolutionary best fits the political trajectory of Hitler. His whole political ethos was to turn back the clock, to an idealised (to him) state of politics, the arts, gender equality, etc etc. In short he was a counter-progressive who seemed to perceive all liberal humanistic progress as a Jewish "plot" to weaken what in his warped world-view was "the white race" and "European culture", although this view was a disturbingly common perception during his formative years. The perception of the Weimar Republic as being a revolutionary creation in terms of the previous status quo, also explains much of his early political activity especially 1920-23. I'm getting quite a few hits on googling "Hitler as counter-revolutionary". They may well be worth checking out. Not had time to study them in depth as in 3.25am in London and this definition just occurred to me, and I am bound for bed. Thoughts? B.T.W the article Counter-revolutionary needs a serious improvement I.M.O :).Irondome (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
In order to be a "counter-revolutionary", there first has to be a revolution that you are countering. I don't think the formation of the Weimar Republic can be considered to be a revolution in any sense of the word. Certainly, it was a major change in the governance of Germany, from semi-autocratic personal rule by the Emperor to a democratic republic, and certainly it occurred when there was a lot of revolutionary activity going on, but all of that revolutionary activity was Communistic in nature -- no one was marching in the streets for the formation of a democracy. The Weimar Republic just sort of filled a political void when the Kaiser abdicated. There was a Reichstag, and Ministers, and they just kind of took over. Hardly a revolution.
Now the Freikorps who put down the Communist revolutions, they were counter-revolutionaries, and many ex-Freikorps members later joined the Nazi Party, but also, the Weimar Republic used the Freikorps to put down the Communist uprisings, so (at least by implication) that would make the Wiemar Republic counter-revolutionaries - but I don't think anyone would go for that description either -- they were just attempting to secure their existence.
No, I think you need to try to take a look at the Housden book, which pretty conclusively examines every aspect of what it means to be a revolutionary and concludes that Hitler was one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(e/c) I hear you BMK, however check [[1]] for a (albeit left wing) though interesting analysis of Kershaw. I think you are under-estimating the revolutionary birth of the Weimar Republic which seems to have affected Hitler hugely. I think this is something to pursue. I have struck my previous comment upthread supporting the idea of H as a revolutionary. I think we are using the terms revolutionary, and indeed counter-revolutionary in too narrow a way. This goes beyond a classical Marxist definition. A volkish/racial counter-revolution is closer to the mark. I think this idea deserves some exploration. In the final analysis, I would prefer revolutionary or indeed counter-revolutionary to be removed if no consensus is reached. Revolutionary is, I believe, distorting the true character of that man, unless we can find sources which go beyond traditional Marxist definitions and analysis of that sexy term"revolutionary". I have checked out the Housden links and I do find it slightly strained to be honest. Irondome (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) By the "Housden links", do you mean the original citation (which was to pages 2-3, IIRC), or the end of the book that I replaced it with? It was reading Housden's concluding chapter that convinced me in a way that the initial citation didn't quite. He's pretty thorough-going in his analysis.
If I'm reading you correctly, I think that you may be a bit prejudiced by the traditional reading of "revolutionary" to mean "leftist revolutionary", because that's what we usually see in the modern world, and then the rightists would be the "counter-revolutionaries", but there really is nothing to stop a revolution from being of the far-right and not the far-left. The Weimar Republic was a middlish polity, even though it was initially led by the SPD, and Hitler wanted to overthrow it, at first from without, with the Beer-Hall Putcsh, and then from within, using outside violence from the SA as a fomenting and disorienting agency. His goals were not those of the monarchists who preceded Weimar, nor those of the Prussian militarists, he truly envisioned a completely new kind of society, albeit framing it as a return to some halcyon era of the past. He wanted a country that was modern, scientific, Darwinian (in the sense of social Darwinism), ethnically pure, and "moral" in the perverted ethos that made mass-murder a laudable activity. It was a genuinely perverse revolution he was seeking, to create something that had never been seen before.
I still think "revolutionary" is more apt than "counter-revolutionary". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
my apologies for accidentally erasing Irondome's comments. He suggests "find sources which go beyond traditional Marxist definitions" it's not a new idea --see 1) Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary? by Martyn Housden appeared back in 2002; 2) Revolution from the Right: Politics, Class, and the Rise of Nazism in Saxony, 1919-1933 (Brill 1997) by Benjamin Lapp is a strong regional study; 3) The Nazi Party 1919-1945: A Complete History https://books.google.com/books?isbn=192963157X by Dietrich Orlow - 2013 argues that Nazism was indeed a revolutionary movement. 4) Martin Collier & ‎Philip Pedley - 2005 - ‎state that "Much of the Nazi propaganda in 1933 spoke in terms of a 'Nazi revolution'. The idea of the Nazi movement as a revolutionary one was adhered to by all branches of the movement." p 32; 5) Hajo Holborn - 1973 - ‎"But in the course of the National Socialist revolution it soon became evident that Hitler was not master of the forces he had unleashed. In mid-July 1933 he made an attempt to halt the revolution [by purging the SA]. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the high quality and thoughtful feedback on this topic colleagues. I would suggest however, that we are seeing the NSDAP as a single entity in the period of Hitlers release from prison (hotel?) and his re-assertion of power in terms of the effectively socialist wing of the party, obviously the Strasser brothers and a young Goebbels, and Roem and the SA, and the more "conservative" elements of the party. In this H was an internal counter-revolutionary, in that he progressively stifled the "socialist" elements of the Nazi programme, while reinforcing the conservative aspects of the party. In this sense he was an internal counter-revolutionary of the party. My completely unsupported sense is that he steered the NSDAP onto a conservative path progressively after his release from Landsberg. Deliberately courting the army and business, and turning away the party and eventually indeed physically killing the preponents of a "socialist" nazi vision. I would argue this is the model of a counter-revolutionary, as indeed was Stalin, in progressively destroying the concept of Trotskyite internationalism. The "revoutionary" aspects of Nazism were kept essentially as window dressing. With proper sourcing and appropriate notation in mainspace, I think this would improve the article. Interesting dialogue. Irondome (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, When I used the phrase "what he is best known for", I presumed that we were talking about the aspects of AH which are covered most by best WP:RS, ie WEIGHT - not not how most ordinary people refer to him - which as others say would probably produce a string of near expletives. Most of the names taking part in this discussion I recognise as those of very experienced editors, some I know to have forgotten more about AH than I ever even knew, so I thought it unnecessary to explain the obvious to such well-versed editors.

I still see no evidence that AH is primarily known as a political revolutionary, see little explicit content in the article as to the nature of that revolution, and see no simple way of elucidating the nature of the revolution he brought about, without which the term is valueless IMO. That it is factually true that AH and Nat-Soc overturned the existing political order seems indisputable. What this led to is the primary subject of continuing academic interest IMO, not the overturn itself. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think you are, again, missing the point. "Best known for" is about popular perceptions, so I would agree, that "revolutionary" is not what he's best known for. But we're an encyclopedia, not a reflection of popular prejudices, and we should go with what best describes Hitler, whether or not those descriptioins are part of popular perceptions or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
"I presumed that we were talking about the aspects of AH which are covered most by best WP:RS, ie WEIGHT - not not how most ordinary people refer to him" Which part of that sentence do you find difficult to comprehend? What about my post or our previous interactions suggests to you that I would defend including "popular prejudices"? Mis-understanding what someone has posted once was forgivable, though crass, doing it a second time is perverse and does little to advance the discussion - but cheerfully ignores the central points made.
This article was on my watchlist for about 3 years - during which I hope I sometimes made useful contributions to discussions - please credit me with a modicum of intelligence and basic familiarity with P&G. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Useful clarification: Hitler was, after renouncing his Austrian citizenship, stateless until 1932 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einb%C3%BCrgerung_Adolf_Hitlers Maybe the en:wp should open a separate article about AH's desparate tries in changing his citizenship, like the German Wikipedia?
This edit IMO largely 'fixes' the use of 'revolutionary'. The text at least now makes sense of 'in what sense' he was revolutionary. I still think that the 'pan-German' element is more useful than the 'revolutionary' term, but no longer find the use confusing or vague. Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hitler as "soldier"

Right now, the infobox lists Hitler's professions as "soldier" and "politician". I have a question about "soldier".

Hitler's service in World War II doesn't make him a professional soldier, even though he was a volunteer, but he was employed by the Army for a short period after the war, to indoctrinate soldiers and to spy on some of the many right-wing nationalistic groups -- this eventually led to Hitler joining the proto-Nazi Party. So my question is: is this short period of time sufficient to list his profession as "soldier"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Arguably his role in WWII could be described as 'soldier', though 'military commander/head of the army' or somesuch would more clearly convey that role. I agree that his role in WWI doesn't deserve mention in the info box. Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. Some of the various roles he took upon himself involved replacing career soldiers (i.e. high-ranking Generals), but taking those positions didn't make him a soldier, it just meant that the Leader (essentially a civlian position) was expanding his responsibilities. Deciding between MacArthur and Nimitz didn't make Roosevelt a soldier, nor did the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan make Truman one. LBJ's micromanaging of the Vietnam War could easily be seen as usurping the proper role of the military, but it, too, did not make him a soldier.
No, I think "soldier" should not be listed as one of Hitler's professions, especially since "artist" or "commercial artist" isn't listed to cover the period of time that Hitler survived by painting pictures of buildings in Vienna and Munich before WWI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
He was a lousy military leader, especially as the war turned against Germany - nonetheless he was involved in military decision making in ways that FDR and Churchill were not - his word was law there as elsewhere. I'm not trying to award him some kind of medal and I don't think 'soldier' is very informative, but it is a matter of historical record that he was intimately involved in military decisions throughout WWII (luckily for us since he consistently made suicidal ones towards the end). Pincrete (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I don;t disagree with anything you say, except that these actions made him a :soldier". It did not. It made him a civilian meddling in military affairs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
His WWI service is not significant enough to be recorded in both of our opinions. The only question is whether the role he played as an active military decision maker in WWII is worth noting and how best to describe it - 'soldier' doesn't really convey that. A "civilian meddling in military affairs" may be your personal judgement, but that is akin to saying he "wasn't a politician, simply a nobody meddling in politics" - somebody who is extensively involved and able to enforce his will, even if we privately think he was "meddling" in things he increasingly failed to realistically grasp the implications of - is de facto a military leader, or somesuch. I have no strong opinion either way as to whether that military role in WWII should be recorded as 'profession', simply wanted to point out that this may be why 'soldier' was added originally. Pincrete (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Basically every public figure of any note who has military service and that service is related to their station is listed as such in their infobox. See Bob Dole,John Kerry, Jim Webb, Anthony Eden, Clement Atlee, George W Bush, Helmut Schmidt, et. al. Why wouldn't Hitler's military service record be included, especially in light of its relevance to his biographical history? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Those examples which I have looked at, don't list 'soldier' as 'profession'. which was the original question here. Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hitler's Office

A mini edit war appears to be going on as to whether AH was "Führer of the German Reich" or "Führer of Nazi Germany" ditto "Chancellor of ....". The long-term stable versions appear to be either "of German Reich", or plain "of Germany".

I'm of the opinion that it is a bit pointless to use "of Nazi Germany" in the infobox, since it bears no relationship to actual title. "Theresa May is the British PM" is legitimate shorthand in text, but infobox should list approx. actual title, rather than an informal description of the office. I'm unsure of best translation of AH's offices, so am bringing here. Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The infobox is for giving information quickly to the reader, and is not intended for formality. "Nazi Germany" is much more understandble to most readers than any other possible variation, and it should therefore stay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
British Queen?, American President?, Irish PM? are all more accessible than the titles we actually give in their infoboxes. Ditto almost any infobox I have ever seen and the ones I just checked including Mao, May, Stalin. Anyone with the necessary level of literacy to read the lead of AH, almost certainly already knows that AH was leader of the Nazi regime. What purpose does the infobox fulfil if it does not give the 'job title' as it is normally rendered in English in good sources - rather than colloquial speech? Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
His actual title was Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and Reich chancellor; Shirer page 226). The infobox said "Führer of Germany" and "Chancellor of Germany" when it passed GA back in 2011. "Führer of the German Reich" has no historical basis, so I think we should go with "Führer of Nazi Germany" / "Chancellor of Nazi Germany" which while it was not his actual title is much more understandable for the reader than the actual title or "Führer of the German Reich", which is as far as I can tell never used and just seems wrong for that reason. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I would support "of Germany" as a reasonable translations of his actual title. Of Nazi Germany to me is implying a title which simply never existed and is misleading as it is alluding to a regime as though it were a place. Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I also concur with the use "of Germany" as reasonable translations of his actual title. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I was the first to change his title from "Fuhrer of the German Reich" to "Fuhrer of Nazi Germany". The reason I did this is because the Wikipedia page that refers to the "German Reich" is specifically named "Nazi Germany". Naming his title to "Fuhrer of Germany" or "Chancellor of Germany" implies that Adolf Hitler was a leader in today's modern Germany- to an uninformed reader. While Fuhrer of Nazi Germany was not necessarily an official title, it is concise and factually correct. As such I am changing it to Fuhrer of Nazi Germany and Chancellor of Nazi Germany. CatcherStorm talk 05:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

But "Nazi Germany" is a term used to describe a period of German history, not the official name of the state. It is inaccurate to use the term in the title of the office and, above all, absolutely redundant when the topic of the article is Adolf Hitler—of course it is Nazi Germany. --Hazhk (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hazhk You're assuming that whoever is reading the article is going to know that Adolf Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. A grade schooler who's diving into World War II may not know that. The article needs to be written assuming that the reader has no idea what the article is about. CatcherStorm talk 06:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In which case the relevance of "Nazi Germany" is completely lost on them. As Chancellor, Hitler occupied exactly the same office as his predecessor, von Papen. "Führer of Germany" may be justified. --Hazhk (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I haven't commented on this recently, out of respect for Diannaa's and Kierzek's view. I would prefer "Nazi Germany", because it's the COMMONNAME we use in all our article titles, but I do understand that it was not the official title of anything, just the descriptive name that most of the world is familiar with -- just as "Weimar Republic" is not the official name of anything, just the name that it's universally known by. On the other hand, defaulting in this case to simply "Germany" doesn't bother me all that much because, well, after all, it's Hitler, and Hitler means Nazi and Nazi means Hitler to the vast majority of people, so if we say that he was the Fuhrer of Germany or the Chancellor of Germany, I suspect there's very few people who are going to think that "Germany" refers to anything expect Nazi Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The distinction which I think needs to be made is between infobox and text. It would be pedantry to avoid 'British PM' when referring to Theresa May in text - but what would be the point of repeating that use in her infobox? Giving formal title in infobox appears to be the convention on 'English' job titles. Obviously that does not work with non-English titles, but some balance between accuracy/formality and accessibility needs to apply. Jo Stalin may well be commonly known as 'Russian Communist leader' (or somesuch), but what would be the point of using that in the infobox, when we know it is wrong on two counts - the country and the title? Surely the purpose of the infobox is to impart some factual information - rather than let someone know thay are on the right page? This guy, is NOT called 'Dutch PM', even though it is probably how he is most commonly known to Eng. speakers (there is a redirect from the 'commonname'). Pincrete (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
He was Chancellor of the country during that time; the name of the country was Germany. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I concur with Beyond My Ken. CatcherStorm talk 23:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
CatcherStorm, you may agree with BMK, but there is no consensus as of yet for you to revert back to your preference as you did here [2]; which, has since been reverted. You have been around long enough to know that. Let it play out. Kierzek (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought I would drop by and add my thoughts. My initial thought is that no consensus for change has yet been reached. Interesting points made, but no consensus. I broadly agree with this: Nazi Germany to me is implying a title which simply never existed and is misleading as it is alluding to a regime as though it were a place. Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Germany as a nation has existed since 1871. Germany under NSDAP dictatorship was still just Germany. I note Wilhelm Marx and Gustav Stresemann are both designated in their infoboxes as "Chancellor of Germany". "Weimar Republic" is linked in much smaller type under their main titles. As a compromise to aid consensus, I would suggest we follow the same format with der fuhrer, as a last resort. I would strongly suggest we just leave hitler's infobox as it is at the moment. Fuhrer of Germany says it all. I would suggest the only period in modern German history which would demand such a designation of leadership descriptiom is the period of post-war partition when the "two Germanys", the FRG and the DDR were truly separate entities. Irondome (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
There was a recent discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany (unfortunately, I forget where) whether to refer to the Weimar Republic as just that or simply as Germany and with a link to the Weimar Republic. It was decided that the latter was better. As the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany, I should like to support the use of "Chancellor of Germany" to stay consistent with the consensus of WikiProject Germany. –Vami_IV✠ 11:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Which, as I'm sure you well know, is not binding on anybody. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah the whole "slapping titles on myself" thing isn't working that great for me ;) –Vami_IV✠ 02:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
To clarify (several hours later), I'm unsure if you are refuting me as Coordinator or consensus made by a handful of editors at WP:G. –Vami_IV✠ 07:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no reason to doubt that you're the coordinator of WikiProject Germany. No, I was referring to the fact that editing guidelines promuigated by individual wikiprojects are not in any way mandatory or binding, perhaps even less so then ordinary editing guidelines, which at least are the consensus view of a broader cross-section of editors (although not necessarily more editors numerically). Your comment provided the editors here with information that we didn't have before, and you made your own opinion known as well, and both of those are good things, but the consensus of WikiProject Germany's editors is not determinative -- that's all I meant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
It is more accurate to say Nazi Germany. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Is consensus clear here yet? Again, I think it should be "Nazi Germany". CatcherStorm talk 21:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I personally prefer "Nazi Germany", but the clear consensus here is for "Germany". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I don't think there is clear consensus here. I see several arguments for one side and several for the other. Neither side has overwhelming support. The discussion could continue. CatcherStorm talk 04:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's place and time of death

Adolf Hitler died in 1962 in Argentina Wllwiser9 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Prove it. Prove it so well that the overwhelming majority of professionally-published mainstream academic sources go "whoops, we never should have said he committed suicide in a bunker in Germany in 1945." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request, 28 June 2018

Greetings! The following categories are currently unsupported and must be either removed from the article, or sourced and included in the prose, per the provisions of WP:CATV.

Your explanations are not sufficient, and some are outright stupid. This appears to be a pro-Nazi request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Please explain how it is "clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." That is all I am asking. There is presently no verifiable information in the article which supports these categories. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
"Your explanations are not sufficient, and some are outright stupid. This appears to be a pro-Nazi request." Wikipedia:Civility is a policy. Don't reply to a request for sources with insults. Dimadick (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
If a request is stupid and has the distinct appearance of attempting to ameliorate the evils of Hitler and Nazism, I will say so, and saying so is not an insult or a violation of policy, it is an observation of the quality of the request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request, 28 June 2018

Please tag this article with {{Category unsourced}} because of the seven categories which are not clearly supported by verifiable information in the article, per WP:CATV. Discussion on interpretation: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#What does WP:CATV really mean? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented to support the contention that the categories above are unwarranted. This request, like the one above, appears to be profoundly ahistorical, and driven by a personal POV. Beyond My Ken (talk)
What evidence of absence would meet your threshold? The categories are unwarranted because there is found no evidence which can support them. The WP:BURDEN is not on me, it is on you. Once again, I request that you quote to me, from the article, supporting information that clearly warrants membership in the categories. I could not find any, or I would not be requesting their removal. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
This a well vetted GA rated article; no, it should not be tagged as such. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It is true that the article does not directly back up each category but I see this as just WP:Wikilawyering. It is accepted by all that Hitler led the Nazi Party and was Fuhrer of Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was indeed against all the groups suggested by the categories and actively repressed them. I hope that is uncontroversial too. So, to deny these categories on the Adolf Hitler article is to suggest that the Nazi Party sometimes pursued major policies substantially distinct from those that Hitler himself advocated. That's pure BS. The whole point of Hitler being Fuhrer was that the entire Nazi state was the embodiment of Hitler's will. His apologists can't pretend that Nazi Germany had an agenda distinct from that of Hitler himself on any significant matter. If Nazi Germany was, to pick an example, anti-Mason (and it was) then it is perfectly reasonable to say that Hitler was anti-Mason. Now I'm pretty sure that anybody who has the stomach to trawl through all of Hitler's rantings will find something to back each category up but I also do not think that we need to do this.
The only room for discussion I see here is on "pan-Arabism". Hitler advocated this as a solely tactical move to destabilise the British. He certainly never gave a hoot about the Arabs on any point of sincere principle. Does insincere pan-Arabism count as pan-Arabism? I think it is reasonable to say that if he advocated it then the tag is valid. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
You are forgetting something important. Wikipedia:Categorization of people demands that we "Categorize by defining characteristics". Are any of these defining in this case? Dimadick (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
And you are forgetting that fervent disdain and hatred of all Untermenschen is a defining characteristic of Hitler's philosophy, as was the "coordination" of all religions. Hitler's regime continued to persecute Catholics in various ways even after the signing of the Concordat with the Papacy for instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I am already aware of it. We have entire articles on Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany and Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland. The problem is that the artile on Hitler neither links to them or even mentions them. Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Then the categories are correct, and CATV is an inadequate guideline (not policy), and can, in this instance, be ignored per WP:IAR, which is overriding policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you are the one arguing that we continue to omit and ignore documentation and description of Hitler's policies and beliefs such as these, when I am advocating that they be sourced (which they can) and described (which they are, even elsewhere in Wikipedia), per the policy we call WP:V. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Really? I find it interesting that you're attempting to remove categories which are well-known attributes of Hitler's views. I wonder why anyone would fight so hard to to that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
My wish is not that they be removed, and it is wholly disingenuous of you to accuse me of this. My wish is that the article comply with policy. In order to do this, there are a couple of options which have been suggested. Removing categories is a poor choice, it is the lazy way out; especially in these topics where membership is well-documented outside the article and clearly attested in sources. When I check articles for WP:CATV and WP:EGRS I attempt to salvage the categories by checking sources. But it seems the only way to get some attention for the necessary compliance of this WP:GA is to propose something drastic. I freely submit that I have no objection to restoring the categories once the required documentation is in place, inside this article. Your accusations have no basis. Now, leaving the categories in, as they are, is tantamount to baseless name-calling and unfair to the subject of the article, but also the readers, first and foremost. If I come here researching Pan-Arabism, I would be eager to know what Hitler thought and did about the concept, but I would be disappointed to find no information at all, neither here nor in the main topic article. Likewise for the other six categories: the cats are hanging out there, like drive-by tags or forgotten vestiges of a long-gone article revision, and nobody wants to cop to them in honesty. If you don't want to write substantive parts of the article, I can't induce you to do so, but you're defending a status quo that delineates a decidedly inferior article, and I could suggest that consideration on a WP:GAR, if that's what you'd rather do. You're defending an article that omits precisely the beliefs and behaviors that you seem so intent on portraying, yet I stand accused, for making suggestions for its improvement. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, whitewashing can take many forms and use many techniques. Hitler learned a similar lesson when the Beer-Hall Putsch failed and he decided that the Nazis would come to power through legal means, as well as extra-legal ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed off-topic comments. Please review WP:NOTFORUM and consider suggestions for article improvement which belong here. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And, as you can see, I have restored it, as it is relevant to the edit request you made. If you still think it should be removed per NOTAFORUM, start a discussion here and get a consensus, or, even better, log into your account and edit from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken has retaliated by removing my comments in an WP:EW which he prefers to discussing article content. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I was in the process of restoring my comments and yours as well when you interrupted with an additional comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC

There is consensus to remove these categories at this time. Those arguing to remove state that the categories are not defining, and that they do not meet the guideline WP:CATV. Those arguing to keep state that the information could easily be included; however, as I close this I can see no evidence that such an attempt has been made. Additionally, I will say that arguments based on the obviousness of certain information carry little weight. If something is obvious, it should be easy to source it. Finally, since this consensus is based in part on the lack of verifiability of these categories, consensus would need to be revisited (but may or may not be different) if and when information verifying these categories is added to the article. Vanamonde (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  1. Include support for these categories in the article prose and cite sources for them.
  2. Remove the categories from the article to comply with WP:CATV.
  3. Retain the status quo.

2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Remove The above categories are neither "clear(ly) from verifiable information in the article" or a "defining characteristic of a subject of the article", which are core components on the governing guideline. If, for example, a reader sees "persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians" in the cat and then attempts to find explanatory material in the article they won't find any. None of the arguments I've seen here so far are convincing enough to warrant ignoring the guideline and are largely built on the post hoc fallacy. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:Sofixit seems to be appropriate here. The above is a list of points (such as Hitler's contempt of Judeo-Christianity as a religion of slaves. According to Speer he much preferred Islam), which merely reflect areas for article improvement. This is a good opportunity to improve the article. Sources for almost all the above are out there. Instead of removing categories, why not find sources which support them, thererfore improving the article. Irondome (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we should remove the ones that are not defining characteristics per the guidelines. On that basis, all the cats listed in the RFC could be removed as well as some others that are not listed in the RFC such as "Anti-Serbian sentiment" and "Persecution of Serbs". We could add the category "Anti-Christian sentiment". I don't agree with Irondome's suggestion of leaving in unsourced stuff and expecting people to try to dig up supporting sources. I think material (including cats) needs to be sourced at the time it's added, otherwise don't add it. Also this article is already over-size, so we shouldn't be adding anything further that's not critical to understanding the subject. That's why we have sub-articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove I endorse everything said by Diannaa - anti-Christian, or anti-religious appear to be defining, but I see no good reason for listing every Christian group who were persecuted or vilified by AH. Lutherans were persecuted within Germany, almost every religious group in occupied territories were persecuted if they appeared to be, or threatened to be, a focus for dissent. It would be difficult to find many religious groups in any German or occupied territory that were not to some degree persecuted or vilified. Clearly broad categories like anti-semetic and 'racial-supremacist' are defining but I see no useful purpose in listing every religious, national, ethnic or social group who suffered. AH was probably anti-conservative, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-intellectual and despised all forms of modernism in the arts - but we need to have some cut-off-point. Another editor uses the term 'whitewash' below about removing some of these categories, but just as we would not wish to 'whitewash' AH, neither IMO is there any point in 'blacklisting' him by compiling the longest possible list of his 'sins', especially when these are not significantly elucidated within the article. I also endorse what Diannaa says about Irondome's 'Sofixit' argument, which might be good advice on many articles, but not this one. Adding (sourced) text in order to justify presence of categories seems upside-down logic. The text isn't there because the constraints of this article mean that murderous behaviour by AH, which (on other biogs) would justify inclusion, is relatively insignificant in proportion to the scale of AH's antipathies and actions. Similarly, unless we adopt the logic that AH was anti-every-nation whom he occupied or waged war with, anti-American is not justified as central or defining IMO. The quotes that people have come up with (describing US in terms of "Jews and blacks"), appear to me to endorse the "racial supremacist" and "anti-semetic" elements of AH, rather more than the centrality of his anti-Americanism. Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove – They just aren't defining characteristics. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment - Because I clearly have become somewhat overwrought about this, I'm going to abstain from !voting, but I will say that I think that someone who declared war on the United States when he wasn't obligated by treaty to do so seems easily to be categorized as "Anti-American" - and that's not even taking into account his comments about how the US was degraded by the influence of Jews and blacks. Most, if not all of these suggestions, seem to me to be profoundly ahistorical, considering Hitler's frequently expressed attitudes about the Catholic Church, Slavs of all kinds (including Ukrainians), Masons and so on, and the many actions he took against them. CATV, as a guideline, was never meant to be a mechanism for whitewashing a subject's biography by eliminating categories which have a vast amount of evidence behind them, but which, for one reason or another (such as keeping the article a reasonable length) don't have explicit references to them in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Ah, so if a vast amount of evidence exists, then we shall invoke WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace 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." This is a policy (like WP:V) not a guideline, which demands that we document what is in WP:RS. Omission of 'vast amounts of evidence' at the expense of other, less important aspects of the topic—especially when you could summarize these cats very succinctly in one sentence and link to their main articles and a couple citations—would seem to be the kind of whitewashing you're attempting to refer to. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Boy, you are really working overtime trying to whitewash this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I sympathise with the IP to this extent, putting someone into a category, but the article not supplying any information at all about why the person is in that category, is essentially a valueless, uninformative exercise. I'm not going to vote at present until I've heard arguments, but, since AH was anti-everyone-on-earth-except-'loyal'-Germans, including some of these categories seems fruitless. Yes he did declare war on US and conflated US with a world wide Jewish capitalist threat, but is being anti-US a defining feature of AH, given all the other ideologies, peoples and nations he despised and persecuted more? This article does suffer from 'category bloat', because of the huge number of categories which it is possible to justify. Are they all really usefully 'defining' and defined (in the sense of made clear within the article)? Pincrete (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments I think Pan-Arabism, Anti-Armenianism, and Anti-Masonry should be dropped. The rest should be kept, with the change suggested for Ukranian implemented. Hitler was opposed to the church, and attempted to introduce Paganism in some places. He was DEFINITELY Anti-American, once denouncing it as, quote: "A nation of Negroes and Jews." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Hitler was against all (non-conformists) who weren't part of 'his' plan (on 'his side')... if we were to continue this 'all-inclusive' category-inclusion rationale, one would have to indicate the Nazis were 'Anti-'almost everything but the Nazi movement. But, factually, that would be the case... I think that the thing to consider here is the informative value of such inclusion. TP ✎ ✓ 14:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment' "Anti-'almost everything but the Nazi movement" They killed fellow Nazis during the Night of the Long Knives, purged the Sturmabteilung (SA), and tried (and failed) to eliminate Strasserism and its supporters. All of these people were part of the Nazi movement, they just opposed Hitler's leadership of the movement. "Strasserism therefore became a distinct strand of Nazism that whilst holding on to previous Nazi ideals such as palingenetic ultranationalism and antisemitism, added a strong critique of capitalism and framed this in the demand for a more "socialist-based" approach to economics." Dimadick (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further rationalisation ?

I've removed the RfC categories listed in the RfC, at the same time I removed 'Ableism' and 'Action T4' replacing with Category:Nazi eugenics, which covers the same topic areas (actions against the disabled]]. I wonder if further rationalisation is possible, 'anti-Serbian sentiment' 'persecution of Serbs' seems to cover the same subject area. Ditto other national and religious groups.

I'm posting here as others may know the category structures better than I do. Pincrete (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit to parents in Infobox

@Beyond My Ken: I saw the note on the edit you reverted. I just wanted to say that my only change was moving his mother's name from the Infobox line for father to the one for mother, and his father's name from the line for mother to the one for father. I didn't see why the line for mother should say "Alois" and the one for father should say "Klara". Just so that's clear... Billmckern (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2018

88.151.223.210 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Adolf hitler was very funny to his family and friends
 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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Positive Christianity missing in religion section

How can the section on religious views not include some mention of Positive Christianity which is supported extensively in Nazi writings and in Mein Kampf? 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a separate article Religious views of Adolf Hitler, there is only room on this article for a short 'overview'. Anyhow, most historians think that 'Positive Christianity' was simply 'opportunistic', rather than a deep religious belief. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
A short overview that doesn't even include the term Positive Christianity isn't very encyclopedic when considering Nazi ideology, Hitler's speeches and Mein Kampf which all heavily mention Positive Christianity. If your going to do this poor of a job, why not just delete the section? I would edit it myself, just to make a mention without changing any context, but the article is locked. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Asked and answered above. Kierzek (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really. Any scholarly discussion of Hitler's religious beliefs would certainly require a thorough consideration of positive Christianity, which would certainly be WP:DUE in any article that covers the subject. It seems a fair question to ask about content especially since I have not expressed any bias, or any view at all on the topic, other than to note the exclusion of positive Christianity seems unencyclopedic. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The article which needs to cover 'positive Christianity' is 'Religious views'(I believe it does) - in a two or three para section here, there is not room for more than the briefest overview of AH's religious life - which is mainly that he was fairly irreligious! Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary comma in first paragraph

The first paragraph says:

"During his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland in September 1939, and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust."

The comma after "September 1939" should be deleted. The sentence should read:

"During his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland in September 1939 and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust."

Tejas Subramaniam (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording is good on its own and does not require any change. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

I HAVE FOUND NEW INFO Dankman meathead (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2018 (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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2018

Please add "the angry mustache model" as an alternative name for Adolf Hitler. 2601:805:500:8630:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: I believe this is a span request. However, if you are serious, and have a reliable source to support this name, please reopen this edit request. DannyS712 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hitler being German

Hi, a German here. Would you please, PLEASE remove the "Hitler was a GERMAN" out of the article? He was Austrian. People on the whole wide world are making this mistake. He. Was. Austrian. I sincerely ask you to change this. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frecklesjkr (talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

He moved to Germany in 1913 and obtained citizenship in 1932, so he was indeed a German citizen and resident for many years. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed here many times, and the consensus is that "German" is the more appropriate description. Hitler is not known for having been born (of German ethnicity, it must be said) in Austria, he is known for his activities in Germany as an adult. His loyalty was to Germany and not to Austria, as is shown by his dodging military service in Austria, only to sign with a Bavarian uniy of the German military to serve in World War I. Hitler considered himself to be a German, and his lasting impact on the world was as the head of the German Nazi Party and as the dictator of Nazi Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Frecklesjkr has a point to some degree, it's an omission to exclude his Austrian birth but it would also be an omission to exclude his German citizenship and his acceptance as German by the people of Germany. Hitler is known as one of the most infamous people in history more than that he is known as German. As he is so well-known, most people also known he was an Austrian-born leader of Germany. He is known as both Austrian and German. His dual Austrian-German identity is important as it informed his theory about uniting the German-speaking peoples and lead to Anschluss, which was a key event in the countdown to WWII and the Holocaust. For the Nazis, there was no difference between being Austrian and German. To work towards WP:CONS, I say the first line should say he was an Austrian-born leader of Germany.-Chumchum7 (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Opening of para 2 of lead "Hitler was born in Austria—then part of Austria-Hungary". His early Austrian history is covered fully, it simply isn't put into the opening sentence.Pincrete (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Austrian-German, or Austrian born German, would be the best label. Anyway, he is still technically Austrian even if he is affiliated with Germany- by blood he is Austrian. It's pretty misleading to label him as just German. Can we at least call him Austrian-German? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:4301:20e:7570:e02:5713:ea62 (talk • contribs) 21:51, August 22, 2018 (UTC)
By blood? It's attitudes like that that led to the racist killings under his leadership. Please take your archaic views somewhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
AH was a German citizen at the point he became notable, and it is as German leader that he is best known. It is standard practice to use 'notable', rather than 'born' nationality as the 'defining' nationality - his Austrian birth is covered in para 2 of the lead and in 'early life'. 'Austrian' is of course further complicated by Austria not existing in its present form at that time. Pincrete (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Austrians are ethnic Germans. Hitler was an Austrian and a German. Alan Bullock wrote:

Hitler, of course, was a German, but he was born a subject of the Habsburg Empire, where Germans had played the leading for centuries. However, with Bismarck's creation in the 1860s of a German Empire based on Prussia, from which the Austrian Germans were excluded, the latter found themselves forced to defend their historic claim to rule against the growing demands for equality of the Czechs and the other "subject peoples".

— Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, p.2
Not sure, if it's "too late" to get in on this topic, but: Austrians are not Germans these days and make up a distinct, albeit very closely connected to and united with the German nation under a "Greater German nation". Nonetheless, during Hitler's youth, Austrians still generally thought of themselves as Germans. The Austrian nation only rather recently developed fully and independently, that is, following the end of World War II. In that context, calling Hitler a German – and based on the fact that, well, he "integrated" into "Core Germany" immediately – is correct. On the other hand, Hitler felt a connection to "his home", which is evidenced by his speech at the Heroes' Square in Vienna as well. Thus, I think "Austrian-German" would be adequate. — JulkaK (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@JulkaK: Austrians are still ethnic Germans, although Austria is not a part of Germany and has been independent since 1955. Although it is true that the vast majority of Austrians these days do not consider themselves to be Germans. A nation is not defined by borders so it is still perfectly acceptable for an Austrian to consider himself to be part of the German nation. Like many Austrian Germans, Hitler always regarded Austria to be part of Germany, during the speech you mentioned he said: "The oldest eastern province of the German people shall be, from this point on, the newest bastion of the German Reich" and followed by his "greatest accomplishment" he declared, "As leader and chancellor of the German nation and Reich I announce to German history now the entry of my homeland into the German Reich." The article makes it quite clear that Hitler was a 'German politician', it would make no sense to state an 'Austrian-German politician' when he was only ever involved in politics in Germany until the Anschluss in 1938.--79.70.155.153 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hitler As War Leader (Overy)

Hey all!

I tried locating Richard Overy's "Hitler As War Leader", Oxford U. Press (2005), but was unsuccessful. It appears on neither Google Books nor Amazon; nor is it listed in Overy's bibliography. The ISBN does not return the book, either. A Google search yields just 200 results, all either Wikipedia, cites that simply copy Wikipedia, or a handful of esoteric, often foreign-language pages that seem to draw heavily, if not entirely, on Wikipedia articles.

So, my question is, does this book actually exist? Or, was the title, ISBN, or author listed in error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.131.203 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Bookfinder comes up with nothing, either under the title or under Overy's name. The ISBN listed in the footnote here leads to the Oxford Companion to World War II, so I assume that it's the title of an a essay included in that book. I'm going to re-do the ref on that basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is a 78 page chapter in the OCTWWT. [[3]]. I would say that BMK made a good edit there. Simon Adler (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Economy and culture ?

Propaganda in Nazi Germany could be mentioned. Hitler used propaganda in general. Here Hitler in propaganda is described. Xx236 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Did Nazi economy and culture finish in 1939? Even Nazi Germany existed till 1939, se the Contents. And the Holocaust doesn't belong to the WWII. Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I talking about the structure of the page. The content. And please remove the h word. You disrespect me, the victims of Nazis and the readers.Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The Holocaust does not need to be moved. Legal restrictions, banning from occupations, harassment and consideration of mass deportation were the main points before WWII. A lot of things could be mentioned, but see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. And BMK, apparently the "h" word is mightier than the sword. Kierzek (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparently so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear editors, please read the page, eg. the Holocaust section, which starts with a phrase The Holocaust and Germany's war in the East were based on Hitler's long-standing view, so the section starts in 1941, certainaly not in 1933. Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
German Wikipedia page structure:
3 Herrschaft vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (1933–1939)
3.1 Errichtung der Diktatur
3.2 Ausweitung des Hitlerkults
3.3 Privatleben
3.4 Verfolgungen
3.5 Baupolitik
3.6 Kirchenpolitik
3.7 Aufrüstungs-, Expansions- und Kriegskurs
4 Herrschaft im Zweiten Weltkrieg (1939–1945)
4.1 Polenfeldzug
4.2 „Euthanasie“
4.3 Völkermord an den Sinti und Roma
4.4 Westfeldzug
4.5 Vernichtungskrieg gegen die Sowjetunion
4.6 Holocaust
4.7 Weiterer Kriegsverlauf
4.8 Widerstand gegen Hitler
4.9 Ende im Bunker
Xx236 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean this What the h ell are you talking about?. You are aggresive even if you sometimes are completely wrong.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The article is about AH, it isn't and cannot be about every aspect of Nazism. It has problems covering the main points about the individual and is inevitably a constant balancing act between comprehensiveness and reasonable conciseness.Pincrete (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
We also have numerous articles which deal with specific aspects of Hitler qua Hitler -- i.e. Death of Adolf Hitler, Health of Adolf Hitler, Sexuality of Adolf Hitler, Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, and so on -- which take some of the burden off the main article, as well as many articles about Nazism and Nazi Germany per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Nazi Germany existed till 1945. Your section describes a period till 1938. Why not Nazi Germany 1933-38 or Nazi Germany before the WWII?Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Existing errors and misinformations are being defended. Xx236 (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding propaganda - Hitler was the father of it: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propaganda Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Until you start providing fully comprehensible and more comprehensive complaints, I doubt very much that anyone is going to respond in a positive way to your comments. Haiku is a lovely art form, but we need something more explanatory than "Existing errors and misinformations are being defended."
Regarding propaganda, Hitler was a master of it, certainly, but he did not invent it -- see the history of Propaganda in World War I, for instance, which Hitler explicitly refers to in Mein Kampf. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source?

My addition of a quote from Martyn Housden's monograph Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary? was reverted, questioning whether it was a reliable source. It is, but if the editor (who also questioned the sentence about Hitler closely supervising the war [see above], and therefore doesn't seem very familiar with the subject matter) continues to have concerns, I suggest that they open a discussion about it on WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.

In the meantime, I suggest that they follow WP:BRD and refrain from reverting again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

BMK, doesn't the question mark in the title cause you to pause for thought? Has any biographer ever written "Was Hitler a Dictator?", "Did Hitler start WWII?", the mere fact that the writer has to ask the question in his book title is evidence of the fact that AH is not generally, certainly not universally described as a revolutionary by historians. Would any writer add a question mark to Lenin or Mao's status as revolutionaries? The question is not is Housden's book a RS - it certainly is for Housden's judgement. The real question is what weight do we give to Housden's judgement - given the thousands of notable books written about AH - is his judgement SO notable that it deserves to be in 'pole position' in the article? Pincrete (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
No, not at all. Housden approached the subject not knowing what the conclusion would be to a potentially controversial question, hence the question mark. He spends 3/4s of the book presenting evidence of various kinds, primarily from Hitler's writings and speeches, and then evaluates the evidence against standards that he lays out about what defines a revolutionary, and then he answers the question, definitively: Hitler is a revolutionary, and Housden lays out exactly why. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The argument should be in the text--but NOT the lede. The lede should = the consensus of scholars and I this characterization is pretty uncommon among them. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Rjensen here. While Housden makes his case well and approached the subject from an objective angle, there has not been a trend in the scholarship over the years to characterize Hitler as a revolutionary (despite its accuracy in the aggregate). To that end, it makes sense to include it in the text concerning Hitler's political movement, but I think we should refrain from categorizing him that way in the article Summary.--Obenritter (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Re "we should refrain from categorizing him that way". Certainly in the opening sentence of the opening para! It's a nuanced argument IMO - rather than a generally recognised fact - that AH was 'a revolutionary' and deserves fuller exposition somewhere other than the first sentence. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sentence from lede

An editor is attempting to remove the follow sentence from the lede:

  • He closely supervised all military operations during the war.

I feel that the sentence is important, since without it, it could be assumed that Hitler, as the civilian l;eader of the Nazi Germany government, was not responsible for the conduct of the war, when, in fact, he played an extremely active part in running the war, overridng the views of his generals on numerous occasions, and setting specific and particular goals throughout the war. Even more than that, especially in the later parts of the war, he undertook direct control of military units, telling them when they could and could not move, and refusing pleas for withdrawals and surrenders.

Hitler ran the war as no civilian official has done in modern history, and the sentence is the very least that can be said about that. It's value to the lede is obvious to anyone familiar with the facts, and its attempted removal is astonishing, to say the least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Atop the factors mentioned by BMK, Hitler's intense interest in military conquest, the number of generals he promoted and/or dismissed, the host of operations he helped plan or approve as Nazi Germany's tyrannical dictator, categorically indicate that the sentence concerning his supervision of military operations should not be removed from the article summary. There are a host of works on Hitler as a military leader from prominent historians to this end; see for instance: Hillgruber, Andreas. Hitlers Strategie: Politik und Kriegführung 1940–1941. Bonn: Bernard & Graefe Verlag für Wehrwesen, 1993. / Rich, Norman. Hitler's War Aims. New York: Norton, 1973. / Schramm, Percy Ernst. Hitler: The Man and the Military Leader. Translated by Donald S. Detwiler. Chicago: Quadrangle, 1971. / Bethell, Nicholas. The War Hitler Won: The Fall of Poland, September 1939. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. / Megargee, Geoffrey P. Inside Hitler’s High Command. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000. / Magenheimer, Heinz. Hitler's War: German Military Strategy, 1940–1945. Translated by Helmut Bögler. London: Arms & Armour, 1998. / Bartov, Omer. Hitler's Army: Soldiers, Nazis, and War in the Third Reich. New York: Oxford University Press. 1992. / Jukes, Geoffrey. Hitler's Stalingrad Decisions. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985.
This list barely scratches the surface. Numerous other works refer to "Hitler's this" or Hitler's that"; whether it be tanks, rockets, jets, soldiers, U-Boots, or whatever else—are all correspondingly titled and/or circumscribed this way for good reason. Any attempt to diminish the role Hitler played as military leader is not only disingenuous, but it is suspect in my opinion. --Obenritter (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings either way about including his role as a military leader, however, simply from 'flow' considerations, I suggest adding " closely supervised all military operations during the war" (or whatever text is approved), immediately after "initiated WWII in Europe by invading Poland (and closely supervised all military operations during the war). In this way the lead para deals first with his political role (rise to power, Nazi party, Fuhrer), then his military role(s) in WWII, finishing the para with "the Holocaust" - the 'crowning glory*' of his legacy and notability (*irony intended!). Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Pincrete. One point to keep in mind is that the opening sentences of the lead are now being picked up and used by Google for everyone who does a search on "Adolf Hitler". The more we pack in that opening a few sentences the more attention this article will get worldwide by a billion or two users of Google. Rjensen (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The "flow" of the sentence is a piss-poor reason to throw out a consensus decision. WP:Consensus can change, but to show that it has you need a lot more than complaints about the smoothness of the writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware that we kow tow to Google. My mistake. Britmax (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, could you please point me to where "a consensus decision" was reached about including AH's role as military planner in WWII in the lead para? I'm not aware of their even having been any discussion about it yet! As I said, I am neutral about including/excluding such a point, briefly, and am only concerned with presenting it coherently. Pincrete (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Where did I say there was a consensus discussion about it? There's been none as far as I know, because people who understand the subject consider such a statement to be a "sky is blue" one, so blatantly obvious on the face of it that there's no need for a consensus discussion. There is absolutely no doubt that the consensus of military historians and historians specializing in WWII would agree with that statement. Why don't you cite some reliable sources that say that Hitler did not "closely supervise all military operations during the war." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
BMK, derrrr ... consensus = agreement has been reached = agreement has been reached = the subject has actually been discussed. Thankyou for acknowledging that no such discussion has taken place yet - and that therefore "The "flow" of the sentence is a piss-poor reason to throw out a consensus decision" is pretty silly, since no one has suggested throwing out any consensus, partly because no consensus exists! I agree that all RS would say that AH was closely involved in the supervision of military operations, if you read my posts instead of simply reacting to them, you would see that my only concerns are a) does this deserve to be in the lead para ?(about which I'm neutral) b) where is it best inserted and how is it best phrased? Pincrete (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
If you are going to mention this (I have no particularly strong opinion one way or the other) then surely the important point is that he appointed himself CinC of the Army at the end of 1941, when he sacked FM von Brauchitsch, and spent the rest of the war micromanaging the war on the Eastern Front, via OKH (the Army High Command), leaving OKW (the Armed Forces High Command) to run the other fronts. He meddled a lot on other fronts and sacked commanders who displeased him, although perhaps not a great deal more than Stalin or even Churchill (at any rate it was a question of degree in both cases). The Eastern Front was a whole different matter: he was personally leaning over the map and directing operations. I've come across people who claim he got to be surprisingly competent at it, but I doubt that's a very widely held view.Paulturtle (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Obenritter here. That said, if consensus agrees with the suggested sentence by Pincrete, I would recommend one tweak and change for the sentence to: He closely supervised military operations during the war. One cannot say he closely supervised "all", which took place. Kierzek (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I would agree to that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Also endorse Kierzek's 'tweak'. I wasn't proposing specific text, simply showing how recently inserted text could be moved to a more rational position - rather than tagged onto the end of the lead para.Pincrete (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Endorse Kierzek's/Pincrete's version, as it is the most accurate reflection of what took place.--Obenritter (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

But is true? Is accurate? I thought one of Hitler's generals (Halder?) undermined Hitler's plans for the conquest of Russia by diverting forces/supplies to conquer Moscow which Hitler did not want. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, even in the Halder story is true. Sources, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Even the idea of Halder "going against Hitler's plans" as implied here is MORE evidence that Hitler was trying to direct military operations. People, let's not forget that the idea of a coup against Hitler was originally devised before the Sudetenland crisis and the eventual Operation Valkyrie attempt came from members of the German military, who were weary of his meddling and disillusioned with the direction Germany was headed. Nonetheless, this did not exonerate many of them from culpability for the war and its bloody results, as they more often than not "worked with the Führer, not against him." (Megargee, Inside Hitler's High Command p. 231.) Army officers did what Hitler suggested and wanted, determined to gain his trust. They were not much different than many within the coterie of leaders in Germany, who all worked "towards the Führer". Megargee writes, "the army handed over control of strategy to Hitler with remarkably little fuss." (Megargee, Inside Hitler's High Command p. 232.)--Obenritter (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
"Hitler was trying to direct military operations"(emphasis mine) isn't quite the same thing as what the disputed sentence says. Perhaps it can be worded better? The word "all" is a red-flag. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest He increasingly co-opted military decision making to himself during the war. Simon Adler (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Please follow the thread in its entirety folks. Kierzek already put forth perhaps the most fitting idea with, "He closely supervised military operations during the war". A suggestion that Pincrete and I have both endorsed. Additional attempts to edit or shape this sentence/thought are unnecessary and counterproductive.--Obenritter (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I am following it, and I would suggest the sentence is lacking. Hitler directed and shaped military operations according to his ideologically warped ideas of how Europe and beyond would be re-ordered. It was Hitler's war. Certainly land operations. Simon Adler (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Folks, could we please bear in mind that what is being discussed is the opening para ... i.e. a summary of the man - covering the most important points. Whatever is written about him as a military 'supervisor', is necessarily going to be very, very, brief and therefore incomplete. I mean, crikey, we devote only 9 short words to the holocaust in that para! 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)~~
I was merely suggesting that the sentence could be made more explicit. Hardly counterproductive! He increasingly supervised military operations during the war would be more accurate, as the tendency became more marked, and affected outcomes. Simon Adler (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware that these discussions can get a bit out of hand as people dig their heels in, but I agree with Simon Adler. (And with regard to the stuff about Moscow above, there was some bickering in 1941 about whether or not Moscow should be a major objective or whether the Red Army should be destroyed further west; Hitler was eventually persuaded to go for Moscow after the Kiev Pocket when it was thought, wrongly, that the Soviets were more or less defeated - it's covered in the Barbarossa article. But that's not all that different from Allied leaders and generals arguing about when and where the various amphibious invasions should take place - operations at that kind of macro level usually have some kind of political sign-off. His meddling went up to a whole new level when he took over personal command in December 1941.)Paulturtle (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Colleagues I have been WP:BOLD and tweaked the sentence to read he increasingly supervised military land operations, most notably on the Eastern Front. I believe this is the most accurate summary of his military interference in 12 words. I think the lede can bear it. The new sentence also immediately proceeds the critical Holocaust mention. This gives readers a linkage to how the Holocaust and military operations in the East were intertwined in Nazi ideology, if they wish to explore this further. Any thoughts before reverting would be most appreciated. I wanted to put it up to see how it flowed. Simon Adler (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hitler's close supervision is a very important fact--it sets them apart not only in German history, but in contrast with other civilian war leaders, and the INCREASE in supervision is a different point, also important. So we can combine them in one sentence: Let's try: He closely supervised all military operations during the war and by December 1941 had full control of all military decisions, especially on the Eastern Front. . Rjensen (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I concur with that. It's an improvement. Simon Adler (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Just a very small tweak, replacing military with strategic, so it reads "He closely supervised all military operations during the war and by December 1941 had full control of all strategic decisions, especially on the Eastern Front" Thus avoiding duplication of 'military'. Simon Adler (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was away for a few days, but it looks like you guys figured out a better way to work that sentence. Good work! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Clean up the infobox

I would like to move things around in the infobox, as there is no order to it. Right now the order is Office1, with predecessor1 and successor1, then deputy2, office2, predecessor2 and successor2, personal information, and military, then termstart and end1, termstart and end2, followed by office3 in the military awards. However, what is displayed on the page is simple: office1, termstart and end1 with predecessor1 and successor1 followed by 2 then 3, then personal information. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

,,,And? Britmax (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I just want to put it in order as displayed on Template:Infobox officeholder. Am I allowed to? Since there apparently need to be a consensus to do those things. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Changing the order of items in the infobox does not change anything on the rendered page. Since editors are used to the way it is now, what is the purpose in changing it? It seems to me to be entirely unnecessary, and this discussion a waste of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you want things to be cleaned up? Skjoldbro (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It passed the vetting of GA, so changing due to "clean up" is a subjective opinion. Kierzek (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Rewording:reorganized into a consistent and understandable order. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
So... you're saying that no one who references the infobox is able to understand it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm saying it is disorganized and making it organized doesn't make the article worse. Your argument however seems to be that, it is a mess, but has always been a mess, therefore it should stay a mess. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You're ignoring the obvious possibility, which is that I don't agree it is a mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Right sorry, it might not be a mess, but it is definitely disorganized. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Image caption

Shouldn't the caption in the infobox be "1938 portrait" instead of "Hitler in 1938" like it was before? Roopeank (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Just the date is fine....as the header of the infobox is clear as to who it is. Only thing I could see adoing is where the photo is taken.--Moxy (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we have that information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It is redundant and not necessary to state his name again. The date is sufficient information. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I don't have the right to edit this page yet but if someone else could do it, I'd appreciate. Roopeank (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the year in brackets is much better than the original caption "1938 portrait" Roopeank (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need "portrait"? It's clearly a photograph of Hitler, he's clearly posing in a formal manner. Our readers aren't stupid, they can see this. What they can't see is when the picture was taken, hence the need for the date. If the photographer was notable, and we knew who it was, we could add that. The location might or might not be relevant, but it doesn't matter, we don't know what it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Some rearrangements

I think there are two many short (no subsection) sections concentrated near the end of this article. Religion, health, family and leadership could be subsections of a larger "personal life" section consistent with articles on other historical figures. In addition, "Legacy" should be the last section. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Good that you left a note LittleJerry. Now hopefully we can get others to discuss your proposals. I would say that I disagree with your edit [4] which you summarize as of minor biographical importance. I think a point is being missed here. Such a subject cannot be reduced to a simple biography. Actions and events are intertwined in the mainspace writing. I would suggest that that be reverted until we can get consensus. I would respectfully ask you to self-revert so we can get a chat going with other editors. It talks about the nature of the NSDAP and it's 'philosophy'. As such, (as the Nazi party was essentially Hitler's) it is bound to him. The concept of it, and by extention him, being a revolutionary is important to the readers understanding of the Nazi mentality, and Hitler's thinking. It was also sourced. Regards, Simon Adler (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit, considering the importance of this article, because it was made without consensus. I'd like to hear specific arguments from LittleJerry supporting his deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Fine. I wouldn't make a fuss on that. Now what about my rearrangement suggestions? LittleJerry (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's possible that religion, health and family could be folded into a "Personal life" section, as long as they were maintained as subsections and the links to the main articles on them remained, but "Leadership" is not part of "Personal life". However, I don't see what, exactly, the benefit of such shuffling would be. Just because some other articles do it that way is not a compelling reason to do it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Having a bunch of non-divided sections at the end of this article makes it look clunky and unorganized. Other articles using a different arrangement may not be enough of a reason to do it for this one but certainly there is a good reason why articles why biographical articles do it that way. LittleJerry (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Then express what those advantages are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Being the opposite of "clunky and unorganized". LittleJerry (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler was not a Giraffe LittleJerry. With the greatest respect, your specialisation has been with the Animal Kingdom, where you have done excellent work. You appear to have displayed no interest in History until now, especially with such a sensitive subject. Please understand the nuances. Simon Adler (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean "until now". I have also edited history articles for years. Please show what I'm wrong about. Better yet please show why the sections should be separate and the legacy section be randomly placed between leadership and health. LittleJerry (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Your revert would indicate that you do not fully get the concept that Hitler as an article is not a mere biography, but has within it details which have to transcend conventional biography in order for the reader to understand the full implications of Nazism. As for the question of section order, it entirely depends on the full overarching context of the section so the reader is not deprived of essential historical detail which may not fall under the definition of classical 'biography' as I have tried to explain above. Simon Adler (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Explain what is wrong with my proposed rearrangements. Why can't religion, health and family be grouped into a personal life section and why can't legacy be last? LittleJerry (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I certainly would not have any problems with that as it would appear uncontroversial, but we must leave others to comment. However, I see no real need for it, except to conform with other bios on here. I will say no more. What do other colleagues think? Simon Adler (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I would also propose that film should be a subsection of legacy since that is what he left behind. LittleJerry (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
So far, we've only had 3 opinions. There are other editors who have kept a weather eye on this article for years. Perhaps we should suspend he discussion until we hear frlom some of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Certainly, "Leadership style" should not be moved to under "Personal life and traits"; further, the removal of important background info as "of little biographical importance", shows a misunderstanding of article concept on that point. As for other changes suggested, it would make the flow more disjointed to move legacy to the end, after film. Also, in Hitler's case it is important to keep The Holocaust, Leadership style and Legacy together; he was the driving force of the Holocaust, Nazi Party and Nazi Germany; the impact and consequences of his power of personality, life/world views should be presented in tandem. Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
So how about making the Holocaust and Leadership subsections of Legacy? LittleJerry (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

But neither leadership nor holocaust are aspects of 'legacy' - the holocaust in particular is an important aspect of why he is notable. I endorse everything Kierzek says. 'Legacy' anyway covers both the immediate German response to his death through to a summary of how he is viewed historically and a brief summary of what might have been different, had AH/WWII not happened (just about the entire post WWII world!). Only AH's 'romantic' life (or lack of) is largely 'personal'. His medical regime is in part interesting because of how it may have impacted on his leadership and the military decisions he made.

Overall I think that the suggestions are change for change's sake - if it aint broke, why fix it? Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It IS broke. Putting legacy randomly before health is disjointing. It should be last or at least second to last before propaganda since it summarizes his historical impact. The "health" section in fact discredits attempts to connect the course of WW2 to his aliments. In addition what makes family and beliefs not personal? LittleJerry (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Are we discussing the term 'Legacy' or the actual content of that section - the first para of which is the impact of his death on the German people, which (to me) follows fairly naturally and which leads into the two very concise summaries I mentioned previously. I'd be fairly neutral about moving the legacy section up/down slightly - but saying that this single individual (because of instituting WWII), is arguably the single most influential figure of the 20thC is pretty strong stuff - and probably more significant than his medical regime or attitude to religion. We cover areas in a mixture of chronology and significance, the holocaust for example, wouldn't fit in chronologically, but in terms of AH's notability, is highly significant. Pincrete (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
How about after the biographical sections we have a "personal life" section (subsections family, religion and health) followed by leadership, then holocaust then legacy and finally propaganda? LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent change to first few sentences

We recently had some changes to the first few sentences adding some descriptive terms. I proposed moving some things around as it's just so convoluted and a bit awkward to start off like this. I have no problem with the terminology being used - just in the order being used. He's primarily known as being the political leader of the Nazis and fuhrer of the country - thus this should be first in my view and the norm used in any biography about him. --Moxy (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] (About this soundlisten); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician and leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), who rose to power in Germany as Chancellor in 1933 and Führer ("Leader") in 1934. As a demagogue and Pan-German revolutionary his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945 initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland in September 1939.

See first section of talk - Hitler as demagogue and "Pan-German revolutionary". Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I see ..This is just a proposal to fix the order that is clearly a problem as seen above --Moxy (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Imply" genocide?

Some passages imply genocide.[128]

What? How does one imply genocide?

I think I know what we're trying to say here, but I doubt that's the best way to say it. But I don't have access to the source so I'm hesitant to reword it. Can someone help? --causa sui (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, the reference given is to Kershaw's single volume reduction of his two-volume biography, which I do not have, but I do have the two-volume version, which must be similar in content. In book 1 ("Hubris"), Kershaw writes:

On Hitler's central, overriding and all embracing obsession, the 'removal of the Jews', Mein Kampf added nothing to the ideas he had already formulated by 1919-20. Extreme though the language of Mein Kampf was, it was no different to that which Hitler had been proclaiming for years. Nor, for that matter, did the inherently genocidal terminology substantially vary from that of other writers and speakers on the volkisch Right, extending, as we have already seen, well back beyond the First World War. His bacterial imagery implied that Jews should be treated in the same way germs were dealt with: by extermination. (p.244)

Kershaw then goes on to talk about other examples of Hitler referring to "extermination" and "removal" of the Jews, both earlier and in Mein Kampf, concluding "[H]owever little he had thought out the practical implications of what he was saying, its inherent genocidal thrust is undeniable."
So I think this is the genesis of the text "Some passages imply genocide," which I agree is much too weak a formulation. I've re-written and extended it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I made a small tweak, but this is much, much better. --causa sui (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree that original terminology is both weak and vague - and BMK's clearer and more specific. I think a few 'tweaks' might be in order. suggest changing:
"The book laid out Hitler's plans for transforming German society into one based on race. Throughout, Jews are presented as the equivalent of "germs" and the "international poisoners" of society. The only way, according to Hitler's ideology, for the societal illnesses they caused to be cured was by the "extermination" of the Jews entirely. Although Hitler spent little time on exactly how this was to be accomplished, his "inherent genocidal thrust is undeniable," according to Kershaw."
To:
"The book laid out Hitler's plans for transforming German society into one based on race. In it Jews are characterised as/described as/equated with "germs" and the "international poisoners" of society. The book thus implied that the only way to cure the societal illnesses Jews supposedly caused, was by their "extermination" entirely. Although Hitler spent little time on exactly how this was to be accomplished, his "inherent genocidal thrust is undeniable," according to Kershaw." - characterised as/described as/equated with is of course one of, not all three.
My logic is based on the quote(s) that BMK supplies above - based on which I don't think we can, or need to, say 'throughout' and retaining the element that genocide is strongly implied in MK, but not unambiguously stated. Pincrete (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
"Equated with" is fine, but I think your formulation of the second sentence is weaker - Kershaw does say, once, that it's "implied", but also says, twice, that it's "inherent". How about this:
The book laid out Hitler's plans for transforming German society into one based on race. In it Jews are equated with "germs" and are described as the "international poisoners" of society. The "inherent genocidal terminology" of the ideology Hitler presents implies that the only way to cure the societal illnesses Jews supposedly caused was by their "extermination" entirely. Although Hitler spent little time on exactly how this was to be accomplished, his "inherent genocidal thrust is undeniable," according to Kershaw.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I just checked the 2008 edition, and a main point made was that Hitler was steadfast in his world view, based on a racial view and his thoughts focused on the Jews, but "...these terrible passages are not the beginning of a one-way track to the 'Final Solution'. The road there was 'twisted', not straight". p. 150.
Goes on to say, "But however little he thought out the practical implications of what he was saying, its inherent genocidal thrust is undeniable". p. 150. Kierzek (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Kershaw uses the exact same language in Hubris. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Suggested tweaks to BMK's last: "The book laid out Hitler's plans for transforming German society into one based on race. In it Jews are equated with "germs" and are described as the "international poisoners" of society. The "inherently genocidal terminology" of Mein Kampf implies that the only way to cure the societal illnesses Jews supposedly caused was by their "extermination". Although Hitler spent little time on exactly how this was to be accomplished, his "genocidal thrust is undeniable", according to Kershaw.
First change is inherent to inherently (as it is a quote). Second change is to 'cut to the chase' of the terminology of the book, rather than terminology of the ideology presented in the book. Third change is avoiding a repetition of the second inherent/ly at the end. Pincrete (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I actually was going to cut the first "inherent" entirely as unnecessary. And the part about "Hitler's ideology" is a call back to an earlier usage on Kershaw's part. Kershaw also (in the section I didn't quote directly, but Keirzek gives some of above) emphasis the continuity of Hitler's ideas before and after Mein Kampf, so emphasizing the book itself at that point -- rather than Hitler's ideology -- weakens the point. My edited suggestion is thus:
The book laid out Hitler's plans for transforming German society into one based on race. In it Jews are equated with "germs" and are described as the "international poisoners" of society. The "genocidal terminology" of the ideology Hitler presents implies that the only way to cure the societal illnesses Jews supposedly caused was by their "extermination" entirely. Although Hitler spent little time on exactly how this was to be accomplished, his "inherent genocidal thrust is undeniable," according to Kershaw.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
BMK, I understand what you are saying about the continuity of AH's beliefs regarding Jews - I wonder whether that is what is conveyed. Would "The "genocidal terminology" of Mein Kampf, and Hitler's earlier writings implied that the only way to cure the societal illnesses etc...." work? Either way I'm happy for others to decide and think the overall thrust of all the versions offered is much clearer and more explicit than what was there before. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm good with the tweaks that Diannaa just made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I tweaked her edit slightly, only on the rather pedantic point that "germs" is used by AH as an equivalence, whereas ""international poisoners" of society", is an exact description, rather than equivalence. Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Good tweak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Switching "Jews" to "Non-Aryans"

Hitler actually believed in a social pyramid. Aryans were on top, then people with black hair/brunettes, then gingers, then people who were not white, mentally disabled, physically disabled, or homosexual. I think that putting "Non-Aryan" could then make people wonder, "What is an Aryan?"

I think that changing this could help people know more about his true intentions, not saying they are in any way good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Roe234 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Frankenberg

According to an online historical timeline Frankenberg was a common Jewish family name. A Jewish member of the Reichstag held it, as well as composer Paul Ben Haim. Not all Jewish families associated themselves with the registered Jewish community, Especially if they themselves were assimilated.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:GA-Class Nazi Germany articles

Hitler as demagogue and "Pan-German revolutionary"

When I removed the words "demagogue and Pan-German revolutionary" from the opening statement of Adolf Hitler's WP page, it was reverted with a statement that those descriptors had been agreed to on the Talk Page. So I may get a hearing on why I think that both "Demagogue" and "Pan-German revolutionary" are not accurate descriptors of Adolf Hitler. Demagogue is little more than a pejorative. Many politicians used demagoguery such as President Franklin Roosevelt, when he railed against "the malefactors of great wealth." Stalin also used demagoguery to more sinister purposes when he singled out the so-called "Kulaks." The point is that unlike dictator which you can accurately describe Hitler as, demagogue stinks of insult, and is not professional for Wikipedia if it truly seeks to have a Neutral Point Of View or (NPOV). That means that you can't just discard professional standards just because the subject is evil. As for "Pan-German revolutionary", Hitler indeed subscribed to a Pan-German ideology as did many German Austrians. He did indeed mount an successful putsch or "coup de' tat" but he gained power as the representative of one of the largest political parties in the Reichstag or "parliament." He wasn't a revolutionary. I think the opening statement should note he was a German politician, as well as noting the office held Reichskanzler or Reichs Chancellor. NapoleonX (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Both of these points have been discussed in depth by a number of editors. Please read those discussions, the first two threads in this archive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Sebastian Haffner It wasn't a revolution according to this source: [5].Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
he says it was all done legally. But historians emphasize that 99% of German politics was radically changed because Hitler was given legal power to do anything he wanted. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The question of whether Hitler was a revolutionary or not has been thoroughly discussed, and is well-sourced. One counter-source does not quate to removing it from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The reasoning on "demagogue" in that discussion seemed thin to me. Of course Hitler was a demagogue, but he was also a mass murderer, which was no less essential to his character and to his impact on history than his having been a "demagogue". "Demagogue" may belong somewhere in the first paragraph (as his role in the perpetration of the Holocaust is), but not in the first sentence—"demagoguery" was how he gained and maintained power; it wasn't what he did with it. What he was was a politician, though I also won't object to "revolutionary," although I have similar misgivings regarding how much weight that particular identity should be afforded. Regardless how he obtained his office, though—is it really necessary for a "revolutionary" to have successfully fought a revolutionary war?—he instituted a new German order that was radically different from what existed just a few years before he became Führer. If that's not a revolution, then the word would have to be redefined, which is not Wikipedia's job. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I share WP Ludicer's misgivings. That AH was a demagogue is undeniable, that he was a pan-German nationalist equally so. That he was a revolutionary (in the sense of someone who seeks to - and in AH's case, manages to - overturn the existing political order) is also a fact - though I doubt how universally the descriptor 'revolutionary' is used for AH, possibly because the term is less often used of right-wing 'revolutions'.
What I am uneasy about is whether using these terms adds to, or impedes the flow of the opening para. An opening para which failed to mention - Nazi Party, Chancellor, dictator, Fuhrer, WWII or the Holocaust would be doing a disservice to the subject and the reader. I question whether 'demagogue' and 'pan-German revolutionary' are in the same league of significance. I 'went along with' the addition in the previous discussion, though I was not wholly persuaded that the terms deserved 'pole position'.Pincrete (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I just made the same edit and was reverted. MOS:BLPLEAD states: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources." (emphasis added). It further states that we should "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable". I think it's pretty clear that "Pan-German revolutionary" is not commonly used to describe Hitler. In fact, googling the phrase brings up mostly Wikipedia mirrors. (Whether some sources use the term is irrelevant). I would agree that the term "demagogue" is commonly applied to Hitler, but it's not used in the lead sentence of Wikipedia articles (even for others who would commonly be described as demagogues). "was+a+*+demagogue" According to Google, there is only one other WP article – Carl Fredrik Pechlin – where the subject is described as a demagogue in the first sentence. I believe we should be as simple as possible and remove the other two terms. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I can't find the phrase "Pan-German revolutionary" other than in Wikipedia mirrors / sources quoting from Wikipedia. Does anyone have access to the sources listed so we can verify that it's actually a term people use? We shouldn't be coining neologisms in such a high-profile article, if that means removing "Pan-German" and keeping "revolutionary" it would still be an improvement. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Gee, that's because it occurs in printed media and not online. Please see the references cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
User:Beyond My Ken What's with the sarcasm? I'm well aware it's an offline source, that's why I'm asking for a quote. At the moment it fails verification. If you have access to the sources, please look at the pages cited and provide a quote containing the phrase "pan-German revolutionary". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You haven;t verified it, and a quote wouldn;t do it. Read the Housden book, and get back to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The threshold for such a much-written-about subject, and for pole-position in the article, should suely not be A QUOTE, but multiple use among best sources. I question whether that threshold would be passed. Pincrete (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
As BMK has linked to, we had quite a long discussion over this. I still believe that demagogue and pan-German revolutionary (because Hitler articulated and carried out a version of Pan-Germanism which resulted in a Nazi dominated Europe, the east of which was described as an 'ocean of death' by IIRC, Bullock. It doesn't get more revolutionary than that). Demagogue speaks for itself. To have H described as a 'Politician' and 'Leader of Germany' is rather understating things. Simon Adler (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
'Politician' and 'Leader of Germany' to me - though a bit anodyne on first reading, are the price we pay for NPOV. Regardless of how infamous someone is, we open by factually recording the area of human activity for which the subject is known. At the risk of repeating myself, 'demagogue' I'm neutral about, 'pan-German' ditto. However I question whether 'revolutionary' is either a term used widely by sources, or among the most important things to say about AH. I heven't read the book which BMK cites, but thinking about it, I was persuaded that AH had all the elements of a revolutionary - working towards a consciously formulated, ideologically based, fundamental and radical change to the political and social culture (sources don't generally call people revolutionaries if the changes are forced by outside circumstance rather than driven by ideology, nor if the changes are largely reactionary in nature - otherwise every Generalissimo or Colonel overthrowing a civilian democracy would be described as 'a revolutionary'). But is describing AH as a revolutionary, the most significant thing to say about him in the opening lines? Is the meaning clear to the general reader? Is the term itself widely used by sources - or do we have to extrapolate it from what they do say. Certainly they would all say that he attempted to institute a 'new order' politically and socially - but is that close enough to the actual term 'revolutionary'? I'm not so sure. Pincrete (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I just read the lead and was very astonished to find Hitler described as a "demagogue and pan-German revolutionary". While both may be technically true (although "revolutionary" seems dubious given that Hitler acted through rather than against government institutions), I agree with others above that this is certainly not how I understand most reliable sources succinctly characterize Hitler; they instead, as far as I can tell, use such descriptors as "dictator", "supreme leader" or "Reich chancellor". That Hitler was a demagogue and a pan-German ideologue can certainly be mentioned, but not in the very first sentence. Sandstein 18:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

By comparison, here's how other major Wikipedia versions describe Hitler in the lead sentence:
  • de:Adolf Hitler: Dictator of the German Reich ("Diktator des Deutschen Reiches")
  • fr:Adolf Hitler: German ideologue and statesman ("idéologue et homme d'État allemand")
  • es:Adolf Hitler: German politician, soldier, painter and writer ("político, militar, pintor y escritor alemán)"
  • it:Adolf Hitler: Austrian-German politician, Reich Chancellor and dictator, under the title of Führer, of Germany (" politico austriaco naturalizzato tedesco, Cancelliere del Reich dal 1933 e dittatore, col titolo di Führer, della Germania"). Sandstein 18:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad NapoleonX brought this matter up for discussion. In nearly a century of scholarly study of Hitler, how much time has been spent debating whether he is a "dictator" or a "demagogue" or a "pan-German revolutionary"? None? Why should WP need to re-invent the wheel on this? "Dictator" is the word the whole world uses, is it not? "Adolf Hitler was a German dictator and leader of the Nazi Party. He rose to power as Chancellor in 1933..." Levivich (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and simplified the opening sentence as suggested. New version reads: "Adolf Hitler...was a German politician and leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP). He rose to power to become dictator of Germany, serving as Chancellor from 1933 and Führer ("Leader") from 1934." In a nutshell this removes the terms " demagogue" and "Pan-German revolutionary", which I don't think belong in the lead, especially in the opening sentence. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa: I'm not really sure there was a consensus here to make that change, but I'm not going to object to it, especially if it will stop these discussions from popping up every couple of months. After all, let's face it, who doesn't know who Hitler was, and what he was noted for? The previous description seemed better to me in that it had more scope, containing more of the aspects of his historical significance, but the new one is (of course) correct as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Dianna solved the problem--good work! Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Just because we can source it, doesn't mean we should add it. There's at least 4 people who disagree with the addition (Sandstein, Rjensen, Levivich, and myself) so removal seems a good choice to me at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I stayed out of this discussion, but agree with Diannaa's change, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Diannaa's change as well (thank you Diannaa). I also agree with "demagogue" in the "Entry into politics" section, as per Hazhk's edit here. I noticed that some had issue with "politician" in the lead; I'm not sure if that word is problematic in the current version or not, but if it is, I suggest "Adolf Hitler ... was a German politician and leader of the Nazi Party..." could be "Adolf Hitler ... was leader of the German Nazi Party..." as "leader of the German Nazi Party" implies German politician (and demagogue). Just a thought, though, I have no problem with it the way it is now. Levivich (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Now that this whole discussion is done and over with, could someone please lower the protection level for the AH page now? Karl Malone the Mailman (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Razikazi (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Hitler is still alive
 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No Citations in the Introductory Paragraphs?

Why are there no citations in the introductory paragraphs? Is there a reason behind it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No WP:RS citations are needed for the WP:Lead paragraphs, as it is all discussed and RS cited in the body text where the information being conveyed is mentioned. Only rarely will you find cites in the lead section of an article, for very specific reasons. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Basically, what Kierzek just said. Citations aren't needed in the lead if they're found in the body of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Intelligence agent"

Hitler was made a Verbindungsmann, V-Mann by the Reichswehr intelligence division. This is not, as the article states an "intelligence agent". It is a confidential informant. Somebody please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.25.168.185 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

'Lebensraum' para of lead & changes

User:NuclearWarfare, actually I have big issues with this change, over and above your partial restore.

Briefly, how is it an improvement to imply that AH decided to go to war with GB and Fr (rather than him thinking they would 'back off' when the crunch came and not live up to treaty obligations)? How is it an improvement to replace the date of the USSR invasion with the vague 'soon'? The one improvement that I can see is to add 'Pearl Harbor' to the equation, but even that is at the expense of the date of his declaring war on the US.

I'm happy to let others (with greater knowledge than I) voice their opinion and see whether elements of both versions can be used, however the above are the main reasons I reverted to the original edit, which seemed to me more succinct, accurate, and informative. Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Pincrete, I think it is excessive to make the lead a date-by-date timeline of WWII rather than providing an accurate narrative of the history of the war. I appreciate what you are saying with regards to GB and France and wonder if this might acknowledge your concerns? NW (Talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I like the way it is now its a great opening to who Hitler was and what he did and caused Jack90s15 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the changes, especially the removal of the dates, they are important to general readers to convey the progression and important events. In addition, certain wording removed is important so the general reader knows a primary cause, to wit: "...his aggressive foreign policy is considered the primary cause of World War II in Europe." No good explanation for removal has been given. The changes to a well vetted GA article lead needs further discussion and a larger consensus than two editors given the important of this article and the subject matter of it. Kierzek (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


I completely agree with everything you're saying, I was trying to be neutral, on the situation. that's why, I explained why I reverted the other edit, that was made before me in the edit history.Jack90s15 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I see what I and how it was not needed my mistake

I see where I went wrong on this page

In the opening it says in addition to

My mistake for trying to change it to what it said already in the opening I was trying to put down in that category but I see its not needed Jack90s15 (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Lead Paragraph

It has come to my attention that I must obtain a consensus vote on the talk page in order to make changes to the lead paragraph. For purposes of brevity and cleaner grammar overall, I think it would be best to dispense with the reference to Hitler obtaining full control of all strategic decisions on the Eastern Front by December 1941. As the commander-in-chief of Germany's armed forces, he was already the supreme authority on Germany's military strategy. The only difference after December 1941 was that he took it upon himself to micromanage nearly every aspect of battlefield decision-making (from the number of tanks in a given unit to the placement of individual military units). Therefore, since this wasn't a development which resulted in a dramatic increase in his power as Führer, it's something that is best left for the body of the article. For the same reasons, other changes include the removal of "September" from the reference to his invasion of Poland since visitors can find out the precise date of the invasion by clicking on the link provided. Finally, for the sake of providing a conclusion that ties everything together, I have included a reference in the final sentence to how Hitler committed suicide as Nazi Germany's defeat became imminent. Here is how the lead paragraph would look in its final form.

"Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ]; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician and leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP). He rose to power as Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and later Führer ("Leader") of the German Reich and People in 1934. During his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland in 1939 and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust. As Germany's wartime commander-in-chief, he closely supervised military operations until committing suicide as the nation's defeat became imminent."

Let me know what you think. — Emiya1980 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I like itJack90s15 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to mention his suicide twice in the lead. He closely supervised operations until December 1941, at which point pretty much nothing could be done (especially on the Eastern Front) without his direct order. So it's better the way it is now, because it's more accurate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)
Diannaa While not inaccurate, it is unnecessary to mention that Hitler assumed almost complete control of strategic decisions after December 1941 when there is a reference to how he was already closely involved in military operations from the war's outset (a statement no less accurate but not as detailed). Hence, why the information in the current version is better suited for the body and not the lead.
As for the reference to Hitler's suicide, why not simply replace it with a reference to Nazi Germany's defeat? It does not needlessly repeat material in the introduction and it serves the purpose of showing how long wielded control over military decisionmaking. — Emiya1980 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the current version is a little more detailed, but there's nothing wrong with detail, even in the lead, if it can be done concisely and with few words and is more accurate: He didn't just supervise the military: it gradually became impossible for his military to do anything without going up the chain of command all the way to the top. Current version of opening paragraph: 104 words. Proposed version: 94 words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we need to mention in the opening paragraph that Germany lost WWII; it's covered later in the lead, and we already say in the opening paragraph that Hilter was in power till 1945 and died in 1945, so people will take it as a given that his control over the military terminated at that point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it, we can replace "closely supervised German military operations" with "closely involved in German strategic decisions." That accurately encapsulates what role Hitler played in German military strategy without demarcating when he became more or less active in the same capacity. From the the very beginning of World War II, he was the commander-in-chief of Germany's entire armed forces. After the Blomberg-Fritsch affair happened in 1938, he reserved the right to insert himself in all aspects of military planning whenever he wanted. I don't think we need to specify when he chose to assert this right in a paragraph intended to summarize who Hitler was and what he is famous (i.e.notorious) for Emiya1980(talk) 02:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, understood. I've changed "closely supervised" to "closely involved" and removed "by December 1941 had full control of all strategic decisions, especially on the Eastern Front." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I support Diannaa's edit, I think that's better. What about changing "Chancellor of Germany" to "Chancellor", since "Germany" is already stated two other times in that paragraph and it's obvious he wasn't Chancellor of some other country? Leviv ich 02:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
How does "closely involved" include the fact that Hitler directly controlled Army Groups during Barabarossa? He was, in effect, the commander (albeit well behind the lines). I don't believe that "closely involved" suitably describes his connection. Roosevelt was "involved", Churchill were "closely involved", Hitler was Chancellor, War Minster, Commander of the Wehrmacht, and at times the direct the commander of Army Groups. He routinely required local commanders to get his approval for both strategic and tactical choices, refused to allow falling back to re-group, decided when to break troops away from one Army Group to send to another, and when to send them back. He was nothing less than the Generalissimo, and "closely involved" drastically underplays his role. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't really understand why his level of control over the military is an important point to highlight in the lead. He was the dictator, it seems extremely obvious that he was in control of everything that happened. This is what separates him from Churchill and Roosevelt, not his direct involvement in day-to-day military operations, but the fact that he killed subordinates on a whim. That's pretty direct control over operations if you ask me. It seems like "dictator" is enough for the lead, and the difference in his command of the military before and after Dec. 1941 could be explained (as it is) in the body. Leviv ich 04:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Because his direct control of the military is a significant factor in why Germany lost WWII. There were other, systemic problems as well, such as the lack of strategic resources, but if Hitler had listened to his generals more, instead of believing his own p.r. about being a military genius, the outcome of the war could well have been significantly different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree broadly with what BMK is arguing. Stalin was also a dictator, but I believe I am correct when I say that JS increasingly delegated as the war progressed, (though ensuring that commanders 'carried the can'), whereas AH increasingly 'micro-managed'. AH's deluded sense of his own omnipotence (along with other factors - such as the combined might of the USSR + USA) significantly affected the second half of the war.
The addition of that text is relatively recent, I tend to feel that text is significantly more complete with little extra cost. If we are going to mention his role as a commander in the lead (we didn't use to) - it seems worth saying that his decision making became progressively worse as the war progressed. I'm sorry, but I see no virtue in Emiya1980's original proposed text above. Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that analysis of history, of course. But in my view, the details of why Germany lost WWII are not important enough for the lead on the article about Hitler (a biography). IMO Hitler is notable for three things: 1) genocide and murder, 2) becoming dictator of Germany, 3) starting WWII. I think the fact that he lost the war, nevermind how he lost the war, are important parts of the story, but not important enough to explain in the first paragraph. Hence, his role as commander doesn't need to be in the lead IMO because "dictator" is more important and kind of covers it. Leviv ich 16:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I was out for the majority of the weekend as far as Wikipedia editing goes, but am glad consensus was reached and I support Diannaa's, BMK and Pincrete's comments and certainly certain prior changes were redundant as they were covered in later lead paragraphs. I concur with the edits Diannaa made. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if his role as 'military commander' - and his deteriorating decision making (particularly in the East), could be worked into para 4 (Hitler sought Lebensraum) in some way, which is an over-view of key elements of the war, leading to defeat and suicide. I think his poor management is important to his biog, even if it isn't worthy of para 1. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree–my comments are limited to the first paragraph; no objection to this being elsewhere in the lead section. Leviv ich 18:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

I have some facts i would like to present about his health Caderfudd (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2019 (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. aboideautalk 16:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

I would like to submit a remastered image of Adolf Hitler's 1938 photo portrait. Masterofremaster (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. AntiCedros (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please correct the article

You have violated the neutrality. It is true that Hitler was a dictator, and has done embarrassing works, which caused the ruin of the world, but here is Wikipedia, and the article should be written impartially Please correct the article 5.219.146.244 (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Impartially/neutrality does not mean being nice to everyone - certainly not being equally nice. It means reflecting what the best sources say - without adding our own opinion. Most historians give AH a central role in causing WWII and making it an especially bloody conflict, the bloodiest in human history. I think we are fairly good at sticking to the facts about that and imparting it neutrally.
Is there anything specific which you think is not neutrally written?. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hitler was responsible for the start of the war, but the Allies also played a role This article is written in such a way that only hitler is responsible for this war 5.219.126.213 (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So, presumably you've done some research, and have some sources to back up that claim? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The main reason for the start of the war was the Treaty of Versailles The victorious countries in the First war imposed this contract on Germany This caused the anger of Hitler and the German people If the deal was not imposed, then there would never be another war 5.53.46.245 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Treaty of Versailles is mentioned extensively; have you even read the article? This Talk page is dedicated to suggestions and discussion about how to improve the article; it is not a forum for general discussion about the subject of Adolph Hitler. If you have a specific suggestion for improving the article, then let's hear it, please. Otherwise this entire section is liable for collapse or removal, per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
An argument about bias in the article's coverage of its topic is not a forum post. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, it is a "forum" post with vague WP:OR opinion and no WP:RS specifics or cited text. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The Treaty of Versailles helped the Nazi rise to power, but it little to do with the start of the war. Nazi Germany was largely ignoring the Treaty of Versailles by September 1, 1939. The war was about lebensraum. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Godwin's Law: Legacy?

Can i also suggest that under "Legacy" we include a reference to Godwin's Law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.146.240 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest, but I don't think it will fly. This is a serious academic topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why not, we've already got Reductio ad Hitlerum as evidence of his legacy as an archetypal evil. SITH (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Death Date

collapse IP comment with external links about conspiracy theories

The death date should probably be changed due to evidence presented here https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/HITLER%2C%20ADOLF_0003.pdf As well as other Nazi official and troops know to have fled to South America. https://www.history.com/news/the-7-most-notorious-nazis-who-escaped-to-south-america https://www.history.com/news/how-south-america-became-a-nazi-haven https://www.aish.com/jw/s/Nazi-Havens-in-South-America.html I can find more sources if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.187 (talk • contribs) 18:02, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Just another episode of Hitler Historical Fiction, season 74. Please put the conspiracy theories to rest. And mind the vandalism warnings on your Talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Haha another classic "I dont care im not reading the sources and will just say youre wrong with no counter claims" this site is filled with people like you. Go back to reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.187 (talk • contribs) 19:12, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed fringe theory links. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2019

--Ajmoritz2 (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Adolf's Cause of Death

Nobody actually knows for a fact how Hitler died. Science has proven that it is likely he took cyanide and shot himself, but likely isn't facts. Putting likely instead of just flat out stating he died that way would be more accurate. Ajmoritz2 (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2019 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

Remove the category "German revolutionaries". It is sheer ridiculity. Leos1968 (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Leos1968, Here and earlier, there was extensive discussion about whether AH was 'a revolutionary'. The logic behind the description was - something like - someone who consciously works towards (and in this instance achieves) a fundamental change in the political order of a state. Personally I'm completely neutral and am only posting FYI. Pincrete (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hitlers true death date

Hitler died in Spain in 1969. One of his six body doubles died in the Bunker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.50 (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2019

It is estimated that between 12 and 13 million POWs and civilians were killed during WW2, not 19 million.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution 213.89.29.16 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The source from the USHMM equals 17 million not 12 or 13 millionJack90s15 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Third lead paragraph issues

Let's discuss the following fragment from the lead:

In June 1941, Hitler ordered an invasion of the Soviet Union. By the end of 1941, German forces and the European Axis powers occupied most of Europe and North Africa. In December 1941, shortly after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Hitler declared war on the United States, bringing it directly into the conflict. Failure to defeat the Soviets and the entry of the United States into the war forced Germany onto the defensive and it suffered a series of escalating defeats.

As it stands, while certainly meant well, this is quite misrepresentative of what actually happened. It currently reads as if the decisive factor was the United States joining the war, even though the Germans were, to quote the fragment, already "onto the defensive" in 1943 - more than a year before the United States' entry into the northern European theater at D-Day. I'm not saying they didn't contribute, but it currently reads a bit too much like Hollywood history. Furthermore, neither D-Day nor the Battle of Stalingrad are mentioned, so the reader is left in the dark about how exactly they were pushed back. My proposal is the following:

In June 1941, Hitler ordered an invasion of the Soviet Union. By the end of 1941, German forces and the European Axis powers occupied most of Europe and North Africa. In December 1941, shortly after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, Hitler declared war on the United States, bringing it directly into the conflict. Soviet successes following the decisive Battle of Stalingrad and the successful entry into occupied France by the Western Allies forced Germany onto the defensive and it suffered a series of escalating defeats.

Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see a case for saying that Stalingrad was the turning point in the East, though there had been previous 'failures' by Germany there. But the idea that Germany was not on the defensive in the West until D Day, or not engaged in Europe before then is farcical (Sicily? Italy? Daytime bombing of Germany? Supply of US produce to Soviet and UK 'allies'?). And yes, the full entry of the US into WWII, probably was the factor that made the outcome inevitable - simply because of US industrial might, apart from anything else. That isn't 'Hollywood history', it's just history (and I'm UK and no fan of recent Hollywood output).Pincrete (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Pincrete on this one. It's not Hollywoodised history to contend that the US's entry into the War was the final turning point for Germany. The Eastern front had reached a virtual stalemate at Stalingrad, at battles such as Borodino and on the outskirts of Moscow, and there was no reason why the Germans would have had to retreat without the Red Army's bolstering by US supplies. Let's not forget that the US's lend-lease policy was essentially the only thing that kept Britain in the War after most of the continent had been occupied. Had it not been for US help, the U-boat campaign would have strangled Britain and brought her to her knees. That's not to say that the Soviets didn't shoulder much of the responsibility for fighting the Germans until the second front - and that can certainly be mentioned - but to deny just how critical the US's industrial capacity was to the Allied war effort is simply ignoring the facts of history.
Cadar (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The United States being a decisive factor is not mentioned in the body of the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead either. It wasn't present when the article passed its GA review. I have removed it, and reinserted the wording that was present in the version that passed GA. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
But the immediate prev lead doesn't that either the 'fightback' on the Eastern front nor the US entry were decisive - though of course it strongly implied that they were cumulatively very significant. What we are trying to do is summarise how Germany went from being almost 'masters of Europe', to total surrender, in a few sentences. My objection to Prinsgezinde's proposed text is that it reduces a huge, cumulative turnround, military, industrial and psychological, to two events (one in the east, one in the west). The restored text is slightly the opposite, it simply bypasses any attempt to record the what, why, how (and AH's role in) of the 'turnround' from victor to vanquished. The GA text is within policy, I wonder how informative it is.Pincrete (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually what we're trying to do in the lead is summarize the contents of the article. It's outside the scope of the lead to summarize why the Allies won the war. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
My undo of Prinsgezinde's original edit, which led to this discussion, was due to the same problem as his proposed text, it is too limited in context (as stated in the edit summary), placing undue weight on certain specific events. And as Diannaa states, the lead is to be a concise summary of the body of the article. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

My objection to Prinsgezinde's proposed text is that it reduces a huge, cumulative turnround, military, industrial and psychological, to two events (one in the east, one in the west).

I get that, and I can somewhat agree, but what I don't get is how the fragment I objected to was significantly different. It also implied two specific (series of) events forced Germany onto the defensive. I was specifically trying not to change too much. Furthermore, it was unclear if "the entry of the United States into the war" was about the legal entry on December 1941 or the moment the US started to support the Allies. Pincrete, and Cadar mentioned US supplies to the Soviets as being decisive, but the US had already been providing said aid since before they joined the war. In any case, I think the version that has been reverted to by Diannaa is a major improvement. I have no objections to it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Actually what we're trying to do in the lead is summarize the contents of the article". Well yes, of course, and it must be very succinct, but to leap from 1941 to 1945, in a single sentence as though nothing worth mentioning happened in between and without attempting to cover AH's responsibility for what happened seems to me to be cutting too close to the bone. If others are happy, I'm not going to make a fuss, since the GA text is certainly succinct! Pincrete (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to provide a blow-by-blow account of every beat of the War in the lead. As it stands right now, it's fine.

And just to clarify: I didn't explicitly state that I'm aware of the fact that lend-lease was occurring before the US's entry into the War because anyone who knows the details of the War's history understands that lend-lease was in full operation long before the Germans declared war on the US. As far as I'm concerned, mentioning lend-lease at all should automatically imply knowledge of it; stating that I personally was aware of the details was therefore redundant.

Cadar (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

National Socialist German Workers' Party or Nazi Party in the infobox

I think we need to be perfectly clear that Adolf Hitler was a Nazi, and need to show Nazi Party in the infobox. National Socialist German Workers' Party is not a good substitute, as it glosses over his true affiliation and is in fact a redirect to the common name, which is Nazi Party. Comments welcome — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 23:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think anyone who doesn't know that Hitler was a Nazi has been living under a rock, but that's irrelevant, as is a need to explicitly state that he was a Nazi, which is only an abbreviation of the correct term. This is the equivalent of having an article about a Republican president and stating that he was a member of the GOP. Yes, it would be correct, but it's merely common-use slang for the correct term, which is "Republican party." We need to use the correct names for things in Wikipedia's articles, not slang; or in this case, their nearest English translation. If you insist on equating "Nazi" with "National Socialist German Worker's Party", then you can add the abbreviation in brackets after the correct term. That would be acceptable, but replacing the term with the abbreviation is not.

Cadar (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have returned the instance in the first paragraph of the lead to the correct name, which absolutely should be used in the introduction about the man; the same with the infobox, which should use correct names. Until we have reached consensus on whatever usage is acceptable for the article, please leave it as is.

For the record: I absolutely oppose replacing instances of the English translation of the correct name to abbreviated or slang versions. I will accept bracketed inclusion of the shorter version after the use of the correct name to reduce confusion, but the abbreviation is not a replacement for the correct name under any circumstances. This is an encyclopaedia; our role here as editors requires us to use the correct names for organisations in the articles. It's that simple.

Cadar (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Please do not make further changes on this subject until consensus has been reached. Thank you.

Cadar (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Its not "slang" ... it's the common English language name for the party. Having a German name that most folks won't recognize instead of the common name is just plain silly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I knew this was going to happen. I sat up till 2:30 this morning dealing with this, but I had to sleep, and I knew as I went to bed that the second my back was turned, someone would just go ahead and change it again. So my choices seem to be three: accept that nobody editing this page understands the concept of "consensus" and that mob rule is the norm here; start an edit war; or walk away and dump this in the lap of an administrator.
Actually, the term Nazi is slang. It's German slang for the correct name of the party, which was unwieldy in common usage. It's slang in current usage today. The fact that some people understand that it was also associated with Hitler does not justify its use to replace the name of the organisation he started. And the fact is that 99% of people who know the term and the association with the man do not know the correct name of the organisation. These are already more than enough reasons for the change.
Secondly, the term is loaded in modern context. It's an insult. It is used in terms such as "grammar Nazi." It has acquired a whole load of associations and emotions, exactly none of which are relevant to the man or the article about him. It was the reason for this stupid edit in the first place. For those reasons alone, it's not defensible on a neutral encyclopaedia, which is concerned with historical facts. And the historical facts are that the organisation he started had a proper name which should absolutely and only be used at the first mention in the first line of the article about the man who created the organisation. It actually completely blows my mind that I even have to spell this out. I tried a compromise which would serve the primary role of supplying the correct and accurate information to the reader as well as adding the slang term in brackets, but no: mob rule.
I'm done. I'm taking this to mediation and removing this page from my watch list. It can now be deleted as far as I'm concerned, because quite frankly I just don't care any longer. I've already wasted more than enough of my time on this idiocy. Cadar (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
It may be slang in German, but it's not in English. Please stop treating the wording of the infobox as a battleground - infobox arguments are among the least productive on WIkipedia, and please tone it down - "idiocy" and "mob" have no place in this discussion. Additionally, administrators do not arbitrate content, so the only way it will end up in the lap of an adminstrator is if there's edit-warring. The three administrators you're talking to here on the talkpage are acting as regular editors. For my part, I don't mind a parenthetical reference - but some clear acknowledgement of the common name is required for straightforward understanding. I've adjusted the comments here, since it looks like you were editing the whole page for a while and the subsequent edit conflict took out my previous comment and another. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be 3 to 1 against Cadar's version so I am re-implementing my edit. "Nazi Party" is the common name used in English. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 02:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
While WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles, normal practice is to apply commonly used names to people and organizations, so that most users can easily grasp the context without having to remind themselves that the German title really means Nazis. We call the Native American Party the Know Nothings, for instance. Acroterion (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Discernment, rational and consensus are what needs to be used. And I believe it has been. While I am not always in favor of the use of "common name" for certain titles and words, I believe in this case the common name (which, is also used for the article title for English Wikipedia) should be used. We write for the general public and many times for the uninformed reader. For other GA rated articles, such as Joseph Goebbels, "Nazi Party (NSDAP)" is used. In addition, the full party name is spelled out in the lead section and spelled out with explanation in the body section: "Entry into politics". That is sufficient. Kierzek (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the formal name over the slang term. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party" per Diannaa. We should use the common name.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party" per Kierzek's rationale: "the full party name is spelled out in the lead section and spelled out with explanation in the body section: "Entry into politics". That is sufficient." Infobox and text should use common name therafter ('Nazi' isn't really 'slang', rather an abbreviated, albeit non-formal, portmanteau term, like Brexit). Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party", the name by which the vast majority of people know that group. The only purpoose to using NSDAP is to attempt to soften the impact of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party". By far the most common name. And the main article on the ideology is Nazism, not "national socialism". Dimadick (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party" per both rationales provided by Diannaa and Kierzek.--Obenritter (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Nazi Party" that is the name most people use. Jack90s15 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Use whatever name is used by the sources. Underneaththesun (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Nazi per Dianna’s and BMK’s rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 11:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's pretty well known that Hitler was a "Nazi", so it's not really softening it by using the full name rather than the shortened version of it. Perhaps use "National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi)". Swil999 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Nazi Party is the most common English usage. Stick with it. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The lede should mention that in popular culture he's widely used as an example for one of the most evil people who ever lived

Would you accept a lede on Gold that doesn't mention anything about the fact that it's valuable or used popularly this way? (As good as gold.) That just gives its atomic facts same as tin or aluminum? Of course not. This article needs at least a word about this in the lede.

Perhaps this:

He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust

Which is the last sentence in the lede, can be changed to:

He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust, due to which he is often used as a symbol of evil in popular culture.

This is obviously important information. Now let me check if the gold lede does or doesn't mention it, if it doesn't, I'll let you off the hook.

Gold is a chemical element with the symbol Au (from Latin: aurum) and atomic number 79, making it one of the higher atomic number elements that occur naturally. In its purest form, it is a bright, slightly reddish yellow, dense, soft, malleable, and ductile metal. Chemically, gold is a transition metal and a group 11 element. It is one of the least reactive chemical elements and is solid under standard conditions. Gold often occurs in free elemental (native) form, as nuggets or grains, in rocks, in veins, and in alluvial deposits. It occurs in a solid solution series with the native element silver (as electrum) and also naturally alloyed with copper and palladium. Less commonly, it occurs in minerals as gold compounds, often with tellurium (gold tellurides).

All right, it doesn't. You're off the hook and I don't care about this anymore. You're up to the standards set here. 2a02:ab88:24c0:6400:8522:b64d:da7c:f44e

  • (I've re-formatted the comment above for readability only) I don't think tht we need to drop the matter so precipitously - after all WP:Other stuff exists (or doesn't exist). Hitler is often held up as the personification of human evil, but, then again, so are Stalin, Mao and - to a much lesser extent - Pol Pot. We can certainly add some mention of it to the lede if someone has a reliable source to support it - however, to me it's kind of a "sky is blue" situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Often cited is.....Joel Feinberg; (Regents Professor of Philosophy and Law) (2003). Problems at the Roots of Law:. Oxford University Press. p. 189. ISBN 978-0-19-515526-6. Adolf Hitler would win honors, hands down, as the most evil man who ever lived, and the ultimate model of human wickedness........--Moxy 🍁 00:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
That would work for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest: "Hitler has been described as 'the most evil man who ever lived, and the ultimate model of human wickedness...'" followed by the citation. Beyond My Ken (talk)
That wording invites a {{by whom}} tag. What you would say is something like "The philosopher Joel Feinberg described Hitler as 'the most evil man who ever lived, and the ultimate model of human wickedness...'"— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I like it it puts the wight on the source The way Dianna put itJack90s15 (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019

In Economy and Culture it says this Wages were slightly lower in the mid to late 1930s compared with wages during the Weimar Republic, while the cost of living increased by 25 per cent. I might be wrong but I think it's supposed to be "25 percent"? Gekku032 (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done I'm not sure if this was an WP:ENGVAR situation, but I've changed all instances of "per cent" into the percent sign, "%", which should be acceptable in any variety of English.
(edit conflict),WP:PERCENT, this IS an Engvar situation. I have no strong opinions on the use of the symbol, but MOS appears to prefer the 'word form' to the symbol in non-technical articles.Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC) .... ps, this isn't as clear-cut as spelling differences, it's more like a hyphenation difference. Modern UK readers probably use and understand both forms with equal facility. Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The Chicago Manual of Style also calls for words to be used rather than the symbol in non-science writing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The New York Times Manual of Style basically agrees, saying that the symbol can be used in headlines, charts and table. It also specifies that "percent" is one word, not two. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, having replaced all instances of "per cent" with "%", I've now replaced "%" with "percent" in accordance with the discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Derrrr? In what part of Britain is New York located? At the risk of contradicting myself (since I acknowledged that Brits understand both forms), if we're going to consult style guides on an Engvar matter, let them at least be British - or follow MOS - which says 'gapped' for UK English. (This is maybe one of those rare instances when UK use is more rational, or at least is consistent with per annum, per capita etc). Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that if the usage in the UK is "per cent", then that is fine, but do you have a source similar to the style guides quoted above which says that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:PERCENT.Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have an Oxford University Press dictionary here (978-0-19-956174-2), which says the UK version is "per cent" and the US version is "percent". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. It looks like we're back where we started, and that is the right place to be. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Austrian-German

A hidden note says not to add "Austrian born" or anything similar to the first sentence without discussion. I propose saying "Austrian-German" instead of "German" to avoid inaccuracy (without linking it or anything). I understand that this is discussed in more detail in the second paragraph—but that's no reason to mislead readers in the article's opening statement. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No one is being "mislead" because nothing is actually being said there about his ethnicity or nationality. It's already dealt with down in the lede, and doesn't need to go into the lede sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The main logic of 'German' is that he is notable for being a German politician, war leader etc. This is consistent with other articles where nationality when the person became notable is used, nationality at birth being treated as secondary. To complicate matters further, modern Austria did not exist and - as an ethnic nationalist, - he saw himself as, and was seen as, German rather than Austrian. However one deals with the subject of his nationalities and birth place, it is difficult to be simultaneously comprehensive and concise and clear. I think present text is a good compromise. Pincrete (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree the text is sufficient in its present form. Kierzek (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive_61&oldid=1136497716"