Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Death declaration

@Kierzek: I attempted to add the category People declared dead in absentia, which you reverted on the basis that "there's no question or issue that he was dead. Confirmed by the dental remains found, examined and tested; in addition to evidence at the scene and testimony under oath." I was not attempting to deny any of that.

Our apparent disagreement is over how the category itself should be understood. I think it means, as stated on the category page, that the person was declared dead through a presumption of death, rather than a more immediate certification, officiated in the presence of a corpse. In other words, while there were many good arguments that Hitler was dead that were made in the immediate years after 1945, this was not officially recognized until 1956. By then, the 10 years of Germany's 'disappearance law' had passed. As no forensic evidence was present at the 1956 declaration proceedings, the body can be considered in absentia.

And yes, the dental remains were identified by Hitler's dental staff in 1945, but these were not present in 1956. It was further logically established that he was dead by eyewitness testimony, supported by Michael Musmanno's seminal argument that the body had been burned to ashes, and the FBI/CIA's lending no credence to fringe leads alleging his survival. Hitler was definitely dead, but the evidence was under Soviet lock and key. Only in the late 1960s were photographs of the bridges and jawbone fragment published that could be properly peer-reviewed by scientists, recently reconfirmed by Charlier et al.; but this evidence wasn't needed to declare Hitler dead in 1956, because he hadn't resurfaced for over a decade. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Presumption of death article says "A presumption of death occurs when a person is thought dead by an individual despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death, such as the finding of remains". That isn't the case here. I tend to agree with what Kierzek implied in his edit reason, that putting AH into the category creates an unnecessary doubt. How was AH formally (legally) declared dead anyway? Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The technicality here is that the Soviets had those remains in their protected archives. It wasn't directly available. See above comment. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Merrrrr ! I don't see how the category is useful or applies. How many people's remains in war are a great deal less intact/examined than AH's? Pincrete (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Pincrete. The category does not belong here. There’s no doubt that he was dead then just as there’s no doubt he is dead now. Going by the definition of the Presumption of death article, it is to be used when there is doubt about someone’s death. No there clearly is “direct proof” he was dead in 1945. There was sufficient evidence already presented before the late 60s that he was dead, even by the West. It has since been confirmed and re-confirmed. Therefore, you wanting to add that category directly plays into the hands of “conspiracy theorist” and disinformation as to the facts as put forth by eyewitnesses, physical evidence, reliable source historians and reliable source researchers and publications. It does not belong here. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Specific example of "remains in war ... a great deal less intact/examined than AH's" that were actually used to declare someone dead? UpdateNerd (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The tens of thousands of people who are killed dramatically or whose bodies are destroyed before 'legal process;' occurs during war for whom the only proof is the eye-witness account of comrades/fellow villagers/neighbours. Orderly certifying of death based on examination of an intact corpse is a long way from being universal in wars. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For any of those people who have Wikipedia articles, the category would seem to be appropriate, although weakly so because it reads "It is not definitely known whether the people in this category are actually dead." I guess because there's less than 100 articles in the category, it should be reserved for disappearances, but maybe a different category will exist one day for less ambiguous examples, where the remains were simply not available such as in wartime. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• If the Soviets had his body then it wasn't in absentia anyway, unless there is some compelling reason to doubt their account and analysis (and AFAIK that has never been the case.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to agree with that but our article does say There is no evidence that any actual bodily remains of Hitler or Braun – with the exception of the dental bridges – were found by the Soviets, which could be identified as their remains cited to Joachimsthaler, Fest and Kershaw. Is a dental bridge actually remains of a body? I’m no dental expert but Bridge (dentistry) suggests it’s the man-made part of the dental work, not a part of the teeth and therefore not “remains”. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  A bridge is not detachable; it is a permanent placement typically attached to other teeth via one or more crowns. — Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, so does “bridge” mean man-made bit + tooth? DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  No corpse, but quite a number of witnesses to the bodies before they were incinerated. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The upper bridge was almost entirely made of gold, with one real gold-capped tooth. The lower dental remains comprise a jawbone fragment broken off at the alveolar process (about where the tooth roots end), with some real teeth and attached bridges. That's the all the positively-identified remains the Soviets ever produced, although they claimed otherwise. The Death of Adolf Hitler article has photos. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry been gone, dealing with real life matters. "The only thing to remain of Hitler was a gold bridge with porcelain facets from his upper jaw and the lower jawbone with some teeth and two bridges." Joachimsthaler, 1999, p. 225. They were positively identified, as has been stated. Many people's remains are identified by dental records, even today. As UpdateNerd states there are photos of the dental remains in the old Soviet propaganda book from 1968, The Death of Adolf Hitler; about the only aspect the Soviets got right and did not twist to meet political needs of the time. As I wrote once in the past: "When dealing with the Soviet Union one can never discount the political factor that is intertwined with their actions and their writing. The totality of the evidence and statements of credible witnesses does not support anything more than the 'remains' being more than the jaw fragments and bridge fragments after the cremation in the Reich Chancellery gardens behind the emergency exit of the Bunker." Still, that is sufficient evidence. Kierzek (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  To restate my assent above, I acknowledge the existence of the evidence of Hitler's death. In my opinion, anyone declared dead without their remains right there in the room is technically declared dead in absentia. This is not necessarily the point of view currently used by our category, which reads more like a missing persons category, i.e. "It is not definitely known whether the people in this category are actually dead." The separate missing persons category is simply for outliers who were not legally declared dead, you know, for convenience.

  Just to note, however: Hitler's death actually was declared as an "assumption of death", with the apparent goal being to determine what to do with his (stolen) possessions. The ruling was based on the (according to Joachimsthaler, false) premise that the 42 witnesses interviewed in West Germany's investigation never saw his body. So, legally, I think the category could apply here, but I think the category summary page needs work to avoid misleading people. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I wonder if there would be any objection to adding the category based on my previous comment (concerning the details of West Germany's declaration) and having amended the category description to emphasize that it's all about legal convenience, not the unknown mortality status of missing persons. Pincrete's reasoning is the strongest case against this I believe, having cited the Presumption of death article which defines its subject as being "when a person is thought dead by an individual despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death, such as the finding of remains (e.g., a corpse or skeleton)". This, however, is just Wikipedia's description, and West Germany indeed declared it an "assumption of death". It's a historical fact that this occurred, although of course there was no scholarly question over Hitler's mortality. With the subtle category description rewording, it's far clearer that it's simply about a type of legal proceeding. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  What would be the advantage of inclusion? Is this in any sense a defining feature? Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Good question. It's (obviously) more relevant to the death itself than the person's overall biography. However, the category is called "People declared dead in absentia" so it's obvious for biography articles, not articles focusing on the death. I think it draws attention to the fact that his death was at least a large topic of discussion and debate, and used as propaganda by the Soviet Union. If you just read the lead of the Hitler article, it sounds like the story ends with his suicide and that his death had no larger impact. The category helps draw attention to the facts of the decades-long conversation around the death itself. Even if the facts themselves are not in question, there's certainly a lot of detailed history that has been of interest in confirming that one of the greatest-of-all-time tyrants in fact died in 1945. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You’re just adding vagueness, unnecessary speculation and conjecture. Further, I still object based on my reasons stated above. This article and the conspiracy article make the points as to years of disinformation, rumors, and conjecture as to the facts. They do it much better than adding some vague category. Nothing has changed. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed a [statement] in the category that casted doubt on whether the people thus categorized are actually dead. Clicking through a few at random, it seems there are many biographies here of people who are definitely dead and their means of death are well understood in spite of the lack of a body. (For example, Charles_W._Whittlesey.) From this and the plain meaning of the language, it seems clear to me that Hitler belongs in the category for the reasons UpdateNerd articulated. We ought not shape Wikipedia to avoid mention of innocuous facts that unreasonable people might seize upon to further their conspiratorial thinking -- they're going to do that regardless. --causa sui (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That does not change my reasons stated for objection. Kierzek (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like your objections are that adding this biography to that category would suggest that the date and cause of Hitler's death is -- contrary to fact -- ambiguous or uncertain, or that it is a possible subject of debate or disagreement between mainstream historians. Do I have that right, in a nutshell? --causa sui (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is the category in question still suggests a "presumption" of death, but there is in fact none. Even the German Federal Court Judge stated this in the 1950s (even when all the evidence was not known). Certainly, it is clearly known today. There were many witnesses who saw the corpse of Hitler, then burned it and there were remains of the body, i.e., jaw fragments and bridge fragments; so, as I said, my objection has not changed, even if the wording has been tweaked to try and make it fit better. And as Pincrete states below, it adds nothing of real substance. Kierzek (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kierzek: While assuming your good faith I think your objection circumvents how categories are applied, which is whether or not they fit based on their description, not whether or not you like how it affects an article's presentation. The category is for people legally declared dead, which is now clearly stated on the summary page and Death of Adolf Hitler#Aftermath now extensively shows was the case. The category isn't for missing persons or any other people whose living status is ambiguous. It's for deaths that needed the legal system to step in where hard evidence was not available at the time, in this case instead relying on eyewitness testimony—no remains, no photographs. Subsequent science providing proofs of his death is irrelevant, because these were not available in 1956 when the death declaration was made. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My objections are factually sound and written for consideration when trying to reach a consensus (which, at this point has not been achieved); that is how Wikipedia is suppose to work. UpdateNerd, you erroneously state above (as to me) and below, the opinion that I (and Pincrete) would write something based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is never the case. Kierzek (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That may be my assertion, as even perceived objectivity is subjective. You could make the equivalent argument about my viewpoint, but we would seem to be slipping into contradiction rather than argument. I respect differing viewpoints and the fact that consensus supersedes most other guidelines. However, I prefer to argue on the basis of those guidelines, especially when there's no overwhelming majority and other editors may be informed by such discourse. No one has dismantled the view that categories should help readers find articles, not (exclusively) the other way around. No one has refuted the fact that this category is not superseded or trivialized by another. Further, it cannot be overemphasized that the category is about a legal proceeding, not whether it contributes to unrelated conspiracy theories about the subject, none of which I know mention the death certificate. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It has never been about, whether "categories should help readers find articles"", that is a non-issue. I am glad that you agree with me that consensus is the verdict we are all striving to reach here. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You altered the text of the category, but why? Surely the whole purpose of the category is where there is not 'normal' evidence of death - such as a corpse, or in this instance, witnesses to their having been corpses - which is a common wartime scenario - that there are only witnesses to a death having occurred, not actual 'intact' remains. What understanding does this category add, and how is it in any way 'defining'.Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this may be the root of the disagreement. It seems to me that we agree that the category is for biographies where a person has been declared dead without direct observation of the body of the dead person. What I suspect we disagree about is whether the absence of a body at the time of the legal declaration of death implies anything in particular about whether historians, or readers of a biography, should have doubts that the bio subject is actually dead, or whether the consensus of mainstream historians about time and manner of death is weak or controversial. I don't believe that has any such implication at all.

As I mentioned, clicking through some of the biographies already in the category demonstrated this to me, but I also think this article itself is an excellent example of exactly why that is not so. Adolf Hitler died on 1945-04-30 from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Witnesses to his death carried his dead body out of the room where he shot himself and burned it. By the time the legal declaration of his death was made, what remained of his body was not available to those making the declaration, which makes the declaration of his death legally in absentia. None of these historical facts are in conflict with the others.

As it happens, I'm still not happy with the lead to that category, since the link to presumption of death suggests there is more doubt among mainstream, reliable sources than can actually be substantiated for many of the biographies there. Presumption of death and legal declaration of death in absentia are not the same thing. So I'm speculating about whether developing the category lead and correcting that would help resolve this dispute here. --causa sui (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

the absence of a body at the time of the legal declaration of death in the context of the fall of Berlin and collapse of Germany, what was the legal declaration of his death anyway? Also what percentage of those dying in war are declared dead solely on the basis of witnesses or or evidence other than a physically-present 'intact' corpse? I still don't see how adding this category adds anything at all to knowing about AH. There are hundreds of categories which AH could be (and often has been) added to at some point. Plus, as I understand it, the Soviets had identifiable portions of his remains shortly after his death - his body, such as it was, was not absent. Pincrete (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but UpdateNerd cited [this https://archive.org/details/lastdaysofhitler0000joac_o3a8/page/11/mode/2up] elsewhere in this discussion thread. I can't escape the feeling that you still consider this to be a dispute about the time and manner of his death, which, I repeat, was exactly as we describe it in this article already. UpdateNerd's citation explains some of the reasons why, so we can add that to the pile of authoritative sources that concur with what we have in the article now.

In general, I don't usually think of categorizing articles as something we do to add information to them, but rather to help find articles with similar attributes. Since I don't see anything wrong with this bio being in the category, because category membership doesn't (or shouldn't?) imply anything contrary to fact about the time and manner of his death, it just doesn't seem like a big deal. --causa sui (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree as I just pointed out in a reply to Kierzek. This is not about how it makes his death "appear", even though the category doesn't make a judgment on someone being dead or not—just whether the declaration was made through legal proceedings, without photographs or hard evidence in the room. Categories simply do or do not fit based on their description. The idea that it doesn't "add" something is an irrelevant attempt to editorialize, also known as POV. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has argued that any disagreement is about how the death 'appears' - though not feeding fantastic theories is an additional reason to avoid lack of clarity. Do reliable sources describe the death as being certified in absentia? AFAIK none do. Was the dead body witnessed by several people prior to its incineration? I believe yes, which is normally more than sufficient 'proof' in times of war. Were there some identifiable remains (albeit charred perhaps) found by the Red Army? I believe so, though I'm not sure what formal 'certification of death' occurred anyway in the context of a disintegrating regime. What is the remaining argument for inclusion in any 'in absentia' categorisation? Witnesses saw the dead body before incineration and some identifiable remains were found after incineration. What have I missed?

If we were to include every person killed in WWII, for whom an MD did not inspect an 'intact' corpse, there would be 1000s of extra names in the category and it would cease to fulfil any purpose.Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Per Joachimsthaler (linked by causa sui just above, p. 9) some witnesses at Nuremberg only mentioned seeing the body after it had been rolled up in a blanket and couldn't be identified, hence the 1950s proceedings. Joachimsthaler points out that the 1956 ruling did not take into account the fact that some eyewitnesses saw the body before it was rolled up, but that doesn't negate that the ruling occurred on the basis of assumption of death. The judge also said there could not be "the slightest doubt" that Hitler was in fact dead, so the argument that this muddles facts or contributes to conspiracy theories is without merit.

The declaration was made in Allied West Germany, far from the dental remains in the Soviet archive, which weren't even photographically released until 1968. Although the dental assistants had provided Western historians with the knowledge that these remains had been found in 1945, that wasn't physical evidence but only additional testimony that needed to be considered in order for the legal process to take place. The category reflects the legal proceeding which took place in 1956, not what is known by Wikipedia users in 2022 with all available knowledge. Pincrete, you previously made the argument that soldiers in war wouldn't have this category applied, but can you cite an example? UpdateNerd (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the category and what are the criteria for inclusion? The arguments put forward for inclusion seem very synthy, we put two and two together and make five. I've never said other than at times of war, procedures for verifying death (and cause of) are necessarily less 'formal' than in established peace-time societies. You surely aren't arguing that Hitler was not declared dead until the 1950s? How many witnesses does one need to have actually heard the gunshot and to have seen the (mutilated) corpse? What reason is there to doubt any of them? Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the above paragraph at all. Sure, he was "declared" dead, as in the Stars & Stripes newspaper and by scholars, but legally, no, this didn't happen anywhere until 1956. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologise, I hadn't read the sources given properly. In a sense this all hinges on whether the recognition of death occurred immediately at the end of WWII, when pretty much everyone recognised the death, or the 'technical' certification in the 1950s by a court. I still don't see what adding the category would add (there are other 'inapt' AH categories - such as AH used to be in 20th Century criminals, alongside Al Capone and an assorted random collection of notable gangsters, rapists and fraudsters - on account of his imprisonment in the 1920s, rather than his WWII deeds) and it is reasonable to ask whether the category is a defining feature of AH, as well as whether it is technically true - which in this case it may be. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. This is a unique case. For comparison, there's Amelia Earhart, who is categorized under both Missing aviators and People declared dead in absentia. Hitler belongs to the latter category, but obviously isn't a missing person. (That's what the copyedits to the in absentia category have helped to clear up; the two categories overlap, with Hitler qualifying for one but not the other.) As far as whether this is a "defining" feature, I'll reiterate: categories help people find articles that fit the categorization and aren't meant to subjectively editorialize articles. (The criminal cat. would be eclipsed by those for genocide, politicide, treason, etc. There aren't any categories on this article which would trivialize the in absentia one alongside it.) UpdateNerd (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The category criteria states "People in this category have been legally declared dead in the absence of a body, as a presumption of death" - there is really no way of escaping the defining character as the 'need for a presumption'. AH was declared dead at the end of WWII, when his remains and witnesses confirmed the death. Why the 1950s hearings were legally necessary seems a bit technical, but they certainly weren't primarily to establish that he was dead, nor was there ever any need for a 'presumption'. Categories exist to establish meaningful connections between articles and the primary meaningful connection in this instance is the need for a 'presumption', because more concrete proofs are missing, that just isn't the case here. The "criminal" category was an example of a non-defining characteristic, not everyone who has been to prison is meaningfully a criminal and AH has little in common with a random selection of gangsters, rapists and fraudsters. Pincrete (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That's all well and fine as your opinion. As I discussed with Kierzek above, we can argue all we want, but it really comes down to consensus. We'll see how it plays out. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to give up on this topic after everyone has generously contributed their time and stated their viewpoints. I defer to the argument that this isn't a defining feature of this biography article. However, I think it's relevant to the Death article, and the category has plenty of articles titled with "Death of " or "Disappearance of" in their titles, sorted by last name. So I'll try that categorization instead and see what objections arise, if any. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

In the citizenship entry in the infobox, I was gonna wikilink "stateless" to Wikipedia page "statelessness" Victor obini (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Gravely immoral back again?

We previously had a lengthy discussion around the replacement of the term "evil" with the watered-down term "gravely immoral" in the closing sentences of the intro. We had concluded that this was extraordinarily poor wording and changed it. I have noticed it is back again. What is going on here? Cheating on your spouse is gravely immoral. Murdering millions of people is *evil.* This word-choice doesn't come across as "neutral" or "objective" - it sounds suspiciously like a reluctance to cast Hitler in a negative light, hidden behind equivocations around site rules. 73.60.215.239 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The most recent discussion is Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 63#Evil replaced by Gravely immoral? where the consensus was that "almost universally regarded as evil" was impossible to source, so "gravely immoral" was put into the lead. The word "evil" appears repeatedly in the Legacy section though.— Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I don’t think that’s right. The outcome of that discussion was that Kershaw’s quote that Hitler was "the embodiment of modern political evil" replaced “gravely immoral”. That was the stable text for about a year and then. “gravely immoral” reappeared just over a month ago, without discussion, in this edit. I don’t think that edit was an improvement - as previously discussed “garvely immoral” is not the right phrase - and that edit should be reverted. I’ve gone ahead and reverted it, taking out “gravely immoral”. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Good catch DeCausa, I missed that. — Diannaa (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I missed it too, DeCausa, good catch. But then I am not on here as much lately, due to other real life matters. Kierzek (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; good move. Mathglot (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this edit. "Gravely immoral" has a more serious objective gravity to it. "Evil" sounds much more childish, and lacking seriousness. Comic book villains are "evil". People have called Alister Crowley "evil". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.3.243 (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"About"

"the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims" sounds a little informal. "the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of approximately six million Jews and millions of other victims" ("about" -> "approximately"), or similar, might sound more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:305:1E39:E916:BC9D:F707:EBDD (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Article indicated by "Attention"

What needs "attention" in the article? Adamdaley (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

How did Adolf Hitler managed to get rid of all Jews in Germany

What strategies did he used to get the support from other Germans 102.252.68.23 (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this The Holocaust. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

As he didn't get them all, the answer is "he didn't". Britmax (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the most evil historical figures of all time?

Add "Hitler is considered by historians to be one of the most evil historical figures of all time". --2A01:36D:1200:4F8:D15F:707:91A9:4BE9 (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

We have discussed this many times, please see the archive. 10:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"Hitler, Adolf 1889-1945" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hitler, Adolf 1889-1945 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Hitler, Adolf 1889-1945 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

city where hitler was born

the man was born in Austria-Hungary, Austria in Braunau am Inn. 116.240.135.227 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

So?

@Joaquin89uy: Hitler having dealing with Jews prior to WW1 does speak to the origins of his anti-semitism dating post WW1. This is explained in the bit following your template. Kleuske (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Historian Evans states that "historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany's defeat in World War I, as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe"."

Thats the explanation? With all due respect, it is poor, vague, and/or irrelevant. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure it is in the article, but there is a new book out that says Hitler was indicted 7 times by the UN prior to Hitler's suicide. One of them I believe was anti-semitism. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2022

In the lead, removed the mention of Hitler's corpse being burned and change "of about six million Jews and millions of other victims" to "of about six million Jews and tens of millions of other victims" In the lead, change" By November 1932, the Nazi Party held the most seats in the German Reichstag, but did not have a majority. . As a result, no party was able to form a majority parliamentary coalition in support of a candidate for chancellor." to " By November 1932, the Nazi party held the most seats in the German Reichstag but did not have a majority. Both the Nazi and Communist parties were unwilling to form coalition governments and together controlled approximately 50% of seats in the Reichstag. As a result, no party was able to form a majority parliamentary coalition in support of a candidate for chancellor."Originalcola (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The 'Holocaust' sentence is accurate ("millions of other victims") - maybe 12 million-ish, depending on who is included, only in the context of the broader war would "tens of millions" be true. The "Reichstag" sentence is over detailed for the lead IMO. Pincrete (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a phrasing that included Soviet and/or Slavic victims as numerically they make up a greater share but I couldn't find a source for Slavic deaths in WW2 so I thought changing the phrasing to be more in line with the tens of millions of deaths referenced in the lead and Holocaust section would have been good enough. My proposed Reichstag change isn't really 100% accurate, it was a poor attempt to simplify the election issues and the Nazi coalition with the German National People's Party . Originalcola (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither of these suggestions are good additions to the lead, which is supposed to summarize the content of the article. Election issues and material about coalitions in the govt is not appropriate content for the lead, as it is too much detail for the lead. A breakdown of deaths in different countries/nationalities is not even contained in the article (it's actually off-topic for this article), so it doesn't belong in the lead, in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Have to agree with Diannaa, suggestions are not an improvement. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Views on religion

Commenting on KlayCax's recent addition about Hitler's views on religion. The edit added quite a bit to the lead regarding religion. The content added to the lead doesn't really sum up the content in the article and contains content not actually covered in the body; rather it appears to be a summary of the article Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Maybe we should have a word in the lead about persecution of religions other than Jews in the lead, but it needs to be shorter, and it needs to be based on the content of this article only. How about making a suggestion here on the talk page?

Second problem: the content added to the body was placed prior to a citation to Bullock; I have a copy of Bullock right here, and the addition is not covered by that citation. You may not realize it, but this is a Good Article, meticulously maintained, and every single passage has a citation. So pasting in unsourced material, even if it's known to be true or sourceable, is not welcome, because if we are going to keep it someone will have to dig up the source. If you want to add something, please source it yourself. However,

Third problem: Wikipedia has a guideline that the maximum size of an article should be around 10,000 words. As soon as an article gets to be that size, we start creating sub-articles and give a shortened version of its content (or even just a wikilink). So adding more content that is already in a sub-article is not necessarily welcome. This article currently has a word count of 12280 words. — Diannaa (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For me the issue is, we give one line to 6 million dead Jews, and a paragraph to a few thousand dead Christians, which seems massively undue. This might warrant one line (something like) "And despite Hitler's professed religious views the Nazis' persecuted some Christians", at most. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm broadly in agreement with Dianaa and Slatersteven. I doubt any mention at all is due; I could perhaps be convinced of a mention in a list of other personal beliefs. In a five-paragraph summary of everything important to be said about Hitler, this doesn't make the cut. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe any of the recent addition is an improvement, nor is it needed in this main article. I agree it is WP:UNDUE weight, as well. Ofcourse, the other issue is in relation to WP:RS of the information. But, we do not need to go into that, if consensus is not to include any of it. Kierzek (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If his current "religious beliefs" subsection contains inaccurate information that violates WP: RS: then that should be subsequently addressed.

What parts do you believe violate it?KlayCax (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be shortened by quite a bit. But I think that a sentence such as His reign saw widespread repression against dissent religious groups, including Protestant members of the Confessing Church, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses would be entirely WP: Due. Perhaps the mention of his private theological beliefs could be removed while his campaigns of religious persecution could be briefly mentioned in one or two sentences of the lead. KlayCax (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

None of that is covered in this article, so we can't include it in the lead, because the lead is a summary of the article. WP:LEAD. By the way the word "reign" is reserved for royalty: kings, queens, emperors, and the like. — Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In my view Hitler was a pagan who viewed himself as God in order to justify his crimes against humanity. He may also have been delusional in his 1000 year reign of the German state. He started the Hitler cult brainwashing the Hitler youth. He was a Jim Jones or David Karesh type of cult leader. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Wyndham Lewis authored The Hitler Cult (1939). This book describes the Hitler cult Hitler founded. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In other words the religion of "Herr Hitler" was Hitler, who wanted to establish a god-man Arian race to rule for 1000 years. Mein Kauf was his bible whom he forced the German people to purchase and read. More should be said on the Hitler cult in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop this madness

The IPA transcription is wrong. The vowel of the first syllable is LONG, which is phonemic in German. This is evident from both the audio recording and the spelling (the rules of German orthography dictate that /adolf/ must be written *Addolf). It should be trivial to find a dictionary reference too, e.g. Duden. The syllabification is also hilariously wrong (the first syllable would be open either way). Now even other Wikipedias are copying this atrocity. How can one trust anything here when such basic and obvious details are all wrong and not allowed to be corrected? 95.37.241.249 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a good suggestion. If you could please post here what you think the IPA transcription should be, that would be helpful. — Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a native German speaker, but based on the comment and also the pronunciation recording we have in the article, maybe [ˈadoːlf ˈhɪt.lɐ] ? --causa sui (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I did it. Feel free to adjust. --causa sui (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sentence on the last paragraph: "the embodiment of modern political evil"

Without doubt, Hitler was evil and his crimes remain as a black mark in the annals of history. However, it is not the mission of Wikipedia to tell someone was good or bad. We should instead neutrally document his deeds, and our readers can judge his actions for themselves. Therefore, I suggest removing this sentence from the article abstract or changing it to something more appropriate such as "Hitler's crimes against humanity are universally condemned." Please refer to WP:ASSERT for the relevant policy. Madame Necker (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

We do not say it as a fact, we are quoting someone. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Attributed quote, which does reflect mainstream views. Kleuske (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before and consensus was reached as to this wording. Further, as stated, it is a mainstream professional opinion. Therefore, it is properly mentioned in the article. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Even seeing this comment here is slightly triggering, although I'm glad it was shut down fast this time. Jesus. These people just come out of the woodwork don't they? 73.60.215.239 (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• oppose making the article say Hitler is less evil or removing statements that Hitler is evil. Andre🚐 16:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

So I want to add his real name (Christened) on this page. I want to add (born as Adolphus Hitler) or something like that. Minor edit Allan Polatcan (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says that was his birth name? I have checked two books so far and both say "Adolf". — Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that baptismal records of the time often used a Latinized version of a child's name. Birth records sometimes too. It doesn't mean that was their real name, if that is defined as what the parents called the child. I can see several references for Adolphus on Hitler's birth or baptismal certificates (search for "Adolphus Hitler" at Google Books; I haven't assessed reliability). Zero^talk 01:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean "real name" Allan Polatcan (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the German Wikipedia name Hitler Adolphus? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The German edition of Wikipedia just calls Hitler Adolph. So should this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It actually uses "Adolf" same as us. — Diannaa (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 August 2022

Under the tab Nazi Germany, and the topic 'Rearmament and new alliances' the paragraph "In January 1935, over 90 per cent of the people of the Saarland, then under League of Nations administration, voted to unite with Germany." - - it should say 90 percent (percent being one word, not two) TheRealMsGalaxy (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is in British English. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool Isn't percent British English? I'm English and I was taught and have only heard of percent used here Stephanie921 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

My Oxford Dictionary shows "per cent", with "percent" as a US variation. In Canada, we typically also use "per cent". — Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, ty. What other English dictionary sources are viable for Wikipedia? This has intrigued me Stephanie921 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling gives some of the spelling variations and offers tips on where to get other resources on this topic. — Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Diannaa Ty! Stephanie921 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Phrasing about the Holocaust

@Endwise Please can we discuss our dispute here? The second article you linked says not to use the word Neo-Nazi but that sentiment doesn't apply here, since Hitler was a Nazi. Similarly, there is overwhelming historical evidence and sources - used in the article - which say Nazism is racist. I think it's the right thing to call it racist and that it'd be a problem not to. We acknowledge he was antisemitic in the rest of the article and the same thing applies here.

However, since I made that edit I have been thinking about the part that acknowledges:

"...millions of other victims, whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen".

Some of the other people killed in the Holocaust were killed in ways that weren't racist - like disabled people, gay people and trans people. I think the sentence should be reworked to acknowledge this, whilst acknowledging most people killed in the Holocaust were killed for antisemitic reasons. Stephanie921 (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This article actually says "...whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) or socially undesirable." — Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Diannaa Ik, I just didn't type the rest cos it just explains what I'd already written, and I didn't think that was necessary to my point. I thought people would get what I meant by Untermenschen. Was there anything wrong with not typing the full sentence? Stephanie921 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The way you wrote it is incorrect, as we do include people in the lead that were killed for reasons other than racism. The full sentence reads: Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims, whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) or socially undesirable.

Just so others can be clear on what you are discussing, you changed the piped link from [[Nazi racial theories|racially motivated ideology]] to [[Nazi racial theories|racist ideology]], and Endwise reverted your edit. And Endwise did not actually link to articles in the edit summary; their links point to the NPOV policy page and the Manual of Style. — Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me completely. I know that's what the full sentence says - but since that's the full sentence, it should say 'predominantly antisemitic' or 'predominantly racist', since the rest of the sentence - after the bit that mentions that six million Jews were killed - says that other people were killed because they considered Untermenschen. Those other people weren't necessarily killed because of racist reasons - like disabled people - who were killed because of the Nazi's ableist ideology. And I meant those pages when I said articles, but I'm sorry for not being specific. I didn't think it was an issue cos I thought the gist of my point was clear, but I'll say policies/guidelines next time @Diannaa Stephanie921 (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest a new wording? — Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes please @User:Diannaa. I suggest:

"Under Hitler's leadership and bigoted, predominantly antisemitic ideology, the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims, whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) or socially undesirable."

I believe that the original wording is grammatically superior and conveys the necessary information. Kierzek (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't really see a problem with the existing text. "Predominantly antisemitic" is a curious phrase which begs a number of questions and "bigoted" reduces the horrors of Nazi ideology to an Archie Bunkeresque level. DeCausa (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@DeCausa By 'predominantly antisemitic' I meant that Jews were the people killed most in the Holocaust but that the other victims of the Holocaust mentioned at the end of the sentence were killed too - although Jewish people were killed more than them. And I agree that bigoted isn't strong enough, although I don't know what word be better. What would you suggest? And I'm sorry if I sounded like Archie Bunker, I didn't mean to :( I'm a member of groups that were killed in the Holocaust so I wasn't trying to be bigoted. I was trying to figure out the best phrasing. I'm sorry if I upset you Stephanie921 (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You didn't upset me. I think you misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying you were bigoted and sounded like Archie Bunker (!) I was saying that "bigoted" was a word that was more appropriate for Archie Bunker, not for Nazism. On "predominantly antisemitic", because the murders that were the consequence of the ideology were predominantly of Jewish people, it doesn't follow that the ideology can be described as "predominantly antisemitic". i'm still unclear what's wrong with the current wording. It seems to do the job to me. DeCausa (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay, I'm glad I didn't upset u and sound like Archie Bunker. Ty for explaining what u meant. Please could you elaborate on why you think it doesn't follow that the ideology can be described as "predominantly antisemitic" within the sentence's context? Stephanie921 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Was Nazi ideology "predominantly" about antisemitism? Obviously it was a major theme. But there was also nationalism, aryanism, irredentism, lebensraum, corporatism, totalitarianism/fuehrer-principle etc in the mix. Does that leave anti-semitism as predominant? You need to find a source that claims that. Just because more Jews were murdered than other groups doesn't necessarily mean that amongst the components of the ideology ant-semitism predominates. DeCausa (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

OP Stephanie921 has today been blocked as a sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ariana Williscroft. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So we can close this nnow. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Cowlibob (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Adolf Hitler

• ... that Adolf Hitler was born in Austria and not in Germany like many people believe?
  • Reviewed:

Created by S40052650 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC).

• The article is not new, newly expanded, or newly promoted to GA. @S40052650: see WP:DYKCRIT for the eligibility rules. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Change A to B for the purpose of improving clarity (see below):

A:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadoːlf ˈhɪt.lɐ] ^ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who led Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945.

B:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadoːlf ˈhɪt.lɐ] ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the leader of Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945. Rosedaler (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Until Sept 5th this year, it had actually said "was dictator" for quite a long time. It was removed as AH was not initially a "dictator". I agree that "was dictator" or "was the leader" or similar is clearer than the present "who led". I won't make the change though until others have had their say. Do we tolerate the slight inaccuracy of "was dictator from 1933 until … "? Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I much prefer "was dictator" as more accurate. "Leader" is actually too neutral a term and lacks precision. (Yes, it is possible for an encyclopedia to be too neutral, and this would be a primary example.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

He wasn't dictator initially - which was the justification for the recent change. I'm neutral as to leader/dictator and can see dis/advantages to both. Pincrete (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, he was a dictator, but not since his first election win for Chancellor in 1933. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

HITLER NEVER WON ELECTION TO CHANCELLOR!! He was appointed by Hinderberg. Yes, his dictatorship can be said to have begun with the Reichstag Fire Decree followed by the Enabling Act, but we're talking about only a matter of 4 weeks as opposed to the vast majority of his rule. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The article presents a process - as is usual in such situations - of Germany going from a (failing?) democracy to a dictatorship. A process wholly completed by the time/when Hindenburg died in August 1934. I personally don't object to the marginal error/simplification of saying that he was dictator from '33, since from the first all actions were in that direction and it was increasingly - de facto - true. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Not likely controversial. Wording difference and details. Rosedaler (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I've restored "was dictator" which may be a slight simplification, but which seems to have no objectors, and was the long-term text.Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following wording for the introduction. It is probably wise to avoid "dictator" as an introductory term, while his rule was not tempered by the rule of law after President Hindenburg's death, nor was the rule of many other 20th century autocrats such as Stalin, Mao, and Imam Khomeini for instance,

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadoːlf ˈhɪt.lɐ] ^ⓘ; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German soldier and revolutionary who held the office of führer of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and took power as chancellor of Germany in 1933. He was the leader of Germany until his death in 1945. His political ideology and policies are known as National Socialism (popularly known as Nazism) and were inspired by fascism, social Darwinism, and the Völkisch movement.

I believe it is important to use the initial sentences of biographical articles to describe the person rather than their deeds. The subsequent parts of the introduction covering the Second World War and the Holocaust are sufficient. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

He was not primarily known as a soldier or revolutionary, but as dictator of Germany. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I already addressed that. I am trying to bring the introduction in line with the introductions to other articles about contentious totalitarian leaders.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're trying to cover too much and in so doing it actually becomes misleading and obscure. MOS:FIRST warns aginst that: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. Try to not overload the first sentence." The names of a series of political offices and relatively unimportant roles (soldier?) maybe tells the reader facts but doesn't tell the reader who Hitler was. You've made him sound like any other political leader - possibly a democratic one. In plain English, what was he? He was dictator of Germany. That's what the first sentence most importantly needs to say. The detail of offices held etc can follow. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I based it on the introduction to Enver Pasha's article, who was also a genocidal despot.

Here are the introductory passages of articles about leaders I believe are good comparisons to Hitler.

İsmail Enver, better known as Enver Pasha (Ottoman Turkish: اسماعیل انور پاشا; Turkish: İsmail Enver Paşa; 22 November 1881 – 4 August 1922) was an Ottoman military officer, revolutionary, and convicted war criminal who formed one-third of the dictatorial triumvirate known as the "Three Pashas" (along with Talaat Pasha and Cemal Pasha) in the Ottoman Empire.

Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (born Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili; 18 December [O.S. 6 December] 1878 – 5 March 1953) was a Georgian revolutionary and Soviet political leader who led the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953). Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become a dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.

Mao Zedong (26 December 1893 – 9 September 1976), also known as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese communist revolutionary who was the founder of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which he led as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from the establishment of the PRC in 1949 until his death in 1976. Ideologically a Marxist–Leninist, his theories, military strategies, and political policies are collectively known as Maoism. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making. For one thing, you could as easily go to those articles and say it should be changed to be more like this one. For another, they're tailored to each subject. It makes total sense for Mao to be described as a revolutionary in that bio, but not for Hitler. Take a look at WP:OTHERCONTENT. DeCausa (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

But what is Mao primarily known for? You yourself brought up the issue of what a person is primarily known for, and the first thing that springs to mind when Mao is mentioned is that he was dictator of China, the first thing viz Stalin is that he was dictator of the Soviet Union, and the first thing viz Enver Pasha is that he perpetrated the Armenian genocide. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I only just added my lnk to WP:OTHERCONTENT so you may have missed it. Unless an article is an WP:FA comparisons like that carry little weight. This article is a WP:GA so is Stalin. The other 2 you cite are a B and a C. Btw, I would say Mao is just as known for his revolutonary role. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that Hitler and Mao as historical figures are more alike than you seem to think. Both sought the radical transformation of society through the exercise of unfettered political power by systematically dismantling the political systems that came before them, whether you like it or not that is revolution ("revolutionary" does not mean "good", real life isn't an action movie) TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree, Mao is a (literal) poster boy for revolutionaries, not so Hitler (who in fact only participated in one (very small) failed revolution, which (I would argue) most people are not even ware of). And (unlike Mao) he came to power democratically. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven and do not believe the proposed changes are an improvement and are less accurate as to Hitler, then what is presented and which was well vetted; agreed to by consensus. It must be remembered, TheCurrencyGuy that the lead of an article is to summarize the main points of said article, in this case, Adolf Hitler. Adding that he was a “revolutionary” is not a main point in the body of said article. Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with others. AH isn't primarily known as either a soldier nor revolutionary, but is known as a dictator who initiated WWII and for his role in the Holocaust. I have in the past been involved in RfCs on the Stalin article and was inclined to think it downplayed Stalin's role in the terrorising and slaughter of his own people - which is what he is now primarily remembered for, rather than for any political philosophy, but even so "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS' as DeCausa says isn't a good reason to apply a "one size fits all" approach to people who we may personally feel are equally odious. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue I take with this is that the current lede is a description of what he did, not of him as a historical person. Hitler's role in the Second World War and his war crimes are almost certainly known to the majority of readers. A reader will look at the article to learn about who Hitler was and his motivations for his actions.

I've no objection to mentioning the war or the Holocaust in the introduction, but shoehorning it into the very first sentence seems dishonest. Hitler is not like people such as, say, Ted Bundy, who is only well known for crimes he committed. Hitler would still be a notable historical figure without the war crimes or genocide he was responsible for.

I also take objection to the notion that Hitler's rise and exercise of power was not a revolutionary act. While he rose to power through legal channels he then initiated a radical transformation of the whole of German society in line with his worldview. A revolution is a significant shift in the structure of society, whether for good or ill. Regimes such as Hitler's are not like the regimes of conservative autocrats like Franco or Alfredo Strossner who merely sought to maintain what already existed TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That is WP:OR I'm afraid. Do most sources focus on the revolutionary nature of his takeover or regime? AFAIK no and I don't even understand the distinction between who the historical person was and what the historical person did. What he did is precisely why he is remembered, not for his thoughts. Certainly AH got the German economy and society going again before WWII, (in part by militarising both), and we record that I hope. We don't assume that readers already know anything about a subject - apart from the fact that very young people read WP - what level of fore knowledge would we assume? We have to tell readers that Shakespeare was an English playwright and poet and where and when he lived and wrote before getting into any more detailed or esoteric info. Similarly for AH who, what, when he lived and his most significant "accomplishments" are in para 1., as they should be. Pincrete (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it constitutes Original Research to state known facts simply because some trashy pop history sources do not cover it. There have been many works analysing this subject, often from an academic rather than pop history perspective. Wikipedia itself on its revolution article cites Professor Mark N. Katz in stating that Nazi Germany belongs to the "fascist wave" of revolutions that began in Italy in 1922.

The mention of William Shakespeare is actually a good point, it does not immediately cite specific plays or poems he authored, rather it introduces him as an author first, and introducing specific works as and when appropriate. If all the ledes to the articles of contentious historical figures were written in the same way Saddam Hussein's article would introduce his gassing of the Kurds and the Iran-Iraq War before any other important information about him. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Just because some sources describe Hitler as a revolutionary does not mean we are obligated to include it in the opening sentence of this article. We need to discriminate which elements are the most relevant and of the most use to our readers. In Wikipedia, the opening sentence(s) need to describe what makes the person or topic notable. In the case of Hitler, the things he is known for is for being dictator of Germany and leader of the Nazi Party during WWII. Describing him as a "soldier and revolutionary" really misses the mark (it would be like describing JFK as a naval officer and rich guy who later became US president). While discussing Hitler as a revolutionary might be a topic of interest for scholars, it's not appropriate to include it here in this biography (especially in the opening sentence), which is a place for basic information about the topic. You might consider adding sourced content on Hitler's revolutionary views to Political views of Adolf Hitler instead.

So to sum up, I am not in favor of your proposed changes to the lead. — Diannaa (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with those the oppose the proposal. I'd like to note that the article is currently included in Category:German revolutionaries. If there are high-quality RS that describe him as such, I'd suggest adding them to the body of the article first (I'm not convinced that they'd belong at the political views subarticle) for potential summary in the lead later (not the first sentence). I think removal of his role in genocide from the first paragraph is unwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to amend my proposal to state that AH was:

...an Austrian-born German politician who held the office of führer of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) and took power as chancellor of Germany in 1933. He was the leader of Germany until his death in 1945. His political ideology and policies are known as National Socialism (popularly known as Nazism) and were inspired by fascism, social Darwinism, and the Völkisch movement.

I am not totally beholden to the description of him as "soldier and revolutionary", I simply drew inspiration from the initial paragraphs of comparable historical figures. Other leaders responsible for genocide or other politically motivated massacres do not have such a "30-second health warning", so to speak, in the first paragraph.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Your new suggested edit doesn't work either, since several people have already stated a preference for the word "dictator". There's a couple other problems I have not yet mentioned: his political ideology and policies are not known as National Socialism; they are known as Nazism or fascism. The party was far-right, not socialist at all (but did initially have some socialist elements and ideas, but only early on). And we can't include "were inspired by fascism, social Darwinism, and the Völkisch movement" because that's not covered in the article or sourced. Everything in the lead has to be covered in the article, since the lead is a summary of the article, and everything in the article must be sourced. — Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you even know what "Nazism" is a contraction of? All of the things I stated were and are common knowledge and are easily demonstrated to be true with the minutest of research. Things like this are why Wikipedia is a joke. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

TheCurrencyGuy, It isn't the main thrust of Diannaa's argument, but "known as" = "generally referred to as/generally called" as in "William Jefferson Clinton, known as 'Bill' Clinton". Before questioning an other editor's knowledge of basic history, errrr it might be prudent to check you have correctly understood what they actually wrote. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I apologise, I became frustrated and flew off the handle a bit.

Let's add, he was a Vegitarian, a dog lover, was against smoking, etc etc (all of which are in fact well-sourced and have had a cultural impact, in fact, a far greater impact on culture and popular perception than him being a solder or revolutionary (see Reductio ad Hitlerum). Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

References

I am still interested in improving the lede. Because it just seems disingenuous and insulting to the reader's intelligence to immediately introduce a historic person as such. Genghis Khan's article does not begin by declaring he was a "warlord who killed an estimated 40 million people". Similarly Hideki Tojo's article does not immediately introduce him as a "dictator who killed x number of people". Dictator too is a problematic term because unless one is discussing Ancient Rome it is always an epithet addressed toward an authoritarian ruler one does not like. For an example of a dictator on the polar opposite end of the spectrum to Hitler, Enver Hoxha is described as the "authoritarian ruler", not "dictator". TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are going to get any support from the editors here for any attempt to soften the lede to the article - certainly not from me, and certainly not when you categorize the current lede as "disingenuous and insulting to the reader's intelligence". (You might want to look up the actual meaning of "disingenuous") I suggest you drop the effort, as this discussion has gone on long enough without you receiving any support, and certainly no consensus for your suggestions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, user TheCurrencyGuy has retired and is indef blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Bavarian Soviet Republic

Hitler supported Bavarian Soviet Republic 31.8.233.237 (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

See Bavarian Soviet Republic#Hitler. Hitler was apparently there as a representative of his army unit. There's no evidence that he personally supported the BSR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It does not say he supported it, in fact, it seems pretty ambivalent about it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2022

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.

---

Hitler killed himself and his wife after he saw that Germany was being captured, because he knew that the Americans or the British would hunt him down, and quite possibly kill him. So he took his wife, Eva, to his secret bunker. After he heard the Americans above him, he shot his wife and then killed himself. The Russians vowed to hide his body and have no respect for him. So, what they decided to do was hide his body to the point where even the Russian president couldn't find him! He demanded a full on search for his body, but some of his soldiers did not know where it was, because it was hidden so well. But after the president did the search, they finally found the body. His body was buried in a grave. Today, not very many people know where his body is, only the Russians. (//75.89.52.04/)November 26, 2022 (edit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.30.246 (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What edit do you want us to make (I shall ignore the factual inaccuracies). Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I want you to add that topic that I briefly described about Hitler's body to the main page talking about him. I figured I could do it this way so that I could tell you.

Please? I mean, I'm only 12, and I used good grammar and a good source. 75.106.30.246 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Then please provide the sources here, and the actual text you want to add. As we already include much of the above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

My sources of my topic

1.The Infographics show (might not be too accurate) 2. Other Wikipedia pages (they are small and accurate) 3. History and Geography books and others 4. Some parts of the web, like Google and Chrome 5. Some archives and web sources 6.Actual published books from the library 75.106.30.246 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually NVM bro, don't publish that on there. I just found out that my info was wrong

Don't publish that stuff on there. I thought that the Russians had hidden his body, but I was wrong. There are also other things that are wrong with it too. 75.106.30.246 (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2022 (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.

Is it necessary to link Austria and Berlin in the infobox?

My edit has been reverted. --Thedarkknightli (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

My opinion would be Austria yes - because of the context of the difference between then Austria-Hungary and later/now Austria, but Berlin no - but I wouldn't feel strongly about linking either (or not). We also have the perennial question of AH dying in a place called Nazi Germany - I can't find that place on my map! Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hitler's house as a young man, cemetery, school and restaurant where his father died in Leondig, Upper Austria.

Alois Hitler bought this house in November 1898 for 7700 Krones and moved his family to Leondig already in February 1899. A couple of small rooms with a low ceiling, a small kitchen and a pear garden with a cemetery on the opposite side of the narrow village road where Alois and Clara Hitler are buried.The Hitler family had lived here from February 1899 until 21 June 1905. https://goo. https://goo.gl/maps/kR73pT2xBHUicTsBA Jcollmart (discussion) 12:06 9 Nov 2022 (UTC) Friedhof cemetery, located opposite their home, where Alois and Clara are buried.In 2012, local authorities moved the gravestones in an attempt to reduce interest in this place among modern Nazi admirers and extremists. In fact, the cemetery is small in size, so it was not difficult to find the actual site of the graves that are still underground. The site is located near the stone wall, opposite Michaelsbegstrasse and Hitler's former house. <nowiki>https://goo.gl/maps/ehu44c3TFMxa9Qun8 Jcollmart (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Sources for these claims? Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler en Leonding y Linz, Austria: entonces/ahora (war-documentary.info) Jcollmart (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsure that passes wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The photos are not published on Wikipedia, only the link to the author of the article. Jcollmart (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia Spanish has admitted what has been published, the school is missing. Jcollmart (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It may be understandable to want to avoid "extremist publicity", but the extremists on the other side could go and burn the places down. In any case, my contribution remains neutral. Jcollmart (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No one has mentioned wikipedia. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The author of the link is the author of some of the photographs. I do not know if he is a politician and his intentions are "political". In any case, I will look for more sources to confirm the article. The article has been accepted by the Spanish and German Wikipedia, the references have been accepted by Google maps and so far nothing has been requested or deleted. Best regards Jcollmart (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Aquí otro enlace con referencias:"Generationen Lücke" Ein Projekt für die Leonart 2015. | Mag. Dr. Thekla Weissengruber | Kulturforum Leonding. | DorfTV Jcollmart (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories

• [1] - Would not the Category:Anti-Slavic sentiment be more appropriate? I am not sure why these three specific ethnic groups were singled out. My very best wishes (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• I would say that although Hitler generally espoused anti-Slavic sentiment in Mein Kampf and throughout the extent of his regime, the way that Nazi Germany treated Slavs was not universally the same. Poland was to be stripped of its culture and educated classes and turned into a slave state, Russia (the Soviet Union) was the Ur-enemy, the focus of Barbarossa, which I believe was and is the largest land invasion in world history, while the Ukrainians, for instance, were used to help suppress and eliminate Jews. It's not too much to say that to the Nazis, all Slavs were inferior, but some were more inferior than others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• If it were about Soviet Union/USSR, then it would be "anti-Soviet" sentiment. I understand that in the case of Nazi (i.e. their racial views), this is mostly about specific ethnic groups. Which sources say that he hated ethnic Russians more than Belorussians, for example? Speaking about objective measures, such as a percentage of certain ethnic groups killed by Nazis, I do not have such data handy, but this percentage is much higher for Polish people, Ukrainians and Belorussians than for ethnic Russians, simply because Hitler occupied whole Poland and the Western parts of the USSR. I do not think one can justify inclusion of these 3 specific groups based on any RS, or at least I do not know such RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I just checked Nazi_racial_theories#Slavs and Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany#Policies_regarding_Poles,_Russians_and_other_Slavs. If anything, this is an argument to have it as Category:Anti-Slavic sentiment, although welcome to fix me or whatever. I am done with this. My very best wishes (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with My very best wishes' conclusion - if not necessarily his logic. Unless AH's antipathy to any particular E.European national group is especially notable or 'defining' - no purpose is served by listing each of the groups separately IMO. In the past I've attempted to reduce the tendency to 'category bloat' on this page, since, the breadth and scale of AH's hatreds includes almost everyone except acolytes! Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly agree. There is another way to frame it. Does this page say that he hated specifically ethnic Russians or Serbs? No, it does not. I thought it was obvious when I tried to change cats. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So, if no one objects, can we remove these categories? Or replace them by Category:Anti-Slavic sentiment? My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me as if you have consensus to replace them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

OK.My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

How about Croatians, Slovaks, Bulgarians, and small Slavic groups like Kashubians? In contrast to Jews, Hitler hardly treated all Slavs uniformly, some of them were considered as allies from the very beginning. Interestingly, closer to the end of the Reich, more categories of Slavs (e.g. Czechs) wee treated as "almost Germans". I think, "anti-Slav" is too simple.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

this article by John Connelly from Berkeley confirms that Nazi attitude to Slavs was by no means uniform, and it was fundamentally different from their treatment of Jews or Roma. I think we should revert the change. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Why does treatment need to be uniform across all peoples in a category in order to qualify? If someone only treats European Jews badly, isn't it still an expression of anti-semitism? More so if we are talking about 'sentiment' rather than 'actions'. Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not arguing that "Anti-Slavic sentiment" is a wrong category. I see nothing wrong with addition of this category. However, although Hitler treated all Slavs as some inferior group, that does not change the fact that his actions were directed mostly at some specific group of Slavs (Russians/Bielorussinas, and, probably, Ukrainians, Poles, but not Bulgarians, Slovaks, Croatians). Therefore, I propose to keep "Anti-Slavic" in addition to old categories, not instead of them. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

In other words, I agree that "Anti-Russian ..." etc creates a false impression that in Hitler's views, only some Slavs were subhumans, exclusion of old categories may create a false impression of uniformity. That would be misleading. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, according to sources cited in sections Nazi_racial_theories#Slavs and Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany#Policies_regarding_Poles,_Russians_and_other_Slavs, Nazi did have the Anti-Slavic sentiment (hence the category). Was that "anti-sentiment" different from their "anti-sentiment" with regard to Jews? Yes, sure, but this does not invalidate the category. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

Revert "racist" back to "racially motivated". We all know it's racist, but this is an article, not a hit piece. Neutral language should be used 2601:2C1:8200:7700:EAFB:A85B:145D:6A34 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Which use of 'racist' are you referring to and when do you say it was changed? With a quick look, I cannot see any use of the word that is inapt, and AFAI can see "racially motivated" would be euphemistic evasion and a bit anachronistic. Nazism was an inherently racist ideology, and there is nothing un-neutral about saying that. Pincrete (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

change German: [ˈadoːlf ˈhɪt.lɐ] to German: [ˈaːdɔlf ˈhɪt.lɐ], sound sample correct, IPA transcription still does not fit See this. 2003:EE:8F1B:6345:CD7E:FF1E:6C8D:B90E (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there any guideline on how to establish pronunciation through the use of reliable sources? --causa sui (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I never edited Wikipedia before and don't know how to establish a consensus, as a native speaker I just noticed the obvious mistake. As mentioned, sound sample is correct, just the IPA is not. More pronunciation examples are easily to find. There are also enough sources for Standard German and IPA on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_German_phonology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Standard_German. 2003:EE:8F14:D395:C6A:1451:109F:9245 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Germany have regional accents? Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course - and class and education level differences. But I'm not competent to say what 'standard' German pronunciation would be, nor how to represent it in IPA. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

In all German varieties this name is pronounced the same, so it's irrelevant. Just search for some German YouTube documentaries to hear it pronounced. And there already seems to be a consensus on the soundbite, it's just about the wrong IPA. 2003:EE:8F14:D381:C13:42B3:D4D:50CD (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Rendering the IPA is the problem I think, none of us is expert enough to judge what is correct. Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to be an expert, just consult the IPA help page with english approximation I linked. Corrections in ”Adolf”: long [aː] instead of short and short [ɔ] instead of [oː]. Could an IPA expert here please confirm this? 2003:EE:8F14:D381:C13:42B3:D4D:50CD (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Not an expert but the lengths are obviously the wrong way around. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m familiar with both IPA and German pronunciation; aːdɔlf should be correct. Maivea (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem we are having is that different users can attest to expertise to support their preferred edit. This is one of the reasons why the sourcing policies prohibit original research on Wikipedia. --causa sui (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that that is the problem we're having, given that nobody has actually claimed the existing transcription is correct. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Although I am not a native German speaker, I put it there because an anonymous user was making a talk page edit request claiming the previous pronunciation was also wrong. Here we are again. It is exactly the problem we're having. causa sui (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Three other WPs (Italian, French and Greek) all have [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] as rendering in standard German. Seems unlikely that all three would get it wrong. No other renderings were given on other WP language sites that I looked at(nor anything on German WP). Hardly RS but … .Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(←) Unfortunately, it's possible that each sister project is just copying original research from wherever it was posted originally. In fact, your own thinking shows that it is quite likely. That's why Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, sorry to say. --causa sui (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

After more reflection, I'd be comfortable making this edit since I (the author of the current version) claim no authority to guarantee its accuracy (I took a few years of German in college over ten years ago... and I'm not special expert in German IPA either), and I trust the sincerity and good faith of those proposing the new revision. That's better than what we have, even if it's still technically inadequate to meet the sourcing policy -- a bar that may never be cleared. If there aren't objections after awhile I'll go ahead and do it. Be bold, and all that. --causa sui (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done causa sui (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Far-right

As far as I can tell, the only use of the term 'far-right' in this article describes Hitler's seating position relative to his army comrades in a photograph. This is in stark contrast to many of our BLPs, where editors are often falling over themselves to apply this label to politicians, media figures, etc. What's up with that?  Tewdar  21:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The term largely became the focus of academic study after his death, in part as a way to explain his rise to power and to classify the relatively new (or at least new to the attention of academics) political forces that propelled him there. The article could definitely discuss it a bit more, though, especially in terms of discussing how the far-right views him and relates to his legacy today (eg. far-right dogwhistles and memes referencing him.) In particular, the "legacy" section only mentions mainstream condemnation and doesn't mention the existence of neo-Nazism or far-right use of him at all, though it does link the neo-Nazism article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, the sources describing Hitler as far-right are posthumous. But this doesn't matter. In many ways, Hitler is the epitome of far-right. Not that I really think such a label would add very much to the article. Although more about his personal influence on the various modern far-right groups would be useful.  Tewdar  09:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Hitlerian" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hitlerian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 21 § Hitlerian until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Education

Is anything known about the High School Grades of Hitler? Was his second name Siegesmund? If so why was this named dropped when he dropped out of High School? Is anything known about the co-authors of Mein Kampf vol 1 & 2; i.e. retired Generals of World War 1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odenwald Monkey (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"High school" was not part of the Austrian educational system, so Hitler could not "drop out" of it. The name "Siegesmund" has no relationship to Hitler. As far as I am aware, no retired WW1 generals were "co-authors" of Mein Kampf. See that article for influences on Hitler in the writing of those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2023

I need to fix some minor issues with Hitler. Grantdetmermsu (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It's unclear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed protect edit request.

I would like to change the parties bit, because the nazi party was founded in 1920 from the dissolved German Workers' party in 1920, and was a member of the nazi party from one day iirc. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It was renamed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I know but it says 'Political party: Nazi (From 1921)' the 1921 part is what I have a problem with, because he wasn't a member of the nazi party from 1921, he was a member from the very start! Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I see, yes that needs changing, as that was when he became head (which I suspect is what it is meant to say). Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The next line in the infobox says "Other political affiliations: German Workers' Party (1919–1920)" so I'm not sure and additions or amendments are needed. — Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I added "leader", to make it "party ... Nazi (leader from 1921)" Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok cool, that makes it clearer. — Diannaa (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Why can't "citizenship" be changed to "nationality" in the infobox?

My edit has been reverted without any explanations so I'm confused. Thedarkknightli (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Because "nationality" makes no sense when Hitler was stateless for a period of time. "Citizenship" is the best and most precise description of the field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Technically he didn't have 'citizenship' either until around 1910 (assuming age of majority to have been 21). I'm not sure that the stateless have 'nationality' either, though they definitely don't have 'citizenship'. No strong feelings either way - just noting this.Pincrete (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I read this discussion before and didn't have any strong feelings either way but on reflection surely saying he was initially a citizen of Austria doesn't make sense because Austria wasn't its own state until after the First World War?--Llewee (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit. Both the Austrian Empire (1804–1867) and Austria-Hungary (1867–1918) are previous Austrian states. Dimadick (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

For completely other reasons, we looked into this 7 or 8 years ago. If I remember this correctly, citizenship (rights and responsibilities) and nationality (identity?) were both seen as being 'divided' into the different constituents (rather than invested in a unified dual-monarchy) . So yes, AH would have been Austrian, not Austro-Hungarian, which didn't really exist as a legal or practical category. Though he wouldn't have been a citizen of anywhere until he was legally adult, whereas nationality isn't age-linked. Pincrete (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely wouldn't be right to refer "Austro-Hungarian" citizenship. I wasn't entirely sure whether there was even an actual "Austrian" citizenship pre-WW1 because theoretically even the "Austrian" part (Cisleithania) was made up of separate 'crown lands' only in personal union of the emperor - although his birthplace was in the 'Archduchy of Austria' crown land. But according to this source the 1811 Civil Code introduced a common Austrian citizenship among all the crown lands. DeCausa (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Image

How about changing the current image to this? 83.52.72.154 (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That image has been flipped horizontally; I would not use it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s impossible to use RotateTool to correct it (as it only rotates images clockwise), so it must be flipped manually 83.52.76.251 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

The following picture caption should be changed or removed: "Hitler on 20 April 1945 in his last public appearance, in the Reich Chancellery garden, ten days before he and Eva Braun committed suicide." The caption should be changed to "Hitler on 20 March 1945 in his last filmed public appearance, in the Reich Chancellery garden, one month before he and Eva Braun committed suicide. The date given for the event in the photo is 20 March 1945. Mark Felton Productions. (2018). The Last Photo of Hitler. YouTube. Retrieved June 23, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHfAdKeXkQ&ab_channel=MarkFeltonProductions.

At a minimum, we know the photo's date is not 20 April 1945. It comes from a German propaganda film released on 22 March 1945. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2022, July 28). Hitler and Hitler Youth in last newsreel. https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1004475 CalledGame (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Partially implemented split the difference to reflect the latter source. Regarding the former, I'm leery of WP:YT. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The line "...ten days before he and Eva Braun committed suicide" is still inaccurate as that would be 20 April 1945. Here is a more reliable, German-language source giving the date of the event depicted in the photo as 20 March 1945: German Historical Museum. (n.d.-a). Hitler honors HJ members of the Volkssturm, 1945. https://www.dhm.de/lemo/bestand/objekt/hitler-zeichnet-hj-mitglieder-des-volkssturms-aus-1945.html Please consider changing the photo description to, "In the garden of the Reich Chancellery, Hitler honors Hitler Youth members of the Volkssturm, March 20 1945." I believe this is a more accurate and more descriptive caption. Thank you. CalledGame (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reliable sources do not support you in this. Kershaw (our best and most definitive source}, Ullrich, Fest, and Trevor-Roper all give 20 April, Hitler's 56th birthday, as the date of this event. I had "corrected" captions in this article and in Fuhrermuseum based on your claims, but I have now restored them to what the reliable sources say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I do believe there are reliable sources that support that a Hitler Youth award ceremony took place on 20 April 1945. But is there a reliable source that specifically puts that photo on that date? The Wikipedia media information for the photo used in the article gives the source as: https://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=14210. This is neither a reliable source for the date nor does it match 20 April 1945. The actual source of the photo is a screen-cap from the film series, Deutsche Wochenschau. Specifically this film at 0:13, https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/irn1004475. This is a reliable source and it gives a production date of 22 March 1945. Using the 20 April 1945 date for the article assumes that the event described by Kershaw and the rest is the same as the one in the photo. A poor assumption without more documentation on the film/photo. CalledGame (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The specific date is not all that important in my opinion. We could change the caption to read "Hitler in the Reich Chancellery garden, in one of his last public appearances" or similar. — Diannaa (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That is fine by me. My main problem is the inaccuracy of the date. Or just using "In the garden of the Reich Chancellery, Hitler honors Hitler Youth members of the Volkssturm" It makes sense to me to highlight Hitler's physical condition at the end of war and that he was resorting to child soldiers. CalledGame (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the exact date is less important than what was happening - I've implemented CalledGame's suggestion with a minor re-ordering to eliminate ambiguity of "last appearance in the garden of the Reich Chancellery" - as though there were other appearances elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I have read sources that state the March date and others that state the April date. With the majority stating the April date. But at any rate, I think the current edit change is acceptable. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Motivation for Barbarossa?

Second sentence in "Path to defeat" is:

This offensive (codenamed Operation Barbarossa) was intended to destroy the Soviet Union and seize its natural resources for subsequent aggression against the Western powers.

This is a new one to me, and I suspect it's revisionism (there are two refs but I can't read them). Mainstream thought has it as, in no particular order:

• End Britain's remaining hope for victory, the potential of gaining a large land power ally, forcing the British to make peace (or at any rate leaving them with no path to victory). Hitler said this himself.
• Lebensraum for German settlement envisioned (starting pretty much right away I believe).
• Destroy "Jewish Bolshevism" as an end in itself.
• (Probably opportunism as the Russians were seen as particularly weak at the moment, not sure if this is generally accepted.)

And resources too, sure, but for general use, not particularly for further aggression in the west. Hitler wanted peace with Britain and had no desire or plans to fight America, at that time.

Refs for this abound, but atm I'm too stretched to dig them up. But at any rate pointing this out. Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Evans (2008) page 161 supports the content: "Aside from the idological primacy of 'living space' there were also pragmatic reasons for attacling the Soviet Union. ...The Soviet Union possessed almost limitless supplies of foodstuffs, which would be essential for the further conduct of the war and the general future of the Third Reich. ...Defeating the Soviets would put Germany in a strong positiion to deal with the Americans." He goes on on page 162 to describe how Hitler thought a successful invasion would force Britain to negotiate a surrender. I will add a bit along these lines — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Herostratus (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Education

it seems Hitler was a high school drop out. Is anything more known about his education?MonkeySwinging (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, "high school" was not a part of the Austrian education system in Hitler's lifetime. CJ-Moki (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

The first line of paragraph two in sub-section titled "Austria and Czechoslovakia," under section "Nazi Germany," should see the intro "In April Hitler ordered the OKW..." with "In April, Hitler ordered the OKW..." AdornmentXCX (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Subtitles for audio?

I was wondering if it was possible for subtitles to be added to the given audio sample. This way, we can understand what is being said. 2600:100F:B1BF:F9FF:B483:D6E0:76C8:E0A0 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it. Even if it is technically possible, adding subtitles without a transcript from a reliable source would be WP:Original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding "Generalplan Ost" to lead paragraph

Recently "Generalplan Ost" was added to the final sentence of the lead para The sentence which summarises AH's most notable deeds. The sentence now reads: During his dictatorship, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland on 1 September 1939. He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust and Generalplan Ost: resulting in the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims.

The final sentence previously read: and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust: the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims.

I'm not very familiar with the "Generalplan Ost" and the linked article isn't that informative, though I'm obviously aware that killings of non-German civilian on the Eastern Front were horrendous, and even greater ethnic-cleansing was planned there. Therefore I can see the value of the addition if "Generalplan Ost" is the best name for the broader ethnic-cleansing that was carried out "in the East" - though that planned wouldn't logically fit in our text.

BUT … the text now reads in such a way that it is possible for the uninitiated to think that "Generalplan Ost", rather than the Holocaust was what killed 6 million Jews (and millions of others) and the link "about six million Jews and millions of other victims", takes one to 'Holocaust victims' rather than a more generic link covering both the Holocaust and "Generalplan Ost" victims - if such exists.

I don't see an easy fix and am insufficiently familiar with "Generalplan Ost" to have a useful opinion as to whether it belongs where it is, or possibly earlier in the para or not in the opening para at all. Thoughts. Pincrete (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the previous version of the sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

General Plan Ost and the Holocaust are closely linked. Eastern European Jews were murdered as part of the GPO. Most of the victims listed in the Holocaust victims were killed as part of GPO extermination policy. Also, GPO was a genocidal programme for which Hitler continues to be notorious across the world, especially Eastern Europe. Therefore, it has to be included in the Lede. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand, and there is an overlap between the two 'events', but the insertion in the original 'blunt' form creates textual and linkage anomalies into what was carefully crafted text. Your more recent change is better, but it is still fairly anomalous IMO. The uninitiated can still think that GPO is what killed 6 million Jews and it's a bit odd (by linking) to call the 'other victims' of GPO 'Holocaust victims'. A detail, but "other victims" doesn't solely relate to "other" ethnic groups, it also includes gays, the disabled and persecuted religious and political groups.

Another consideration is that we record what the best sources draw attention to, not what we personally regard as most important. It is probably unjust, but most source don't draw the same amount of attention to civilian deaths as a result of GPO, as draw attention to (the broader) definition of the Holocaust. I want to hear what others think though.Pincrete (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if Holocaust is given a broad definition, then GPO should be included in the Holocaust article as well. But there is no mention of it there. But as far as I know, Holocaust in academic literature refers to the specific way the Jewish people were targeted. So thats a COMMONNAME.

In my opinion too, Holocaust must be seperated from GPO; because Holocaust was carried out in a uniquely genocidal manner, in which Jews were targeted fanatically. Genocides of other ethnicities deemed untermensch by Nazis were conducted in a utilitarian manner, which fluctuated with the demands of war.

An administrator has reverted the edit btw. Diannaa, while your revert may be motivated to improve the lede, the reasoning you suggested was quite bizarre. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship and all these high-level plans could have been done only with the knowledge of Hitler. Himmler was also one of the key architects of Holocaust. Doesnt mean, Hitler didnt have the most important responsibility for it. Also, according to MOS:LEAD: "lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents..notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences"

Both Holocaust and GPO should get mentioned in the lede, since both are the legacies of Adolf Hitler. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It might make sense to say he was responsible for Generalplan Ost, but not that he was central to it. The problem is that we would then have to explain in the lead what Generalplan Ost was. Such a description is too much detail for the lead, especially since Hitler was not "central" to the plan. — Diannaa (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Adding: The lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article, and the Generalplan Ost is not a main point of this particular article. It's mentioned only briefly. So for that reason, it doesn't belong in the lead. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have removed your edit. It was typical of Hitler to give only the most vague and general orders and leave it up to his subordinates how to implement these vague plans. Generalplan Ost was Himmler's plan, conceived by Himmler and later approved by Hitler. Evans 2008 page 173 says "Himmler commisssioned the plan from the office of the Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of the German Race on 21 June 1941" (the day before the start of Operation Barbarossa). They prepared a draft and presented it to Himmler on 15 July 1941. The final version of the plan later was presented to Hitler, who approved it in May 1942. So Hitler was not central to Generalplan Ost; Himmler was the person who planned it and it was his SS who implemented it. Longerich 2012 covers the plan on page 828–529; he notes that Himmler was also the one who decided that the mass exterminations should be undertaken right away rather than after the war. — Diannaa (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Diannaa vast majority of GPO was not conducted in gas chambers; but through scorched-earth occupation policies, massacres, slave labour, forced starvation, mass-shootings of POWs, ethnic cleansing, etc.

How is Hitler not a central figure in GPO, considering some of the directives Hitler gave to his followers:

At Hitler’s ‘Werwolf’ headquarters in Ukraine on 6 August 1942, the Führer emphasised: ‘We shall absorb or expel a ridiculous hundred million Slavs.’ 6 He insisted that public announcements would emphasise that the occupation would proceed in the interests of the population; privately, he noted that the Nazis would do what was necessary to ensure that the occupation turned into permanent German domination: ‘All necessary measures – shooting, deportation etc. – we will and can do despite this [public stance.]

On 22 August 1939, Hitler assembled leading military officers at his retreat in the Bavarian mountains. he made it clear that this would not be an ordinary military campaign. ‘Our war aim’, he stated, ‘is not to attain a particular line [in the east], but the physical destruction of the enemy’ The invasion should be carried out with ‘the greatest brutality and without mercy’... he added: ‘Who, after all, speaks today about the annihilation of the Armenians?’

Also:

Hitler was perfectly aware of what was going on. He is said to have commented to confidantes in 1941 that the death of Soviet prisoners was a useful means of accomplishing the decimation of the ‘Slavic masses’

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

References

There's no need to ping me; I am not the decider, and have already given my opinion. A decision will be made in the usual way, through consensus by interested editors. There's no rush either; discussions on this talk page usually take a week or more. — Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended protected edit request 23rd July 23

In the "Views on religion" section, there are several references to Speer, but it's not made clear of who he is. The first of these is as follows: "Speer states that Hitler railed against the church to his political associates, and though he never officially left the church, he had no attachment to it."

I wonder if firstly, we could change it to say "Albert Speer", and secondly, if we could make this a link to his Wikipedia page. To someone not familiar with the subject, it reads as if Speer is a historian of some description, as opposed to a Nazi architect.

I also note that a few lines down from that, his full name is used. I wonder if this would be worth abbreviating to Speer, assuming we carry out the proposed edit above. 2A02:6B61:28B5:0:A5A3:46C5:D149:38C1 (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

We do link to him elsewhere, but it may not be obvious to the casual reader that this is the same person, I suppose. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I changed "Speer" to "Albert Speer" per the OP's request. I checked the article and we link to Speer's article 3 times. I looked up MOS:REPEATLINK and it says, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section" but I'm not sure how best to apply this rule in this situation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I think additionally, the 'Albert Speer' later in that same paragraph could be shortened to 'Speer'.

I don't think links to the page are needed more than that first initial occurrence in the Personal Life section, but I think it would benefit from the clarity a link provides. The last link to Speer's page is over 2000 words before, in the midst of a description of the invasion of the Red Army. I feel that most people who read this section won't be reading the other, and vice versa.

I would also add that the other points where his page is linked are actually accompanied by a description of his role (e.g. the previous refers to him as 'Minister for Armaments Albert Speer'). While this would work here, I feel it adds unnecessary words when a link would be good enough. He's a fairly controversial source, and whilst the facts stated are relatively uncontroversial, it is possible this could be added to in the future. And irregardless, I do feel we should make it clear to the casual reader when we are quoting a Nazi rather than a historian.

As one further counter-argument (and this one is a fair bit weaker, as I'll admit what I'm citing feels like slightly bad practice), the Speer wikipedia page links to Adolf Hitler 3 times in total, with the Neo-Nazism one linking 5 times in total (2 of these being within 2 paragraphs of each other in the opening sections). I'm not sure anyone reading these pages is unaware of who Hitler was, but I'm sure many reading this page wouldn't be aware who Speer was. 2A02:6B61:28B5:0:C1B4:1CE3:D05E:11B9 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

change "hitler was decorated during his service in the German Army in ww1" to "hitler was decorated during his service in the Bavarian Army in ww1", as hitler did not serve for the Germans in ww1. 61.8.28.182 (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2023 (2)

he was abbreviated by Fuehrer 2402:8100:310A:19AA:DC1:C534:60B:139E (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We say that was one way he was referred to. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Not done - Not at all clear what is being requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

Kingkong7nodong (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

False info

 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. PackMecEng (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

"cropped higher quality"

"cropped higher quality" #2

Original Bundesarchiv image

I admit I know nothing about resolutions or AI upscaling, but to my eye the image (shown right) has more detail than the current lead image (shown left). If the objection is that the second image has been somehow enhanced, I would note that we use a retouched version of the Mona Lisa as the lead image in that article. Why not here? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

We also have one called File:Hitler portrait cropped higher quality.png that we could consider using. It looks a little pale to my eye in thumbnail size, but might be worth considering. — Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I personally prefer the full portrait, but would support the higher quality crop over the current image. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Mona Lisa's lead image is not AI upscaled, but it was brightened as stated at commons:File talk:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg#Reverting of colour editing. As for the crops of Hitler's portrait, they are extracted from the AI upscaled version. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Editing images states that AI upscaling software should generally not be used to increase the resolution or quality of an old or low-resolution image. Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption. Wow (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not interested in using AI-enhanced images, if that's what these are. I have added the original image as sent to us by the Bundesarchiv. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Military career in infobox

Until recently, Hitler's position as commander-in-chief of the German Army was represented as an office in the infobox (Special:Permalink/1173062159). I believe that the removal of this was correct, as it was not a civilian office but a military position that should be placed in the infobox's "Military service" section. This raises the broader question of whether the full details of Hitler's WW2 military career should be included, as opposed to just the WW1 details. This is a revision I prepared which includes details on his service in both wars: Special:Permalink/1173732293.

Based on my observations, in articles such as those on U.S. presidents (where the subject was a civilian commander-in-chief by virtue of an office they held), we do not include the details in the "Military service" section. In the case of Hitler (as well as Stalin), the military command was held outside of any office listed above, so I think there is a better case for listing it in this section. In particular, I think listing the commands that Hitler held (commander-in-chief of Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (from 1938), of the German Army (from 1941), and of Army Group A (1942)) is highly informative for the reader because it displays, as the first paragraph of the lead states, his "close involvement in military operations throughout the war". As explained in the article (which states that "Hitler dominated his country's war effort during World War II to a greater extent than any other national leader"), his elimination of the Ministry of War in 1938 and assumption of personal control was an important step in preparing for war, and his assumption of the army's supreme command after 1941 (to the point of taking direct command of an army group on the Eastern Front for two months in 1942) was a major deepening of his involvement.

I was reverted based on a concern about length, but I think these details are crucial to understanding his life and career and are thus appropriate to list. Thoughts? — Goszei (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

World War I/Time at Ypres

There is a clause in this section that I think should be removed. "...spending nearly half his time at the regimental headquarters in Fournes-en-Weppes, well behind the front lines" in the sentence: "Posted to the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 (1st Company of the List Regiment), he served as a dispatch runner on the Western Front in France and Belgium, spending nearly half his time at the regimental headquarters in Fournes-en-Weppes, well behind the front lines."

This is misleading. It implies that other troops were spending more than half of their time at the front which was not the case. Attitude and inflection on Hitler's service in WWI has shifted back and forth since he became a public figure. A reading of Volker Ullrich's two volume recent bio of Hitler got me curious about this aspect and I looked into it--reviewing some of the big WWI standards (Keegan, Meyer, Gilbert, 'Forgotten Voices' audio interviews etc.) as well Groom's monograph on Ypres and at the climax of this research I found myself actually sitting down to read a big chunk of "Histories of Two Hundred and Fifty-One Divisions of the German Army Which Participated in the War (1914-1918)" which is the closest thing to a complete dataset of what every division and regiment of the Germany Army army did during the war.

I don't think it's appropriate or necessary to valorize Hitler's time as a soldier during World War I. But the idea that he had an easy time in the army or was in any way a shirker seems like a defensive smear--an excuse not to actually consider the life or experience that conditioned the character of his later career and world-historically dreadful catastrophes and crimes against humanity associated with his period of success in leadership. His regiment spent most of the war in and around Ypres--saw more action than most divisions and his regiment is one of the regiments where total casualty figures over the course of the war are pretty ambiguous (ie. a reserve regiment) but seem likely to have had a greater than 100% burn rate (basically everyone starting off in 1914 including the officers died, got wounded badly enough to be relieved from combat duty permanently and was replaced...with Hitler being one of the very few exceptions). Had he not been a runner, in other words, it is something like a near actuarial certainty that he would have either died or gone home much earlier. In his first few weeks as a runner, out of the 8 runners that his division started off with, only three survived into the year 1915.

Without meaning any disrespect to Weber's scholarship (despite finding my own view closer to the main current of consensus history presented by Ullrich's recent scholarly standard), I would advance that presenting Hitler's military career as less harrowing than the average German soldier's or as a comparatively easy tour would be....precisely and diametrically opposite to the picture that emerges when all available documents and all available testimony is looked at together.

And so, if no one objects, I'll be deleting the second clause of that sentence mentioned above. ThomasMikael (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Did he or did he not spend nearly half his time at the Regimental HQ? DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The content you are questioning is also sourced to Kershaw 2008, page 54. You've presented a lot of material here without actually giving us specific citations: which book, which page, etc. I would especially like to see the source for your statement that "out of the 8 runners that his division started off with, only three survived into the year 1915". We could potentially add that information instead of taking away sourced content. — Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point, Diana. I guess I was thinking in terms of economy--there is a separate page on his military career, but perhaps I could add a short parenthetical statement that all troops rotated regularly.

Hitler vol. 1, Ascent, 2016. chapter 3, "Experience of the war". Vollker Ullrich p. 42-58

251 German Divisions

p. 138-141 (as compared with other divisions, they see quite a bit of action, although they tend to come in behind advance combat units and hold the line rather than taking it.) https://ia800205.us.archive.org/3/items/cu31924027835317/cu31924027835317.pdf

Letter from Adolph Hitler to Ernest Hepp, February 5th, 1915. 68-90 in Hitler's Letters ed. Werner Maser (Maser's reputation as a historian in the territory has not aged particularly well, but the documents are the documents) Other letters from the war period, further inform us.

Storm in Flanders, Winston Groom.

Standards by Keegan, Meyer etc.

I can return with page numbers for sections on troop rotation.

It's true the clause follows closely from Kershaw. Weber is a more problematic source than Kershaw, hewing to his hypothesis rather than the documents. The tone in which the war period 1914-1918 is spoken of has changed in more recent studies with Ullrich being an exemplar of rethinking that period.

I think probably the expression that Hitler spent half the time at Fournes-et-Weppes (Kershaw's words) is literally incorrect or inexact taken by itself--it's expressive. I wouldn't disparage Kershaw whose whole account is less detailed than Ullrich's but has a basic balance to it overall. But that line, taken out of context, I think is a bit misleading. Basically a similar tag could be added to almost any soldier but since rotation is rarely otherwise mentioned except in this case it gives a slightly false impression. ThomasMikael (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Weber is usable unless it's backed by other sources, for the reason you cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed the additional material, which is too specific for this already very long survey article -- and for which there was no consensus for it to be added. It's more suited for Military career of Adolf Hitler. Do not restore it here without a clear consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with BMK. The material (if agreed to by consensus, therein) is better suited for inclusion in the sub-article, Military career of Adolf Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Also would be interested to hear from @Beyond My Ken on this question. In this case, I revert to my initial suggestion: to delete the clause from Kershaw. I'm merely interested in your opinion: If not, why not? In ref. to Ullrich(chapter 3) & the troop movements (138-141) he was not at Fournes-et-Weppes for half the war. So why should Kershaw's colorful saw about the same be preferred?ThomasMikael (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ullrich has not been shown to be a more reliable source than Kershaw, who is -- at least for the moment -- the best and most reliable of sources available to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Judgment accepted. Thank you for taking the time to adjudicate the issue Diannaa, Kierzek, and Beyond My Ken.ThomasMikael (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This article contains propaganda and invalid sources, such as a "The Guardian" article

"His father beat him, although his mother tried to protect him." If this journal exists, we're taking a MSM article's word on Adolf Hitler's family dynamics. This does not belong on this website; please confirm and remove this if no better source is found. Protect the integrity of this website and do a better job on this page, everyone. Note: only Extended Confirmed Users can edit this, so I can only say something about this. CazadorDeLobo (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I am confused, are you challenging the Guardian as an RS or MSM? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Painter in lede

@Dianaa, Herr Hitler’s paintings have a dedicated article and, at least in the 2010s, regularly sold for tens or hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars. My edit added a single clause - not even a sentence - to the lede mentioning this. Why is his time as a painter unworthy of less than a sentence in the lede of the article? Asperthrow (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of an article's most important contents. Hitler's painting gets only the briefest of mentions in the article, and thus does not belong in the lead in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconded - managing a five-paragraph lead here is a considerable achievement. It's been done by focussing on the absolutely key essentials. Hitler's (the "Herr" seems crass to me) paintings are rightly not among these. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The lead is long enough as it is presently. The painting aspect is not noteworthy enough for the lead. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2023

I request to edit his death date. 2405:3800:83B:5D4C:60BF:60FF:FE7F:ED76 (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have some properly referenced source giving a date different from that very widely accepted, you should first say what it is, with appropriate citations, here on the Talk page.Sbishop (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done To change the date of death of this well known historical figure of whom much has been documented, you will need to tell us what you think it should be changed to, and offer the reliable sources you have to support your claim and why they differ from others. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Colorized image

Why isn't there a colorized image of Hitler at the beginning of the page? Why don't we just use this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hitler_portrait_crop_(colorized).jpg EditorEpic (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Because the MOS guidance is that colorised images should not be used when a monochrome image is available; colorised images are falsified images.Ponsonby100 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Ponsonby100. A colorised photo is also open to personal interpretation as to colors used and the shades of colors used. So WP:OR could also apply. Kierzek (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nationality

Even though he is Austrian-born indeed, he renounced his Austrian citizenship in 1925 to become a German citizen, having lived in Germany since 1913. Also, according to MOS:ETHNICITY, one's ethnicity should not be listed on the first sentence of an article because it doesn't impact on the way one self identifies with. That's not how I view it, that's how Wikipedia views it. Zapho653 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

We do not, we mention his birth nationality. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Painter

It doesn’t describe him as a painter in the introduction. 2600:2B00:8D6A:6300:BD23:7689:5023:D9D4 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That is because he is not primarily known as a painter. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Google “Austrian painter.” 2600:2B00:8D6A:6300:DD16:2825:5E43:FA9A (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Not there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2023

change [Chancellor of Germany] to [Reichskanzler of Germany], as that's the official name, and used in other members of the chancellorship. Also "Chancellor" itself is incorrect due to it historically being "Imperial Chancellor", although "Reichskanzler" fits fine. I've already made these edits to several other chancellors but clearly can't edit this one due to the protection. Justyourkamerad (talk) 01:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Justyourkamerad, on WP we use the usual name in English for a political office, place etc. which is not necessarily the 'official name', Hence we use Taoiseach for the person running the Irish govt, but chancellor for the similar political office in Germany, since the former is common in English, but 'Reichskanzler' isn't, especially married to the English word 'Germany'. If no 'usual name' exists, we'll often use the 'native' language name. The other edits you did I'm going to undo since it's especially unhelpful to have one name in the infobox, but a different name in the text. The article about the political office, such as President of Germany, is where the 'native' title should always be found. Pincrete (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

VERY short 9 months imprisonment when sentence was 5 years

This main AH article points out that Hitler was "released early" from his trial and conviction of his beer hall 'putsch' / coup attempt. The wiki article on the putsch riot itself does point out that he only served 9 months. I think that this main article on AH should specifically make the point, and say he only served 9 months (less than even a year), on a five year sentence. Not simply that he was "released early". Released early can easily be interpreted as perhaps a year or two getting shaved off a longer sentence. (It is likely that his fellow German citizens saw the very short prison stay as a light slap on the wrist, and therefore that "this fine fellow might not be all that bad after all!) FWIW. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:AC90:34F4:B23:4604 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

THe main article clearly states at the end of a paragraph in the relevant section that 'Including time on remand, Hitler served just over one year in prison.' Ponsonby100 (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, okay then. Leave it just as it is. Those words at the end of the paragraph certainly do take care of it completely. All is well and carry on. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:AC90:34F4:B23:4604 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "time on remand" accounts for the discrepancy between nine months and "just over a year". In any case, it's not "on [sic] a five year sentence"; it's "OF a five-year sentence". "ON" is not an all-purpose preposition. TheScotch (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's clear enough in the body, but the lead was a little muddled. So I fixed that — Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Labels in the lead

I write not to re-open what has been an extensive set of discussions about the precise wording of the lead, but to inquire if someone could summarize briefly why or how the wording was decided (guiding principles): Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany... I have been thinking specifically about labels in leads of late, and how oftentimes such labels are misused, or, indeed, just rather odd (e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald was a U.S. Marine veteran... or Charles Milles Manson was an American criminal, cult leader and musician...). In this article, you all have selected "politician" and "dictator" as the initial labels for Hitler. I thought "politician" was odd...a politician (IMO) being someone who crafts policy solutions to difficult societal issues through argument and compromise; doesn't seem what AH is notable for. Looking over some of the past discussions, the phrase "what he is known for" is often used, whereas, I think more precisely "what he is notable for" should be the guiding rule for lead sentences. (If it were me, I would rewrite the lead sentence as: "Adolf Hitler was the Austrian-born dictator of Germany..." since I don't view Hitler as a notable politician (he more often did things by threats, force, and violence?) and "German politician" is redundant if he is dictator of Germany. And brevity. But that's not why I post this inquiry.) We are working on an essay: Wikipedia talk:Crime labels. As a suggestion, the Donald Trump article Talk page has a box at the top that lists the numerous points of consensus on hard-fought issues to fend off the problem of resolved issues being continually reopened; perhaps this article could use such a box? Bdushaw (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead revision suggestion

Obsessive compulsive, I can't stand it and make a suggestion for a revision of the first paragraph of the lead. I recognize and acknowledge that there has already been extensive discussion about this...but the paragraph seems redundant and not on point. I'll just make the suggestion and let you all sort out whether it is worth it or not.

Presently the lead is:

Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party, becoming the chancellor in 1933 and then taking the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934. During his dictatorship, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland on 1 September 1939. He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust, the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims.

I propose this lead:

Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was the totalitarian dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 until his suicide at the end of World War II in 1945. Closely involved in military operations throughout the war, he was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust, the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims. Austrian born, he rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party in 1921, becoming the German chancellor in 1933, then taking the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934. By invading Poland on 1 September 1939, he precipitated the war in Europe (1939-1945).

There. I've done my duty. :) Bdushaw (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I dislike it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I see few advantages and many dis-advantages. Pincrete (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not an improvement. The changes that merely rephrase the sentences only make them more clunky and the single proposed addition of content (the world "totalitarian") is needless. The addition of his suicide at the end of World War II in 1945 is also redundant and forces the latter sentence to use the phrasing war in Europe (1939-1945) which is also less than ideal. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll list the changes I made and the reasons for them. (1) I view starting the lead with "Austrian-born German politician" is off the mark. Is "Austrian-born" so important that it must start the lead? I read through some of the talk archives, I am not the first to question labeling Hitler a "politician". A whitewash; grossly misleading. (2) I somewhat agree that "totalitarian dictator" is redundant, but it was easy to find that it has a not so uncommon usage. Seems appropriate for this dictator. (3) Reorder the sentences so that the Holocaust, obviously more important than describing how Hitler came to power, is stated up front. (I've noted that Wikipedians often "bury the lead".) (4) Added "in 1921" to be more informative and to write parallel phrasing to subsequent phrases. (5) deleted "during his dictatorship"; not needed. (6) Changed "initiated" to "precipitated". The invasion of Poland was the culmination of several years of obvious steps toward war; by the time of the invasion, war was almost a foregone conclusion, widely expected. General: Contemplating this lead, I note that it is acting as a lead for the lead, to a large extent. It, in fact, states points redundant with the other paragraphs. I would suggest breaking the treaty of Versailles by rearming Germany, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, etc might make better, less redundant points for the first paragraph of the lead. In short...I think you all can do better. But that's it for me; I am not in an argumentative mood - I just like things to be well written. (and I would still like to hear your opinions on how/why the lead labels were used; it's for a project...) Bdushaw (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2023

Known as the most hated man in history for being a tyrannical dictator Hansserd (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2023 (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. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hitler's dialect

Austrian German has got NOTHING to do with dialect! Hitler was from Braunau am Inn - the dialect there is Westmittelbairisch (as classified in science). Bavarian is spoken in almost all of Austria, minus Vorarlberg. With regard to dialect, there is nothing called :Austrian" - instead the dialects are named after the region where they are spoken. 45.65.90.136 (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@45.65.90.136 Yeah it's right guys Pinky whity (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Hitler's German language 45.65.90.136 (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you want us to say, he spoke German? Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

yes 185.85.57.32 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Why, I am unsure what this would add, and where would we have it? Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Not quite sure what text you are complaining about. The article says There he acquired the distinctive lower Bavarian dialect, rather than Austrian German, which marked his speech throughout his life. It doesn't say he spoke "Austrian" it says he spoke the Bavarian dialect. It also only refers to Bavarian as an actual dialect. Austrian German isn't referred to as a dialect - it links to our article on it which makes it clear that it is not a dialect but just a variety of Standard German. So, as far as I can see, the article is consistent with what you are saying. What am I missing? DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Fake suicide theory

Hello everyone, I was wondering what people thought of adding the theory of Hitler faking his suicide and moving to South America to the page. It's not one I believe myself but there are plenty of people who do and thus writings about such a theory. Let me know if this is worth researching and adding, Thanks. B1GMelman613 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It is already covered in Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. In particular, the "Alleged escape to Argentina" section. Dimadick (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No. It is pure fantasy and fiction. And as stated above, covered in sub-article. Kierzek (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It is covered in the separate article on conspiracy theories, and has no place in the main article. Acroterion (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Fuhrer, not “dictator”

His official title was Fuhrer, not “dictator”. “Dictator” is what his opponents label him, and not his official title. Let’s not be biased here. Rizzle685 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that he chose not to call himself a dictator does not negate the fact that he was one, nor that most people/sources would refer to him as one. Moons of Io (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead starts with: “Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945”. The fact that he was a “dictator” is an opinion and not a fact. It should say Fuhrer, because that’s what his official title was. For example, if a Prime Minister acts like a dictator, he should still be called a Prime Minister, because that’s his official title. He wound not be the same as someone whose official title is “dictator” (such as Julius Caesar, for example). We should be factual and not biased. Rizzle685 (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The title is mentioned in the first paragraph. Mellk (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It should say: “Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician who was the Chancellor of Germany from 1933 until his suicide in 1945”. Chancellor and Fuhrer (from 1934) were his official titles. We need to be factual. Rizzle685 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Let’s not be biased" about Hitler. Hilarious...except it's not. Dictator is exactly what he was. Führer was the self-aggrandising title he gave himself. Read WP:FALSEBALANCE. DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re still being biased and unfactual. Rizzle685 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well it's an objective fact that he's a dictator, because he established himself in a position where he dictated how the state should be run. I don't see how that's biased at all. And it doesn't have to be his official title. For example, Joe Biden is said to be a "politician". Technically, some politicians would say "I'm not a politician", meaning that it could hypothetically be considered biased to call them that, but it's really not.

Hitler was a dictator. That's a fact, not an opinion. That's no more biased than it's biased to also use his official title, to the extent that might be construed as going by the authority of the office. Yakko Walter (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a ‘Führer’ is a tyrannical leader. A case could be made that you could define a dictator by the same parameters. That’s just my opinion on the matter, but I do respect your opinion that it is biased, which someone could also make a case for. Getsomehelp1962 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Found the neo-Nazi. 69.221.136.233 (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the archives, this has been discussed an endless amount of times so I do not think consensus will develop for such a change. Mellk (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I second this, it is what he legally, not self-appointed, was. He was a dictator, but that is not an official title. Tableguy28 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

hitler 185.85.57.32 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

A "dictator" is defined by Brittanica as "a single person who possesses absolute political power within a country or territory." Hitler was exactly that, and has been indisputably defined by historians as such. The title that he gave himself serves no relevance to what he actually was, especially considering that his title of Fuhrer could most easily be defined in the same way. For example, Kim Jong Un is referred to throughout North Korea as Supreme Leader, but that does not make him any less of a dictator, especially given his actions. The reason the opening paragraph uses the word "dictator" is because not everyone who views this article is going to know what the word Fuhrer really means. By using "dictator," more people are more easily able to understand who Hitler really was. UnbearableIsBad (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, find one RS that does not say he was a dictator, as we can find a ton that calls him one. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

"Führer" refers to his position as leader of the Nazi party, not to his position as leader of the nation. He used the "Führer" title long before he became a dictator. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

While I wouldn't agree that "Führer" is the appropriate title to use in an encyclopedia, I do think using dictator here also cannot be defended.

If we look at articles of similar political figures (Mao, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Gaddafi), none of them are referred to as dictators in the first paragraphs. Only in sections discussing how different historians evaluate them the topic is brought up. This is how it should be. None of the examples ruled democratically, two rose to power through arguably more violence than Hitler. Yet, its not the job of an encyclopedia to label them, but to faithfully reproduce what discussions go on in the research community.

If for whatever reason it's decided that the article should keep referring to Hitler as dictator, then the articles for my examples given should be changed accordingly. The definition referenced by @UnbearableIsBad above certainly applies to them as well. If not, it's blatantly obvious political bias. Meistdichteralsdenker (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

What's in other articles should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles and are not relevant to here or vice versa: WP:OTHERCONTENT - although I would note you are wrong about the Stalin article. Also, you have a cherry-picked those articles - see Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin etc. for example. In what world is there any legitimate alternative view to Hitler being labelled as a "dictator"? None. Hitler is the dictator par excellence. It's a universally accepted and and unchallenged view...except in the mind of apologists whose views have no place here or in any civilised discourse. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah well the reason I'm pointing out this inconsistency is that I was reading the Mao article and found it odd how overly "neutral" he is described so I came here as a reference point, found this discussion and am now playing devil's advocate for the sake of reaching a consistent treatment of such political figures on here. If you are all for labeling politicians whose status as dictators is universally accepted and an unchallenged view I expect I'll find you supporting me in the discussions that will inevitably spring up when I modify those articles lacking the label :) Meistdichteralsdenker (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

reaching a consistent treatment of such political figures - the consistency lies in basing articles on the balance of best sources for each figure, filtered through the same editorial process. I'm no expert on Mao, but it's possible that his need to exercise power through the CCP and other agencies, and the less visible power structures of PRC mean that sources place less emphasis on his 'absolute' power. Stalin wasn't initially a dictator, though he became one, which his article reflects. Castro, for many reasons, is much less commonly called a dictator by neutral sources than the others you mention. The "one size fits all" approach doesn't necessarily work. It would be very hard to find any source that didn't characterise Hitler as a dictator though. Pincrete (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we can be biased against Hitler 2.30.180.216 (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

But are we? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

what makes u think that Hitler is an exception to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be the fact that humans recently discovered in lab tests on rats that the Holocaust was bad. UnbearableIsBad (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That way, people in the future will think the Holocaust was also just biased writing, and is most likely made up. 2601:1C2:4E00:3E90:B1A6:7895:EC:10AB (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Back to the opening sentence, it is wrong twice in my opinion. The Chancellor bit might seem obvious but a Chancellor can be a dictator. However, he was a dictator thereafter, not the dictator. The difference is small but important. In this opening sentence we are dealing with his official status so Chancellor and Fuhrer are correct. Later in the article a or even the dictator might be fine in context. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

'dictator' is not rendered in capitals, so it's a function, (like politician or monarch) not a title (like Chancellor or King). If one said "he was a dictator of Germany from 1933 until his suicide", it would imply there were several at the time! Therefore "he was the dictator of Germany from 1933 until his suicide" is wholly correct - that was his role and nothing suggests it was his title. Pincrete (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Terms like dictator are vague and it can be hard to draw the line, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to determine whether someone is a dictator or that whether someone is a dictator is purely opinion. Hitler had complete control over Nazi Germany with nothing limiting his power. That's indisputably a dictatorship. There are cases of leaders where it's difficult to tell whether someone is a dictator, but Hitler is not one of them.

Hitler calling himself a Fuhrer does not mean he is not a dictator. It's also silly to think that him calling himself a Fuhrer and not a dictator is unbiased and factual, but independent academic sources who label him a dictator are biased. Woozybydefault (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Führer a prefix ?

Is Führer a prefix ? for that matter, is Duce a prefix? Nobody ever says "Führer Adolf Hitler" or "Duce Benito Mussolini" do they? They are both either referred to by their names, or "der Führer/il Duce" are they not? Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You are completely right in the case of Hitler. I reverted that one but I leave the Mussolini one to Italian speakers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Is a title a prefix? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The field in the template Infobox officeholder is named "Honorific prefix". See Honorific for examples and German honorifics for German examples. Nobody would say "Führer Hitler" to that man, they would call him "Mein Führer". With nothing after that, making it not a prefix. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

GreatLeader1945, consensus appears to be against you here. Please self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh I hadn't noticed this thread - they might have self-rv. I just reverted it here: I just found their edit summary very confusing. DeCausa (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a prefix is part of a word, pre-, anti-, en- a- il- etc. It isn't a separate word preceding another word. The preident in 'President Macron' is not a prefix, it's a title or adjective or noun, depending on the situation. Yes, of course we cannot say Fuhrer Hitler but that wasn't my point. If the template uses prefix in this way then should't we change it? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Everything you say makes sense until the last sentence. Change what and why? That parameter is for, e.g., "Right Honourable" in the case of Rishi Sunak and the like. It's not for an office holder's title even if it often precedes the name - that's already dealt with lower down in the infobox. No point having the tile repeated more than once. What should be changed? DeCausa (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Words can have more than one meaning. See Prefix (disambiguation). --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we say that he was a painter too?

proposal to change the first words of the article from:

"was an Austrian-born German politician" to "was an Austrian-born German politician and, for a brief time, also a painter" Zoppozoppo (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

No as it was not a major part of his life. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

?? It was certainly a major part of his life. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

He was for a brief time a painter. It was not a major part of his life and should not be included in the opening sentence in my opinion. — Diannaa (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

His pursuit of the art of painting is notable enough that we have a separate article about it: Paintings by Adolf Hitler. However, it's hardly a primary reason for his notability, and I do not support the addition of this to the lead sentence. General Ization ^Talk 01:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Should not be included. It is not what he is primary noted for, either in his life or in history. Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The article records his brief artistic 'career' in 'early life'. That is where it belongs IMO, not in the lead, which is necessarily very densely packed with info already. His failed artistic aspirations are one of those well-known, mildly interesting, but ultimately trivial facts. Pincrete (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We also have articles about Hitler's teenage crush, him possibly having one testicle, his paternal grandmother that died before he was born, his alleged illegitimate son, his dog, and a dormitory he lived in for 3 years. We have a lot of Hitler articles because a lot has been written about him. Just because some sub-topics might be separately notable for their own articles doesn't mean they warrant inclusion in the lead here. (I missed the part where you said you didn't support its addition, my bad) Koopinator (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It was certainly a major part in his Vienna years (1908-1913) Zoppozoppo (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

But not for the rest of his life (30 years+). He is not primarily known as a painter. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

sorry, "it played a major part" in his Vienna years (1908-1913). I think it should at least be mentioned in the top part of the page. Zoppozoppo (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

like by changing by this:

"He lived in Vienna later in the first decade of the 1900s before moving to Germany in 1913."

to this:

"He lived in Vienna later in the first decade of the 1900s, where he was for a brief time a painter, selling his paintings and postcards in the street, before moving to Germany in 1913" Zoppozoppo (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a few words, nothing too pompous Zoppozoppo (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It is undue emphasis in the lead. It's covered in the article, which is the appropriate place to put a tangential subject far removed from his chief notability. Acroterion (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"Governor General of Nazi Germany" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Governor General of Nazi Germany has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 18 § Governor General of Nazi Germany until a consensus is reached. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Angry mustache model" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Angry mustache model has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 19 § Angry mustache model until a consensus is reached. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Political views

In my view the article should have a short segment outlining/summarizing Hitler's political views. Adding a link onto a longer article is fine but imo there needs to be something on the page itself. Firestar47 (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

WE do have them, on Jews for example. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There may be odd sentences here and there that mention his views on certain points (regarding jews I believe there is a sentence in the section describing his early career that says he wished to get rid of them) but that isn't the same as having a proper summary. Firestar47 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure we need one, I prefer it being part of wider topics, putting it into context without having to repeat ourselves. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Firestar47 may be referring to sections like these, Joe Biden#Political positions and Donald Trump#Campaign rhetoric and political positions which we seem to have for most contemporary political leaders. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I got that, but I am unsure it is helpful even on those pages (after all people's views change). Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeh that kind of thing but it doesn't even have to be that long just something equivalent to the section on his religious views, just mentioning a few key points eg. Führerprinzip, views on women etc. Firestar47 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

I am requesting to add more about the way Hitler died,, though, yes, he did shoot himself in the head with a sidearm, and yes, his new wife did take a cyanide capsule, but, it was the Minister of Hitler Youth who found them dead. Afterwards, they put Hitler and his wife in an Artillery Hole, where they poured gasoline on it and burnt their corpses, they then buried it and Russian Soldiers then dug it up since it was fresh dirt, where they stole the body. TheFrenchyPari (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This is covered at Death_of_Adolf_Hitler RudolfRed (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

New page on the naturalization process

Hi everyone, I just created/translated the page "Naturalization of Adolf Hitler" (from dewiki + new english references and some customization). Could we reference to it on this page, perhaps with a wl in the "Personal life" section, in some way?

The naturalization of Adolf Hitler is a very intriguing history indeed. Like a soap opera or a sitcom. XD

Regards and thank you all for the attention given to me. LucaLindholm (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I have begun copyediting the new article, but will be off Wikipedia for awhile. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention Holocaust victims murdered by shooting

The sentence "Many victims of the Holocaust were murdered in gas chambers, while others died of starvation or disease or while working as slave labourers." should be updated to say " Many victims of the Holocaust were murdered in gas chambers, while others died of starvation or disease or while working as slave labourers, or killed in mass shootings." Mchcopl (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. The previous sentence mentions "mass executions" so I changed that to "mass shootings" and cited Evans as a source, and tweeked the following sentence too. (Shirer does not specify shootings on page 946.) — Diannaa (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)