Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

These additionals info (2 letters + Bernhard Lustig's testimony) have been apparently (*) published only in the 2011/09/29 paperback version of this book "Hitler's First War Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War" Thomas Weber ISBN : 9780199226382 (*) I don't have access to this book!

Excerpts from this article (2011/10/21 HITLER'S WAR BOAST EXPOSED AS A MYTH Unpublished letters disprove claim that he was blinded in action by a British mustard gas attack https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/hitlers-war-boast-exposed-as-a-myth-2373590.html Here is a similar article : Hitler's war boast is a lie, letters show https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8840279/Hitlers-war-boast-is-a-lie-letters-show.html )

"(...)Letters written by two prominent American neurologists cast serious doubts on Hitler's mental state at the end of the First World War, confirming that he was treated for "hysterical amblyopia", a psychiatric disorder known as "hysterical blindness".(...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_Blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_disorder (...)The letters, written in 1943, recall that Otfrid Förster, a renowned neurosurgeon, told each of the Americans in the 1930s that he had inspected Hitler's medical file from Pasewalk military hospital in Germany in 1918. He told them the file clearly showed that Hitler had been treated for hysterical blindness. (...) Other new evidence brought to Dr Weber's attention following his book came from Bernhard Lustig, a Jewish veteran from Hitler's regiment who emigrated to Palestine in 1933. Lustig said that "in none of their encounters had Hitler displayed any anti-Semitic tendencies... nor any leadership qualities"."

Otfrid Foerster (Otfrid Förster) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otfrid_Foerster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Foster_Kennedy I did not find a wikipedia entry for Victor Gonda.

One of the 2 letters : https://figgseyeclinic.com/2015/09/16/hitlers-psychogenic-amblyopia-during-the-great-war/

A critical review of the book https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2QT33TUOXW8J2/

I am not an expert, so in your opinion is there anything here worth to be included in wikipedia ? Thanks in advance Jurbop (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no way that information should be in this general survey article. You could try asking at Talk:Health of Adolf Hitler or Talk:Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I just asked my question here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Psychopathography_of_Adolf_Hitler#Additional_infos_about_Hitler%27s_medical_lost_file_%3F Please delete my question here if this is the correct way to do it. Thanks in advance Jurbop (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The category's description says: "People who hate Jews should be in Category:Antisemitism instead." Hitler did not "criticise" Judaism, he hated Jews and systematically murdered millions of them. Furthermore, Ezra Pound was removed from the category earlier this year. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Mein Kampf contained quite a bit of criticism of Judaism: biased, self-serving and wrong-headed, of course, but criticism nonetheless. There's no particular reason that a person cannot be included in both categories which I think is the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

But the article itself should contain that information, not just the category section. A few months ago, I cleaned up the Critics of Judaism category by removing all those articles that did not mention any criticism of Judaism but only hate propaganda against Jews. This article was one of them, Ezra Pound was another. In the Pound case, I met resistance, but not here.

Did he criticize Judaism as a religion or just the Jews as a group? Only in the first case, the category applies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This article is also in Category:Anti-Judaism. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the difference between "anti-Judaism" and "antisemitism"? Do we really need both? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism is hate of Jews, including converted ones and their descendants, while Anti-Judaism is opposition to the religion of Judaism. Antisemitism has been mainly based on racial ideas, anti-Judaism on religious ones. I don't think Hitler was much interested in Judaism as a religion - after all, conversion to Christianity did not help against persecution by Nazis. So, I see no reason for the anti-Judaism cat. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Anti-Judaism" being removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I also have no problem with its removal. Kierzek (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"who" in the intro should be "whom". 148.252.24.230 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I think in this case "who" is appropriate. I believe "he and his followers" is the subject and "at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims" is the object. Since this is the case, "whom" is incorrect. (See Perdue Owl's article on this).

If it were "he and his followers were responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims..." then "whom" would probably be appropriate. - Frood (talk!) 19:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You are right that "at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims" is the object, but "whom" is therefore appropriate. "Whom" is the objective form, as it says in the very article you linked to. "who" in the sentence clearly refers to the "at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims", not "he and his followers". 148.252.24.230 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I also think it should be whom, because the sentence is ″victims who(m) he and his followers regarded″, where victims is the object and the who(m) refers to said victims (as in ″the victims that he regarded″). Since I'm the third person to say that, I've reset the request. --Yhdwww (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done "Whom" is technically correct grammar in this case, though "who" is often used in both formal and informal speech. I have changed it to "whom". – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I need to request a political sidebar for Adolf Hitler?

{{Adolf Hitler series}}

Well, I should request it for later on. --TaleofTalisman (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Change this line:

Hitler followed a vegetarian diet.[414]

to this:

Hitler followed a mostly vegetarian diet.[414]

According to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism), Hitler still ate liver dumplings. This by definition would make him not vegetarian in the literal sense.

Thank you! Stix1776 (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Source is Toland, p.256. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Liver dumplings

Re "Hitler followed a mostly vegetarian diet,[414] with the exception of liver dumplings.[415]"

I originally looked at this because I thought the phrasing might be improved, however according to various witnesses at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism, AH may have 'lapsed' at various times, in various ways by eating various different meats/meat products - knowingly or otherwise (liver dumplings is simply Ilse Hess's version). Everyone there appears to agree though that AH was mainly vegetarian.

Is the liver dumplings detail worth it? It isn't that reliable and doesn't seem to indicate anything particular about his beliefs or practices. Unless anybody objects, I'll take out the dumplings! Pincrete (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't object. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If we know that -- at least according to one reliable source -- his diet wasn't totally vegetarian, then we can't say that he "followed a vegetarian diet", that would be deceptive. But if we say a "mostly" vegetarian diet, people are going to wonder what the exception is, so it's best to just put it out there. It's only 6 words and a reference, not a big deal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with BMK, as otherwise it becomes open-ended and a little vague. And frankly, if anyone can find other example(s) through RS source(s) then a further example or examples can be added. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree totally with BMK that 'mostly vegetarian' is necessary. I just wonder if there is a better way to describe the exceptions which nobody seems certain about what/when these were. The image of someone who only 'strayed' by eating liver dumplings is very picturesque, but doesn't seem very reliably accurate.Pincrete (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There are so many witnesses and recorded testimonies asserting that Hitler was a firm Vegetarian by 1942, that relying on only one much-cited, contary eye-witness I suggest is misleading. There is a whole Wiki stub confirming that Hitler was a firm vegetarian in his last years. Margot Wölk, who became his food taster in 1942, stated that all the food she tested for Hitler was vegetarian, and she asserted that he ate no meat or fish. Traudl Junge, Hitler's secretary from 1942 till the end, also confirmed that he "ALWAYS avoided meat". Why would we choose to lay emphasis on an early 1937 account by Ilse Hess, over numerous accounts from people close to him who shared his meals from 1942? My suggestion is that we say something like: "sometime in the 1930's Hitler adopted a mainly vegetarian diet, avoiding all meat and fish from 1942 onwards". Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

To include that hitler's parents are possibly jewish and the reason that he tried to exterminate all the jews is because of his mothers death. Kalleeboomvr (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Another one who would benefit from a read of some talk page archives. Britmax (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this paragraph of the introduction I recommend to change " civilians" by "other civilians", because it can be understood that the millions of Jews killed by genocide were not exactly civilians, which is an aberration:

" Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) or socially undesirable. Hitler and the Nazi regime were also responsible for the killing of an estimated 19.3 million OTHER civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theatre. The number of civilians killed during World War II was unprecedented in warfare, and the casualties constitute the deadliest conflict in history."

Thanks you for the correction.--Ttestbleuu (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The wording is correct as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of this paragraph, why exactly are Jews mentioned first, and separately, from the other 19.3M people? FFS, Jews aren't even the single largest group of victims; Soviet citizens were, and 1.3M among those were Jewish. Why are we to assume then that those 1.3M Jewish Soviets would prefer to be identified as Jews killed by Hitler, rather than as Soviet citizens or Marxist-Leninists killed by Hitler?

P.S. The OTHER highlighted by the other guy is still a problem for the same reason they stated. Did you even read it, "Ken"? I suspect not. 174.115.100.93 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This should link to List of wars by death toll, not World War II (redundant; it says "World War II" at the beginning of the sentence. 174.115.100.93 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed N2e (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he was a socialist. Dangerranger54 (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: He's identified in the article as the leader of the National Socialist Party. Pretty self-explanatory. Crboyer (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This line is problematic:

“They sought "the destruction of existing political and social structure and their supporting elites [and had] profound disdain for civil order, for human and moral values" and for the ideas of classical liberalism as well as those of Marxism.[115]” due to the fact that the Nazis voiced profound disdain for Marxism, but did not actually disdain the ideas of Marxism, and enacted many of them in their regime. The words “as well as those of Marxism” should be removed.

Hitler on May 1, 1927: "We are socialists. We are enemies of today's capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Goebbels in Der Angriff in 1928:

"The worker in a capitalist state - that is his greatest misfortune - no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things. He has become a machine."

More citations: (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/11/the_nazis_were_maxists.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsiege (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph. It's off-topic for this article, and it's not entirely correct. Thank you for the suggestion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Someone put that Adolf's Hitler views on relgion were as follow : He thought that it would be better for the Germans to have Islam , or a japanese like belief system. Because Christianity was full of "meekness and flabbiness".

And all the rest saying that he was against the Churches or catholicism.

Looked at the source of that it gave Albert Speer "Inside the third reich" book. I happen to have read the whole book multiple times, it never states that ever. It never stated that Hitler railed against the Church either.

Why are we not able to edit that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveDG (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a copy of Speer's book here: The Avon paperback, first Avon printing, published September 1971. In that edition, the content on religion is on pages 141-143. Page numbers might be different in your edition. The content is in Chapter 7 - Obersalzberg. You are not able to edit the article, because there's protection in place that prevents new users from editing the page. As you can imagine, the article has been vandalized many times.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

To that answer, i have a copy also i just literally read the whole book about 3 times i think and i just re-read those pages u mentionned from 130 to 150 just in case it differs, it does talk about religion a tiny part of it but it never states that Adolf's hitler rallied against the Church, it never states that he thought islam or a japanese based belief is better for the german people. Those sources are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:66DE:DC00:BC82:53DF:509A:9F5C (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are some quotations. (Page numbers may differ in your edition.)

• Page 141: "Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church"
• Page 142: "A new party religion would only bring about a relapse into the mysticism of the Middle Ages"; "He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it"
• Page 143: Speer quotes Hitler as saying "Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add section about his death, as is normally done for those who are deceased. Should include the cause, aprox time/date, location and maybe Where body is interred. Aarondevo (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't have space for too much here, as the article is already pretty big. For that reason, we have a separate article: Death of Adolf Hitler. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As Diannaa states it is covered here for general information and clearly linked to the detailed sub-article. Kierzek (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I notice that this article is in the ‘vegetarians’ category, but isn’t that a myth? That he was vegetarian, I mean. I’m not entirely sure but I thought it was a myth. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, his doctor recommended a meatless diet to him, which he followed more or less. --Yhdwww (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There's sourced content in the article on this topic.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hitler's teeth were recently examined and it was determined he was infact a vegetarian. I'm not a dentist so I'm not entirely sure how that conclusion was reached.

https://www.dw.com/en/hitler-teeth-test-dispels-myths-of-nazi-leaders-survival/a-43861719

...The research team was also allowed to look at fragments of Hitler's skull to confirm the means by which he committed suicide. The teeth matched descriptions provided by Hitler's dentist and revealed no trace of meat — consistent with the fact that the Führer was vegetarian.

The article also goes on to state that Hitler only have four teeth left in his mouth at the time of his death. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rudlof Hitler. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

suggestion to add Europeana as external link using this template {{EuropeanaEntity}} --> links Europeana agent/base/157558 - Salgo60 (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The Europeana doesn't appear to add any information that isn't already present. External links are for:...meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article... and I don't see that here. the only thing I see there are more photos, and none of the ones are more especially illustrative of Hitler than the ones already here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to make an edit to this article that is needed in the article

yours's truly Dead Meme Lord Dead meme lord (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dead meme lord: This is where you ask someone who can make the edit to do so. It is not a way for users to circumvent the page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that this page has no section for the political ideology of the subject, As I discovered there is a separate article for this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler) I find it strange that this is not listed in the "see also" section- so I have added it for the sake of order. Perhaps since the two are so closely linked the articles should be merged, I leave this at the discretion of more senior editors. --1.159.83.54 (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The 'Political views' article is already linked in the 'Entry into politics' section, so should NOT be a 'see also' (we don't duplicate in that way). But perhaps you realised that after leaving you post above, as you haven't added it to the 'see also'. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In the section about the holocaust:

"Hitler's policies resulted in the killing of nearly two million non-Jewish Poles,[351]"

Technically they resulted in the killing of many more non-Jewish Poles than just 2 million. It should be:

"Hitler's policies resulted in the killing of nearly two million civilian, non-Jewish Poles,[351]"

Or something similar. Test123Bug (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite correct, source says "scholars of independent Poland believe that 1.8 to 1.9 million Polish civilians (non-Jews) were victims of German Occupation policies and the war" . Text amended thus, 'non-Jewish Poles' becomes "non-Jewish Polish civilians". Pincrete (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies to all who are sick of this merry go round, but I'm going to try to crack this nut one more time because I stubbornly persist in feeling that this just can't be the best way to get the point across.

On de:Adolf Hitler we write:

Hitler autorisierte die wichtigsten Schritte des Judenmordes und ließ sich über den Verlauf informieren.

My German isn't great, but with the aid of a dictionary I have this rough translation:

Hitler authorized the most significant steps in the [mass] murder of Jews and was informed of the progress.

This seems fair. The citations are to Kershaw and a German dentist de:Hans-Joachim Neumann (?), but I can't verify either as I don't have copies of these books. Assuming they check out, iterating further, I have this try:

Hitler authorized the most significant steps of the Holocaust and was regularly briefed on the progess of the ongoing genocide.

I'm not especially attached to this exact phrasing, but something like this might succeed in laying responsibility where it belongs without the use of abstraction and metaphor. --causa sui (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a good sentence.... seems like we're missing a qualifier .like somebody else's name and diminishes his role. Someone will likely revert.--Moxy 🍁 00:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait there’s not enough discussion on this for the change and the sentence is terribly awkward. This has been discussed in depth and even went through mediation. I do not agree to the change. I am out of town this weekend, but there’s not enough time or discussion on this. Kierzek (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. I am editing in good faith. --causa sui (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Really, I’ve been on here 11 years, don’t tell me to go see BRD. The fact is you pushed this through in quick fashion and given the article subject matter and also the fact you wanted to change wording that was the product of lengthy discussion and prior consensus the way you have is not how it should have been done. I’m out of town, so I cannot comment further on this matter right now given real life commitments to attend to at present. But I certainly support Dianaa’s reasoning for the revert; as stated below. I also see now, below, you’re willing to further discuss the matter, so that is good. Kierzek (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I've undone the addition, as it contains content not present elsewhere in the article and is not sourced. We have no source for "authorized significant steps" or "was regularly briefed". Due to the way they did business, such sources may not even exist. We can't use content from the German Wikipedia, even if it looks like it's properly sourced, unless we can view those sources and see what they say. Both their citations are in German. (The Kershaw citation is not one of his books, but "Adolf Hitler und die Realisierung der nationalsozialistischen Rassenutopie." In: Wolfgang Hardtwig (Hrsg.): Utopie und politische Herrschaft im Europa der Zwischenkriegszeit) — Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A few worthwhile points are being raised here.

1. We can't use content from the German Wikipedia: We absolutely can translate it into English as it has a copyleft license. There's nothing wrong with farming ideas from our sister projects in other languages either. Unless! You mean we can't use the German Wikipedia as a citation, which is certainly true. We would have to rely on other sources; probably those the German Wikipedia attribute this to. (Although, as I alluded, I have my own doubts about the authority of one of the two).

2. The sources are in German: Well, reliable sources are reliable in any language. The verifiability policy has more on this. There is no basis in policy for excluding reliable sources for being in the wrong language.

3. We need to read the sources ourselves: This is certainly a best practice. As I mentioned, my German isn't great, but it's serviceable with the aid of a dictionary. If the Kershaw source can be found in German I can help with this. I would appreciate assistance there.

4. We don't talk about this elsewhere in the article: I agree that's a problem. If the other issues are resolved then perhaps we can also work out a way to expand on it elsewhere.

5. The wording is awkward: Definitely. I doubt that I did it the best way the first time. As before, if the other issues are resolved then hopefully we can work out something better together.

6. There was a prior RFC: I think that justifies the text being what it is for as long as it has been. No one who supported it at the RFC, or after, has done anything wrong.

Thanks for working with me on this. This is a hard problem but I believe we can improve on it together. --causa sui (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

causa sui, what I don't understand is what the proposed change is intended to achieve. If - as I suspect - the objection to present text is that it is unspecific, that to a certain extent is deliberate, not because vagueness is ordinarily a virtue, but because in THIS instance and this early in the AH article, the nuances of precisely HOW MUCH detail AH knew, how involved he was in process are too complex for an opening para. No significant historian absolves him of a central responsibility, but none is in a position to say precisely how directly involved he was in the mechanics. Pincrete (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What I meant is that we can't use German Wikipedia as a source, because it's a wiki, and not considered a reliable source. I am not comfortable with using their statements as to "authorized significant steps" or "was regularly briefed" since I am unable to obtain the sources that they used and don't want to add the material unless they've been checked by one of us. If one of us can obtain these sources and confirm they actually back up these statements, then we could add. But I have seen no such material in the English-language sources that I have viewed on this topic so far in my many years of interest in this topic, and like I already said, I doubt we will ever find sources that gives detailed information about Hitler's level of direct involvement. Historians have looked, and have not found such so far. — Diannaa (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you and I like that sentence better. From what I gather, the Holocaust was mostly planned out by Himmler and Goebbels. It was a collective effort, and saying Hitler was central to it is a tad miselading. Test123Bug (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the sentence in the introduction: "the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims"

Please correct "at least 5.5 millions Jews" to "nearly 6 millions Jews"

Reliable resources: Yad Vashem: https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about.html#learnmore Wikipedia's page "The Holocaust" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust 62.0.34.134 (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:62.0.34.134, methods of counting, and thus derived estimates vary and the exact numbers will never be known - either of all those killed or of Jews killed. What we can be certain of is that killing in general and intentional killing of targeted groups, most notably of Jews, took place on an unprecedented, and almost unimaginable scale. 'At least 5.5 million' or 'nearly 6 million' is ultimately a matter of taste - we need to be brief in the intro and both figures are reliably sourceable - so do we put an 'at least' figure or an 'up to' figure. I personally feel that it is always better to be cautious and conservative in such matters, since the figures themselves are so unimaginably awful, that they don't need even a suggestion of 'beefing up' from us.

I recognise however that the 'nearly' figure is widely known and used, so I will 'fall in' with what others think about this.Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of the figure of "at least 5.5 million" was arrived at in the discussion Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler which took place in 2013. Evans in particular notes that 5.5 million has to be considered as a bare minimum, and states that the actual figure is likely closer to 6 million, which is what Eichmann said (Evans, The Third Reich at War [2008] p 318). But I for one have no interest in changing the figure if to do so requires us to re-litigate this old dispute.— Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. As Diannaa's response indicates, this figure was reached after extensive discussions. Changing it would require similarly-extensive discussions to see if the consensus has changed. As such, it is outside the bounds of an Edit Request. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As Diannaa has pointed out, the wording “at least 5.5 million” was debated and eventually went to arbitration in 2013. That can be reviewed here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. The facts remain that numerous authoritative, recognised historians have estimated figures LOWER than 5.5 million. That fact shows this figure in the lead to be in defiance of simple arithmetic. Also that Evans — not for the first time — is shown to be making statements that are demonstrably factually incorrect. That some editors choose to defy simple arithmetic in editing this wiki biography I suggest is a sign of non-neutral, emotion-based motivation, which I have just suggested — in another talk point regarding the wording evil — all editors should be attempting to avoid when editing wiki articles. The facts are that Raul Hillberg in 'The Destruction of the European Jews' (revised 1985) estimated 5.1 million. R. J. Rummel in 'Death by Government' (Pg 10, Table 1.5) estimated 5.2 million. Wolfgang Benz of the University of Berlin in 'Dimension des Völkermords', (Oldenbourg, Munich 1991) estimated a lowest figure of 5.29 million. Reitlinger in 'The Final Solution', estimated 4.2 to 4.5 million. ALL of these estimates are LOWER than 5.5 million. Therefore by applying simple arithmetic, the sentence saying “at least 5.5” is factually incorrect. I suggest again that changing the wording to “more than 5 million” would easily remedy this inaccuracy. Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You already know my opinion on this - it hasn't changed since the dispute resolution discussion. My opinion is that "at least 5.5 million" is too low, because most historians state the number was around 6 million Jews. Numbers lower than 5.5 million become ever more inaccurate for the reasons already stated at the dispute resolution case. — Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to the dispute resolution archive: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler— Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I remember your previous “opinion”. :-) But a claim of 'most' historians is debateable and anyway this isn't a popularity-of-view contest. Hilberg is considered the foremost scholar on the subject. Why do we deny his expert opinion? Rummel is considered a foremost authority on the figures. Why do we create a factually incorrect sentence that refutes his findings? So also with the other authoritative sources I cited. So, here is a question for YOU Dianna. Should a wiki article follow:

a.) subjective personal opinion or b.) facts, (in this case facts of simple and irrefutable arithmetic)?

Please answer with either a.) or b.) — Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've already given you the results of my research on this topic. They can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have opened an RFC to gather some input from other editors. See below.— Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I have advertised the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Notice of RFC at Adolf Hitler. — Diannaa (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa, you ignored a very simple and straightforward question. Please will you explain why? — Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Repeat of my question to Diannaa. Please will you reply and engage in good-faith dialogue? Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

There is an RFC about this, it is best to keep this discussion in one place.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I really don't mind where Diannaa chooses to answer it. I merely request an answer. I have long suspected that Diannaa has a partiality to policing this biography so that its subject is presented in the most negative way possible. This refusal to engage in dialogue about a point that has resurfaced again appears to support this view. As neutrality is a core Wiki content policy, if editors here feel they are unable to approach this biography with impartiality they perhaps should not be editing it. I suggest they certainly should not be one of the chief protectors of non-neutral content. Diannaa's refusal to engage in dialogue and answer simple questions designed to move further a recurring point of contention would appear to confirm a non-neutral partiality. Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Like Diannaa, my opinion from the lengthy "Dispute resolution" discussion has not changed, either. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I support changing it to either "from 5 million to 6 million" or to "from 5.5 million to 6 million" bacause a range is better than an exact number (especially in this case). Worst case scenario, I support leaving it as it is.

I would like to add a new picture to the article because the old one has been there for a while, and I personally believe that the newer one is better. AedynSma (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hard to judge as we have not seen it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In the Defeat & Death section, I think it would be important to note that Hitler moved a large amount of troops from the Western front to the Eastern front after the huge loss at Stalingrad. That's partly what made D-Day so successful. So my proposal is:

By late 1944, both the Red Army and the Western Allies were advancing into Germany. Recognising the strength and determination of the Red Army, Hitler decided to use his remaining mobile reserves against the American and British troops, which he perceived as far weaker.[296] On 16 December, he launched the Ardennes Offensive to incite disunity among the Western Allies and perhaps convince them to join his fight against the Soviets.[297]

changed to:

By late 1944, both the Red Army and the Western Allies were advancing into Germany. Recognising the strength and determination of the Red Army, Hitler decided to use his remaining mobile reserves against the American and British troops, which he perceived as far weaker.[296] After failure to recuperate from the casualties at Stalingrad, Hitler ordered a last desperate attempt to once again pierce the Western front: On 16 December, he launched the Ardennes Offensive to incite disunity among the Western Allies and perhaps convince them to join his fight against the Soviets.[297]

Test123Bug (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Where is the link to D-Day, ?Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should necessarily add that part. But moving a ton of troops from the western front to the eastern front will obviously make invading the western front easier. Test123Bug (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There is literally nothing that is cited in the lead. This isn't how wikipedia is supposed to work. Fefkwkefe8 (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:lede, the lead should be a summery of the article, so any material should already be cited in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

See in particular WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material" and "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". It is actually quite common for Wikipedia articles not to have citations in the lead, although unfortunately this often results in people not familiar with how Wikipedia works to wrongly assume that a given statement in the lead is unsupported simply because the citation is not given in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I found the sentence "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil. According to historian Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man."" has been put in first paragraph of the article. But should it put in first paragraph? Or if it should be in first paragraph, should we include Ian Kershaw's opinion?Mariogoods (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see talk page and archives for previous discussions of this matter. Britmax (talk) 00:50, 20 December

,,,from the last talk..that is second most cited after IAN ...is...Joel Feinberg; (Regents Professor of Philosophy and Law) (2003). Problems at the Roots of Law:. Oxford University Press. p. 189. ISBN 978-0-19-515526-6. Adolf Hitler would win honors, hands down, as the most evil man who ever lived, and the ultimate model of human wickedness...--Moxy 🍁 01:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please, cite Adolf_Hitler's_wealth_and_income. Hilter was a billionaire and a tax evader.Geysirhead (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Stalin is also universally regarded as evil, except in Russia. (JosefHe (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC))

Whether Hitler was evil or not is a piece of subjective opinion, even if that opinion is held by the majority of people who study the life of Hitler. Unless this statement is substantiated with the universal definition of evil and evidence is shown that he committed acts that fall under this universal definition, it cannot be said that he was evil. Let's stay by the facts and include verifiable information only. Stating that under his Nazi rule about 6 million Jews, and in total 11 millions victims, were persecuted, is verifiable. Stating that, according to someone, he is considered evil and attributing that statement to that person might be okay in other parts of the article, but it definitely does not belong to the lead. Veritas cosmicus (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The content is a summary of the material in the "Legacy" section, and that's why it's in the lead. (The lead, as you likely know, is intended to be a summary of the entire article.) It's okay to provide a consensus of what historians or other experts have to say about a subject. That historians hold this opinion of Hitler is a verifiable fact and therefore something we can and should include. — Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Diannaa; mainstream RS historians state this as expert opinion and therefore, it should be included. It is not a fringe theory or unverified opinion. Kierzek (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Full concurrence with both Diannaa and Kierzek here, as it is widely stated by historians, psychologists, and scholars of the humanities that Hitler was evil. When this reasonably objective and accepted fact is disputed, it is from the perspective of Nazi apologists or fans of the regime.--Obenritter (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that "evil" (which sounds particularly cartoony) should be replaced by "gravely immoral". Per the "Legacy" section: "Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral". In my opinion, the "universally regarded" gives "gravely immoral" much more encyclopedical weight than "evil", which is quoted here as: "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime." So as you can see, between "often" and "universally [regarded]", the latter has considerably more relevance. LuizLSNeto (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE READ what I will say about this debate (down below). Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and Wikipedia only includes FACTS. When they include OPINIONS (such as Hitler being evil), it is NOT the opinion of Wikipedia, but the opinion of the Majority of humans. When they state Opinions, they do NOT say :"We think Hitler was evil". Instead, they say:"People think Hitler was evil". So, it is not Wikipedia's fault. I believe that the statement about Hitler being seen as evil by the majority of the population(whether true or not) shouldn't be there. Thank you, and please make this change. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require that WIkipedia water down the unanimous consensus of historians to imply by omission that there's some chance that the person directly responsible for the mass slaughter of millions as a matter of ideology and hatred should be treated with kid gloves. There is no serious dissenting view in mainstream thou8ght where this is concerned, and Wikipedia reflects the consensus of mainstream thought. We say it like it is, and omission makes Wikipedia a worse place for everyone. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like you did not understand me. I know what NPOV is. I am not treating this with kid gloves. Yes, Hitler is seen as evil by most. Yes, maybe he is (who am I to judge?!). Yes, he killed because of his ideology. Of course we HAVE TO INCLUDE that Hitler is seen as evil. 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃 Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Jam ai qe ju shikoni, the WP:Lead is a summary of the article; there is no good reason stated, thus far, not to include it; what I am hearing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At this point, WP:Consensus is not in your favor for a change. So, please consider that fact. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Kierzek, I will consider what you said. It seems like we will never agree on this (sadly). Maybe you do not agree with my reasons. It is OK. It seems like we have only one last chance: VOTING. Do you think we can do that? If so, how? Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Kierzek, also, please do not mistake me for a nazi or an anti-nazi. I am none. And I do not want to hide Hitler's actions. I try to be neutral when I read history(things happen wether we like it or not) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and we don't vote. We cite policy, and NPOV policy requires that we state the plain facts and not water them down for a fallacious appearance of balance. The lead paragraph summarizes article content.So no, we can't do what you want. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, be respectful bro. I just meant we should do a poll. End of. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion is correct, again read the links. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity..., neither is it the result of a vote." Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes Kierzek, I meant A POLL Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, WIkipedia isn't a democracy, and this is a poor choice for a topic to argue about. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, i would like to add my 2 cents. While i don't like it when articles insert opinions about the topic, the prospect of opinions being banned on this site seem unlikely. However, i do think a good case can be made for removing the quote "According to historian Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man."" from the lead, for multiple reasons: First, it's redundant to the prior sentence "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil". Second, this sentence is not reflected in the body text. Third, the lead shouldn't use references. Fourth, it gives undue weight to this particular historian's take. I'm going to remove it unless someone objects. Koopinator (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a good edit in my opinion.— Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead bro Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I've so far stayed out of this discussion. On the one hand I find the characterisation of AH as 'evil', unnecessary (saying what he 'achieved' sufficiently characterises him for me), but on the other hand I recognise that he holds a special status as almost the epitome of evil - so I was quite happy to follow, but not take sides in this discussion.

BUT .... the proposed text seems the worst of both worlds, the Kershaw quote ("Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man.") expresses precisely and articulately, exactly why the 'evil' label is applied. The argument that it is not in the body is also wrong - the legacy section says almost precisely the same thing (except there we have 'gravely immoral', rather than 'evil').

I can see an argument for not discussing AH's immorality/evil-ness in the lead at all, I can also see an argument for moving such a discussion down from the first para. I cannot see ANY argument for saying AH was evil but not expanding on why the term is used about him - which the Kershaw quote does very succinctly IMO. 'Evil' is such a lightly and loosely used term, almost comic-book-ish, we might as well be saying "Hitler was a very bad man" - true, but utterly banal in the circumstances IMO.Pincrete (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Having just caught up on this discussion, I don't see it being argued that we should say he's regarded as evil and not explain why. We do explain why, elsewhere in the article. The topic at hand is how much detail to have in the lead. Since we don't want to use citations in the lead, and we don't want to omit discussion of his overwhelmingly negative legacy from the lead, this seems like an excellent compromise to me. --causa sui (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think it better to either omit "he is seen as evil" from the lead, or to state succinctly why (which IMO the Kershaw quote does). But I'll "go with the flow" on this. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It should not be in the lede. Stalin's actions and ideology are widely seen as evil, yet there is nothing in his article on this site calling him evil. (JosefHe (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC))

Perhaps there should be? Feel free to start discussion on Talk:Joseph Stalin. --causa sui (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hitler is actually widely admired in former British colonies, especially in the Middle East where "Mein Kampf" is a bestseller. Saying he is universally regarded as evil is incorrect. (JosefHe (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC))

I agree that that is incorrect. It's a good thing the article doesn't say that. --causa sui (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Our article on Evil highlights very early on that it is an ill-defined concept, with widely differing meanings in different cultures. To use the word in this article as if it has a single, unarguable definition is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a moral philosophy other than Nazism where the systematic murder of multiple classes of people totaling millions of human lives solely based on their DNA is considered anything other than evil, I'll give you a million dollars. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Then rewrite our article on Evil. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and does not use itself for reference. Find me a reliable source that explicitly claims Adolf Hitler is not evil. When you do that, we can have a discussion about adjusting the description of him here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Silly demand. "Evil" is simply the wrong word to be using here. It means too many things to too many different people. And it's far too often based on the proclamations of old religions. We need to find a more precise way to say he was a really nasty bloke. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hows this? "Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) or socially undesirable. Hitler and the Nazi regime were also responsible for the killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theatre. The number of civilians killed during World War II was unprecedented in warfare, and the casualties constitute the deadliest conflict in history." Seems precise to me, what do you think? Shall I add it to the lead? --causa sui (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That would work for me as a replacement for the final paragraph of the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems too long for the first paragraph. Near the end of the lead would be good. --causa sui (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to including this in the lead. I do object to the removal of the evil sentence, as that is the consensus view of reliable sources and it is cited in the article. Calling a spade a spade is needed here, and it should be reflected that there is a consensus view on the topic. Appeals to cultural relativism on the topic of evil are a distraction here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The suggested final paragraph for the lead is identical to the one we already have. Not sure what your proposed amendment is? — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That would explain why I thought it fit well :) On a serious note: Wikipedia does not need to conform to some culturally relative conception of what is evil. NPOV does not require we do so, and the consensus view of sources is that the actions he took are essentially the sum of what that word means in the English language. As we are the English Wikipedia, there is going to be a natural bias towards native anglophone understandings of the words used. That's unavoidable and not inconsistent with NPOV. It comes with us using English as the medium of communication. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A bit of good-natured trolling on my part. My point is that we already explain this just fine. --causa sui (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• This whole thread is based on a false premise. Nowhere does it say that Hitler was evil. It says "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil". A person himself, and what that person does or thinks, are very different things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Best to re-read this thread.--Moxy 🍁 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

So, Hitler is a good person, and he is an evil person at the same time? 😂😂 Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Every person is a mixture of both, if you're asking my opinion on which way the wind is blowing in his case, it seems the reliable sources overwhemlingly conclude that no, he's just evil. --causa sui (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bro, no one asked for your opinion. (Redacted) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I consider that value judgement absolutely infantile and unencyclopaedic. Although in a way, I shouldn't be surprised - this is the pinnacle of the widespread anti-racist bias, the ultimate conclusion of that constant scowl permeating every political article here. But I would like to draw your attention to another point - that the use of the word "evil" seems to my knowledge an incredibly Anglocentric phenomenon. To any non-American reader, it would appear as outlandish as young Earth creationism. Evil to whom? There is no source, actually. That would mean absolutely evil... and that's contentious philosophy.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this has already been discussed quite a bit, but having spent many years working on contentious political biographies at Wikipedia, I must say that the addition of this sentence to the opening paragraph seems really quite unencyclopedic. It really should be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm neutral, but would point out that this isn't quite a bog-standard biography. The sentence is intended to be a summary of "Legacy", which says in part:

Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral;[1] according to Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man."[2] Hitler's political programme brought about a world war, leaving behind a devastated and impoverished Eastern and Central Europe. Germany suffered wholesale destruction, characterised as Stunde Null (Zero Hour).[3] Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale;[4] according to R. J. Rummel, the Nazi regime was responsible for the democidal killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war.[5] In addition, 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European Theatre of World War II.[5] The number of civilians killed during the Second World War was unprecedented in the history of warfare.[6] Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime.[7]

The word 'evil' is sometimes used almost childishly (evil wizard?), but it is also used to refer to the most extreme manifestations of wholly inexplicable amorality, wholly inexplicable cruelty and complete moral depravity. There aren't many other words that reach that low and there aren't many biog subjects who are credited with quite this number of senseless deaths! Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence “Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil” is problematical for numerous reasons and that this wiki article would be more 'encyclopedic' without its subjective use of the word 'evil'. It's problematical because its a statement that assumes an unevidenced time-based current consensus and ignores and negates previous opinions and future ones — so is not fact based. It's problematical because it relies on unevidenced assumptions that mirror current western opinions and ignores middle-eastern and eastern ones. Which is therefore arguably racist. It's problematical because it condenses a lifetime of 56 years to just the "actions and ideology" of the years from 1941 to 1945 and then posits an emotive, subjective evaluation based on a quote from one impartial historian with possibly the most emotional antipathy to the subject matter. Etc., etc. The fact that biographer's such as William L. Shirer, Robert Payne, Leon Poliakov, Gerhard Weinberg, Nora Levin, Alan Bullock, Joachim Fest and many others have relied on Rauschning’s fabricated Conversations with Hitler I regard as a sign of the animus based on misinformation that I would expect an encyclopedia to try and avoid NOT rely upon and perpetuate . I suggest that for this wiki biography to be more fact-based, unemotional and therefore neutral, that therefore emotionally-led antipathy should be avoided. For example, the biographies of the other WW2 leaders do not begin with totals of war-dead that could be fairly ascribed to THEIR "actions" and "ideologies". Why not? I suggest that this is being done intentionally here with Hitler — though perhaps subconsciously — in order to create and perpetuate an emotion-based antipathy held by editors. So as an encyclopedia that aspires to neutrality and impartial presentation of FACTS, I suggest if we do not do that for Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, then in the interests of neutrality I argue that we shouldn't be doing that for Hitler either. SUMMARY: I agree with the arguments for removing this problematical sentence altogether. Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that there have probably been millions of people as morally bankrupt as Hitler. They just didn’t have the opportunity to exercise their immorality on such a wide scale. Were his enthusiastic followers any less evil? (Cue Buffy Sainte-Marie’s Universal Soldier.) I don’t like the line: "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil” as the word evil is used in so many ways, some trivial: “Kimchi tastes evil”. OTOH, I quite like: "According to historian Ian Kershaw, 'Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man.'" Hard to argue with that association. We even have Godwin’s law as a result. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes as it is one of the things he is most notable for, being the epitome of evil.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think adding that is a very good line that would accurately convey the idea on the lead. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per Midnightblueowl, "evil" is a totally subjective concept and therefore, for us, unencyclopedic; conversely, per Object3000, a similarly all-embracing assessment of the historiographical state of play is both encyclopedic and reader-friendly. It's an excellent quote that summarises the intent behind saying he's evil but in a more professional and scientific manner. ——SN54129 19:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not a fan of expressly evil, it is childish and does not really capture the horrors he created. Also it comes across as inconsistent with other people of the time such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, and Pol Pot all genocidal and evil. The quote seems a better compromise, Ian Kershaw is a clearly recognizable expert on Hitler and Nazism in general. PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• I support mention of Hitler's reputation in the intro as a summary of the legacy section per MOS:INTRO. As Diannaa argued above, his reputation among historians and the public is a verifiable fact, not a WP:NPOV violation; including it is little different than noting that Cats was lambasted by critics. I'll leave it to others to decide whether "evil" or "grossly immoral" is better phrasing, but we should have something in that vein. Sdkb (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Corollary to Godwin’s law: As an online discussion about Hitler grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Cats….. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Gravely immoral" is the way we word it in the Legacy section. — Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I cannot imagine anybody would take issue with "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil." Only a neo-Nazi would dispute that. As to " According to historian Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man,", that seems an admirably succinct summary. Guy (help!) 23:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Who is disputing Hitler was evil? No one from what I can see. Only discussions on how to phrase it in the lead and if that word is the right one. Or is this more of a how to win friends and influence people kind of thing? Like all those that disagree with me must be a neo-nazi? PackMecEng (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, I think we are probably in violent agreement: we should not remove the text (because of course we shouldn't), but reasonable people may disagree on exactly how to word it, as you say. This RfC seeks to remove it altogether. That does not seem to em to be a good idea, unless they are merely asking about the inline attribution to Kershaw, in which case I have no strong opinion. Guy (help!) 13:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• You want one sentence that few can argue with (even Hitler supporters rationally), with no equivocation, stating how he is viewed by most experts, using a quote by a foremost historian (Ian Kershaw) on the subject, that contains fewer words than this post by me. This nails it. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Move the sentence to the fourth paragraph

While I take issue with the specific wording of this contentious sentence, a graver issue (at least at present) is the WP:UNDUE weight that its current location affords it. If you look at FA-rated 20th century political biography articles such as Vladimir Lenin, Jomo Kenyatta, and Nelson Mandela, or indeed GA-rated articles such as Joseph Stalin, you will see that all of the information on how they have been perceived both during their lifetimes and posthumously is relegated to the fourth paragraph of the lede. Thus, in the spirit of standardisation and to avoid the UNDUE weight currently given to this sentence, might I suggest that we move it out of the first paragraph of the lede and into the fourth? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the difference is that pretty much he has never (unlike say uncle Joe) ever been seen as anything other the the epitome of evil, indeed I would go as far as to say (for all practical purposes) universally seen as the most evil man who has ever lived. I do not think it is possible to do a revaluation of Hitler that will ever see him in a postive light (as in balance getting the trains to run on time will not be seen as worth the holocaust).Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose we just DELETE IT

The problem appears to be with all these proposals to amend the problematical sentence is that we are collectively not approaching this objectively, factually nor with neutrality. Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt (Truman) also deliberately targeted and killed (murdered) millions of civilian, non-combatants based upon their race/ethnicity. What people seem to forget is that during World War 2 there was a war going on!!!!!!! Hitler was a leader of a country involved in that world war, which he stated he never wanted and sought to avoid. In that war ALL the leaders initiated actions that resulted in the deaths of millions of people, over 60% of whom were civilian non-combatants. NEUTRALITY (WP:NPOV) is a core content policy of wikipedia. To suggest that Hitler was more "evil" than anyone else in history, I suggest is a preposterously subjective viewpoint. And I also suggest that editors who have an attachment to using that word are not being neutral. As others have intimated, the word "evil" is an emotive, western-favoured, imprecise, Christian-religion-associated UNENCYCLOPEDIC value that should not have any place in an encyclopedia that aspires to unemotional, NEUTRAL, fact-based, uncontentious information. Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We do not say he was evil we say he is almost universally regarded as evil.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No we don't. We say his actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil. This discussion is full of what people think of Hitler. That's all irrelevant to that claim. Is there a reliable source that actually says his actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil? HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There are tons. So many that it sort of is a WP:SKYISBLUE scenario. Have you looked? Some of them are already cited in the article. From The Atlantic: "Whether compared to Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, or the anti-Christ, Hitler was widely viewed as what the Times of London called the 'incarnation of absolute evil'.[...] Thus Hitler became a hegemonic historical analogy. He did not so much join the ranks of earlier historical symbols of evil as render them unusable." From New York Times: "Hitler's very face has become a universally recognizable icon of evil, along with the swastika, the symbol of the Nazi Party." From David Welch in Hitler: ""The word most commonly associated with Hitler is 'evil' and commentators have been quick to emphasize his role and personal responsibility for the undeniable crimes commited by the Nazi regime.", John Lukacs in Britannica: "However, because of the brutalities and the very crimes associated with his name, it is not likely that Hitler’s reputation as the incarnation of evil will ever change.", and literally countless more. Do you have any sources that say he, his ideology, or his actions are NOT widely regarded as evil? AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not how sourcing on Wikipedia works, and I'm sure you know it. And again, the claim is that "his actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil". So anyone arguing here about how nasty HE was is barking up the wrong tree. Despite the understandable intense emotions surrounding Hitler, we must not throw our policies and rigour out the window here. So those sources you presented above DO NOT support our claim. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It is trivially easy to provide or find links to the material I referenced, and I feel no reason to add in-line citations to a talk page. If there is a particular quote which you think I fabricated I would be more than willing to provide a link upon request, but I am assuming some level of competency as to your ability to check those statements yourself, since they were incredibly easy for me to find with even a cursory google search or glance at the sourcing already in the article. Anyhow, is your argument that it should instead read "Hitler is almost universally regarded as evil.", as that more precisely fits the sources? I wouldn't particularly object, but I would argue that the difference between the man himself and his ideologies and actions is little more than semantics. What is anyone other than the sum of their ideology and their actions? Are you saying that he is considered evil for reasons OTHER than his ideology and actions? And do you have any sources to support that view? Are you honestly arguing that there is significant support for the view that his actions and ideologies are NOT considered evil? Because I would love to see your sources for that. As it is, I don't see you presenting any sources at all. As I said before, this is a case where the WP:SKYISBLUE. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You are becoming very rude, and that never helps. Stop speculating that I mean something different from what I have written. My thoughts are clearly presented above. I won't repeat them now, but I will defend them. (Unless a calm, rational argument appears to convince me otherwise.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not see answers to any of my questions presented anywhere above, only something about you feeling that evil is a vague term. I offered sources that support its use, to which you objected on grounds that they did not use certain words. I have not speculated about anything, I have asked you questions to clarify what appears to be an incredibly vague argument with no sourcing to support it. I asked if you would rather the sentence in question be changed as it more closely fits the exact wording of the sources that I presented. I asked if you have sources that support a viewpoint contrary to the one I have shown support for, because I have not seen you cite a single source. You have answered none of these questions and cited no sources. I'm sorry that you find questions to be inherently hostile, but I am honestly asking questions to which I desire answers. I cannot read your mind. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

At no point did I say that I feel evil is a vague term. You are making stuff up. You are misrepresenting me. That generally happens with someone who disagrees with me but can't refute the argument I am actually presenting. Go away. HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You said: "'Evil' is simply the wrong word to be using here. It means too many things to too many different people.[...] We need to find a more precise way to say he was a really nasty bloke". Vague means: "of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.", and is an antonym (opposite) of the word "precise". I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I do not feel like I have misrepresented you, and I certainly have not made anything up (also quite an aggressive accusation from one who preaches WP:AGF). And you still have not answered any of my questions, nor provided any sources to support your argument (an argument the specifics of which I am still unclear on, due to your refusal to answer any questions). AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think most people in the west (and his own country) would regard him as evil incarnate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You have just ignored my argument, Steven. And you have instead argued for a subjective evaluation based upon an unverified (unverifiable), emotive speculation. "Evil incarnate"??? I suggest to you that anyone who believes such a ridiculously unencyclopedic statement is NOT equipped to edit wiki pages according to Wikipedias core values. Do you agree that what you or I or anyone else “thinks” isn't what we should be basing this on? Would you argue that verifiable, factual information is? Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No not me [[1]]. And no, I did not ignore your argument. I just do not agree with it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I take that back. I instead suggest that you didn't ignore it, just have not yet understood it. ;-) Otherwise... how do you propose we verify your statement “most people in the west (and his own country)... regard him as evil incarnate”? (And your Variety article only refers to what Americans think. Wiki is bigger than just a resource from and for American readers.) Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

[[2]], [[3]]. This enough or do you want more? How many would suffice?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support For the reasons previously given.
• Nope. Happy to discuss refining the wording, but you can't get away from the fact that Hitler is the poster child for evil. Guy (help!) 13:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Useless reply in my opinion. Read the reply by @Rhododendrites about why you are doing more harm than good.

• Support getting rid of the word "evil" (though I almost started a new section just to say this because of the "there was a war going on" business in the framing of this particular subsection). Yes, it's quite common to call Hitler evil, as well as, I don't know, a "huge piece of shit"? Near universal agreement on that, too. Yet it's not an encyclopedic description. Like "evil," which is a supernatural gloss. "Evil" moves the reality of his actions into the supernatural realm, where they are easier to dismiss as "just evil" rather than a social/political reality that demands in depth, contextual understanding. There are an awful lot of ways we can frame just how awful this person is without "evil". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support I am a Jewish person who lost family in the Holocaust. Though I feel he was evil, that's subjective opinion that we should not state as fact. Hitler was surely the hero in his own eyes, and the eyes of many who I strongly disagree with. Let his actions speak for themselves. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Our statement is factual. It does not say that he is evil, but rather that he is almost universally regarded as such. It is a factual statement about the prevalence of this opinion. On a separate note, I find the other arguments put forth by Mystichumwipe to be flawed, baseless, and unconvincing. I find the comparison of what Hitler and the Nazi's did during the holocaust to the wartime actions of the Allied leaders to be a case of whataboutism taken an extreme that approaches offensiveness, and I would suggest that anyone who believes Hitler's assertion that "he never wanted and sought to avoid" war spend some time researching what actual reliable sources (Evans in particular) have to say on this matter. There is nothing contentious about the statement "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil" except to an extremely fringe section of society, and one for which Wikipedia is explicitly and emphatically not a mouthpiece. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose think its best we regurgita what multiple award wining historians say over omission based on unnamed wiki editors that dont like it based on self criteria.--Moxy 🍁 00:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support ARGUMENT 1. It is VERY important to keep these subjective judgments and terms out of Wikipedia. ARGUMENT 2. Evil is a very childish word. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be childish. ARGUMENT 3. If Hitler is described as evil, why aren't Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Jong-un, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Mao Zedong described as such?! They are all responsible of several deaths. We should follow the example of all the biographies that I stated above with this article. The term "Evil" needs to be DELETED. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not saying he is evil (are people actually bothering to read it?) we are saying he is widely seen as evil.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know that's what we were talking about. "Widely seen as evil" is just as subjective as calling him straight up evil. Test123Bug (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the arguments I have stated above are still applicable even if that is the case. Let me just refraze them: ARGUMENT 1. Evil is a subjective term ARGUMENT 2. Evil is a "childish" term ARGUMENT 3. Why aren't other Wiki articles described in the same way? Even in that case, my arguments still apply. Thank you! Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Hitler "enjoys" a unique place. He is (literally) the poster boy of evil. But this is going round in circles so I bow out.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Rebuttal to argument 1: It doesn't matter if it is subjective or objective; it is not "VERY important we keep subjective judgement and terms out of Wikipedia", just that we keep them from being stated in Wikipedia's voice. Properly attributed statements of others subjective judgements are fine. Our statement is objectively true. Saying that he is evil is subjective. Saying that he is widely viewed as evil is not. For instance, saying "Most people in America believe God exists" is different than saying "God exists". Rebuttal to argument 2: Your opinion on whether or not evil is a "childish" term is just your opinion, and has no bearing on the discussion. There is no policy against using terms some people feel are childish, especially when they are the exact terms used in reliable sources. Rebuttal to argument 3: WP:OTHERCONTENT: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page" AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for A1, I understand what you mean. However, even though it might not be WP's opinion, the disccussion is whether it should be left or not. For A2, WP needs to use proper formal encyclopedic language. The readers should come to the conclusion whether Hitler is evil or not by themselves (and that sentence certainally does not help with that). For A3, it is based on the principle of treating each article in the same way and not showing tolerance towards specific articles. I am here to give my contribution to the discusion, not to prove you wrong or to debate with you. For one thing, I am happy that we are having a discussion on this matter because debating is better than non-debating. This is my vote. Have a good day!Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support The sentence seems so out of place. Has no business being there in my opinion. Who is to say what is evil? That has no business being in an encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective. And, even if the majority of people consider it evil, so what? Does that somehow teach you about his life? No it doesn't, because anyone who has read even a tiny bit about Hitler would come to that conclusion themselves. It's spoonfeeding and I don't like it. Delete it. Test123Bug (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked Test123Bug for racist POV pushing elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

We are not saying he is evil (are people actually bothering to read it?) we are saying he is widely seen as evil. This is a very significant part of how he is seen.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• The current consensus seems to be that we should remove the sentence from the lead, so I have gone ahead and done that today. — Diannaa (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure its that clear it seems to be 5 to 4.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

With the addition of Davey2116 it brings it to 5-5. Also, it is not supposed to be a vote, but based also on the strength of the arguments. Most of the "Support" votes are exclusively based on "I don't like it" arguments, and the misconception that we are saying in Wikipedia's voice that he is evil. I strongly suggest you reconsider this assessment of consensus. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been reading differently. Seems like most of the support votes are based on the premise that "widely seen as evil" is incredibly vague and hard to source properly. What the sentence is doing is summing up every human's opinion on Hitler. It comes down to the sources not supporting this statement and also a subjective interpretation of "widely seen". Where is the source? Are there anonymous studies? Stratified grouping? Cross cultural analysis? I don't see it anywhere and believe me I looked all throughout the legacy section today. Test123Bug (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I provided two in this RFC that say it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Post-removal oppose per above. The statement is not subjective; it's simply acknowledging a subjective view held nearly universally. I prefer reinstating the sentence together with the Kershaw quote. Additionally, I do not believe there was a consensus for removal. Davey2116 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral but … … I avoided voting, because I am largely neutral about 'evil' on its own, but like Davey2116, I would like to see the Kershaw reinstated, but probably at the end of the lead, as a summary. The argument against Kershaw appears to be that it is one opinion, ignoring that it beautifully and succinctly expresses a very widely held view. I concur with Davey2116 also that many of the 'remove' arguments are truly terrible. Why don't we say the same about Stalin/Pol Pot/Mao etc? Because historians/commentators don't "almost universally" regard these figures as evil - perhaps they should, given the death count of some of them, but actually they don't, simple as that! Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just a note that this line was originally added by a sockpuppet. I noticed this when I was cleaning up after the sock was blocked several months ago, and I intended to remove it for that reason but I evidently forgot to do so. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal! Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the line was originally added by a sockpuppet is certainly cause for closer scrutiny but it is not by itself an argument against inclusion. That's what's called an ad hominem attack. Davey2116 (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't present my statement above as an argument for removing the line now. See that it is bolded as a comment (not support) and it is prefaced with "just a note". I originally planned to remove it as in general allowing edits/articles by sockpuppets to remain is rewarding the violation of policy on sockpuppetry. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• SupportIt ought to be removed entirely, it is editorialization. Evil is a Judeo-christian centric concept and so it could not possibly be a universal sentiment. Assigning ethical blame ought not be the role of an online encyclopedia. Gnostc (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not editorializing, it is accurately summing up what reliable sources say. Also your views regarding holocaust denial and reliable sources make it difficult to assume good faith about your ability to objectively assess RS on this matter. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if "reliable sources" say it, it is still editorializing. Having an opinion on the evil of something is by its nature editorialization, since evil is also something one needs to have knowledge of, not only the subject. My edit history from 6 years ago shows I am interested in the subject at hand and nothing more. Your opinion on my opinions is also editorialization in itself, and you would do well to not comment on other people's votes trying to "put them in context", as if you know better. Stay in your lane. 18:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Pictorial representation of a well known "Judeo-christian centric concept". Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely different conception of evil. Judeo-Christian evil can't be "banished", it permanently exists in the world. Bad translators just resorted to using the same word, for a totally foreign context. Don't talk about what you don't remotely understand. 18:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand enough to know that almost all cultures and all religions and many atheists have some concept of evil, and that nothing in the text implies that the Judeo-Christian understanding of the word is the one we are using. Enlighten us please as to how AH is viewed by RS in parts of the world which do not follow "Judeo-Christian" ethics.Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

So...if different conceptions of evil exist, it is difficult for "universally acknowledged as evil" to make sense. You can't account for every culture's conception of evil. There's lots of Indians who idolize Hitler for some reason. And one could surmise that the Arab Islamic world, not being too fond of Israel, and by extension the Jews, do not regard Hitler's actions as evil, since they don't view the Jews as blameless. So it's clear editorialization by people with very limited perspectives and bones to pick. Can show the detrimental effects of Hitler's actions very easily with proper sources without having to editorialize on top of it. Gnostc (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We just rely on what reliable sources say, not on the opinions and original research of editors. Opinion pieces like the one you linked are not reliable sources, and even if they were that article doesn't support your contention. From the article: "It’s curiosity about a really sick and evil mind. We read it the way you read [Karl Marx’s] Das Kapital", which not only goes against the idea that he is "idolized", but also provides evidence against your assertion that evil is a "Judeo-christian centric concept" as it quotes a non-Judeo-christian using it exactly the same way our article says is common. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The point was that calling something evil IS an opinion no matter who says it. It can only be fact if it can be verified, and no one knows the nature of evil besides God and the Devil, in so many words. And "original research by editors" is exactly how "reliable sources" are found for wikipedia articles. Very convenient to call any source you don't like "original research by editors". Here's some more for the "many Indians like Hitler" assertion. One,two, three,four. None of those are opinion pieces. All from the first page of googe incidentally. It's like you people don't even try to make a well balanced article. Can change it or not, I don't care, but my disagreement is staying on this page for all to see. 22:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Readers can form their own opinion on whether or not someone is evil after learning that they've murdered millions. If someone would still think that he's not evil after knowing that fact, I doubt that sentence would change their minds. Meeepmep (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content not users, even if they are the PPC for North Minehead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

going to replace dead links Cesternino (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have freshened up the urls and fixed one dead link. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In one of the very first sentences of the entire article:

"He rose to power as the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then as Führer in 1934."

I highly recommend hyperlinking the phrase "rose to power" to this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

2601:645:C000:AE10:CCE:56E1:C67F:1038 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable. Thanks, O3000 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming a bit but I had another suggestion:

In "Path to defeat" it states:

"On 22 June 1941, contravening the Hitler–Stalin Non-Aggression Pact of 1939"

It really should be called the German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact, as it has strictly been referred to as this throughout the whole article. Also it kind of undermines the fact that the entirety of the two nations were part of this pact. 2601:645:C000:AE10:9C7C:23FD:B029:3F26 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You are confused. The German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact is not the same as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The former was between Germany and Poland, and the latter was between Germany and the Soviet Union. I have changed the one reference to the "Hitler–Stalin Non-Aggression Pact of 1939" to the "Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939", since Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact is its WP:COMMONNAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, that's what I meant but you understood anyway. 2601:645:C000:AE10:9C7C:23FD:B029:3F26 (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I've linked Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, since it seems to be the sole use.Pincrete (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler died in Argentina on February 13,1962. 68.13.199.55 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

maybe, but to support this suggestion you need a top line source, have you got one?Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In the 1st paragraph of the lead section, please link dictatorship. (This has become an often misunderstood term, and there's probably no better place to associate it for interested readers). 2606:A000:1126:28D:7485:6C54:63BE:F276 (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

In this link we can read the baptismal record of Adolf Hitler: https://data.matricula-online.eu/de/oesterreich/oberoesterreich/braunau-am-inn/106%252F1889/?pg=8 . The article states that he was baptized as "Adolphus", and obviously this information is wrong. I changed the text, but I decided to immediately roll my edition back and brought the question to the talk page, since I'm not a regular editor here. Dantadd (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I've commented out that sentence for the moment, as the record does indeed show "Adolf" -- if it is the actual record. I don;t know Giblin as a source, so I'm going to check Kershaw to see what he says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Kershaw, Bullock, Toland and Fest make no mention of Hitler's baptism, or of "Adolphus". I think that sentence should remain commented out until someone can check Giblin and find out what the source for the information is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Giblin is apparently the author of "books for young people". That doesn't mean that he can't be correct about "Adolphus", but it does mean that the book is unliklely to be as well-researched as Kershaw or other biographies. He likely drew from secondary or tertiary sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The book is online here. There are no notes or sources, so I'm going to delete the "Adolphus" sentence. We should probably check anything else that came from Giblin - the book is definitely a kids' book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing else is sourced to Giblin, so I've removed it from the Bibliography. Thanks for bring this to our attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Toland actually includes a photo of the birth certificate with the name listed as Adolfus (though it is captioned in Google Books as Adolphus). https://books.google.com/books?id=ZzBkAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT1131&lpg=PT1131&dq=adolphus+hitler+birth+certificate&source=bl&ots=9U6DS_8iwO&sig=ACfU3U23SYQ8GKrKWqdxP9BmQyTwziKA2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNwbSB4a3pAhWMvp4KHYtGA04Q6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=adolphus%20hitler%20birth%20certificate&f=false higher quality picture here https://www.hitler-archive.com/photo.php?p=ovki51vg AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We're talking about the baptismal record, not the birth certificate. The sentence I removed said he was "christened" Adolphus, but to judge by these two documents, it seems that he was named "Adolphus" at birth, and then christened "Adolf". However, since these are both primary sources, I don't think we should make any changes based on them If a good secondary source comes to light that confirms this, then we can act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In some societies, baptised name takes legal precedence over 'birth' name - I've no idea whether that is the case here, but anyway as BMK says, this would depend on a 2ndary source to make a change. Pincrete (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The birth certificate is, but Toland in general isn't, and Toland says "In the baptismal registry he was entered as 'Adolfus Hitler.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=ZzBkAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT21&lpg=PT21&dq=adolfus+hitler&source=bl&ots=9U6DS03rwS&sig=ACfU3U3O-jxjZFFBMzKIQbn3kBSZHxGY9g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV7pyhnK7pAhXQpZ4KHctGCcUQ6AEwD3oECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=adolfus%20hitler&f=false AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So I did miss the reference in Toland to "Adolfus" in the "baptismal registry", but at this point Toland is not the best reference, Kershaw is. I just re-checked Kershaw and his source for "Adolf" is a copy of the birth certificate in the Nazi microfilmed archives. So we have a bit of a mystery: a document which is supposed to be the birth certificate which says "Adolfus", a document which is supposed to be the baptismal certificate which says "Adolf", one biographer who claims the baptismal record says "Adolfus", and another biographer who says the birth certificate says "Adolf", both of which contradict what the supposed documents say. The "Adolfus" could be explained by the use of the Latinate version of the name, but that's just speculation on my part.

Does anyone have the Ullrich bio to see if he has anything to say about it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Volker Ullrich Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939 p. 17 "At around 6:30pm on 20 April 1889 she brought her fourth child into the world on the second floor of an inn in Braunau where the Hitlers were living. The child was baptised Adolf on Easter Monday." This is footnoted to (p. 764) "Facsimile of birth and baptism certificate in Kubizek, Adolf Hitler. p. 49." --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• I sent an e-mail to Ian Kershaw:

• Professor Kershaw:

Sorry to bother you, I have a quick question.

This document: https://www.hitler-archive.com/photo.php?p=ovki51vg is purported to be Hitler's birth certificate, and lists his name as "Adolfus", while this document https://data.matricula-online.eu/de/oesterreich/oberoesterreich/braunau-am-inn/106%252F1889/?pg=8 is supposed to be his baptismal record, and lists his name as "Adolf".

Does this mean that Hitler was born as "Adolfus" and his name was changed when he was Christened? Or is one of the documents not genuine? Of did Austria-Hungary use the Latinized versions of names on their birth certificates? Or is there some other explanation?

I wouldn't disturb you, but I'm trying to make the Wikipedia article on Hitler accurate.

Thank you, and thank you for all your work.

Yours,

He responded:

Thank you for your enquiry. The Hitler-Archive document is a copy, dated (as far as I can tell from the image) 1924, of the birth-certificate, in which the Latin form of Hitler's first name was used. The Braunau document is of the parish register in which the birth is noted, using the German form. Both are authentic; just different types of record of the birth. I think that is the explanation.

All the best,

Ian Kershaw

So it's not a matter of "Adolfus vs. Adolf", it's one of the Latin form of "Adolf" in one document versus the Germanic form in the other; same name, just different forms. We can't, of course, use this private correspondence as a reference in the article, but it does mean that we needn't bother with pointing out "Adolfus" as it does not indicate a different name, just a different form of the same name.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have similar examples in the part of my own family tree that comes from central Europe. Zero^talk 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Atteprestent (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC) it would be nice to change the german thing becaus adolf hitler was born in austria and lived more then 15 years in austria i would like to change where hes told to be german becaus hes actually austrian hope it will get noticed

What "German thing"?Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Atteprestent, on Wikipedia, we usually refer to a person's nationality at the point they become 'notable', not necessarily at birth. In this case, AH was a German citizen when he entered politics and it is as German leader in WWII that he is known. Para 2 starts "Hitler was born in Austria—then part of Austria-Hungary", so the fuller picture is already present.Pincrete (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Difficult to avoid calling him German as he was the German führer and, unfortunately, the best known German. O3000 (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This edit request has already been answered. Edit requests are for uncontroversial edits only. Please establish a consensus for your edit in another section on this talk page before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Do not simply reopen the edit request. Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 13:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

A promotion to this article would be amazing. This is one of Wikipedia's best articles. If not, The best. It goes into great detail on how Hitler committed the worst crimes in all of human history. LockyHimself (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback.— Diannaa (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that is nice to hear. Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s a translation in the article of the inscription outside the House where Adolf Hitler was born:

For peace, freedom and democracy never again fascism millions of dead remind [us]

Is “remind [us]” the best translation of „mahnen“? To me the German original sounds more like the dead millions “urge us” to do the right thing now, rather than “remind us” about something.

I speak Scandinavian language varieties as L1 and Standard English ans Standard German as L2. Perhaps my understanding of „mahnen“ is too much influenced by Scandinavian. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there no-one here who’s a native speaker of German?

Which English translation of “mahnen” is best? Urge? Warn? Remind? Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's corrected. 'Warn, urge (to remind), exhort' are proper translations of 'manhen' in this context; 'remind' would be an euphemistic and thus incorrect translation. Regards, Alcaios (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ishansri (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Would like to change a sentence to make it more accurate - make "gravely immoral" to "evil"

 Not done: Get consensus, and bring new sources. The current text is sourced (although I do not have access to the pages in question). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Include in this article that Hitler had, allegedly, an illegitimate son named Jean-Marie Loret Jim Arthur (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Not Done. Please provide a source and obtain consensus for this change. Britmax (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Should not be included, as it is speculation, conjecture and fringe theory, pursuant to the opinion of the main Hitler historians. Kierzek (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the above, wild speculation and tabloid fodder.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per consensus that this should not be added RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

" Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral. According to Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man." "

There should be spaces between the hyphens, like so:

" Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral. According to Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination - physical and moral - been associated with the name of one man." "

That's just grammatically correct. I think an error was made when copy pasting from the source as it doesn't appear like that on the page. Here's a random source off Google just for good measure: https://7esl.com/hyphen/ 75.130.248.250 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, these are called EM dashes and according to both Garner's and the Chicago Manual of Style, they are correctly used in the text.--Obenritter (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Our Manual of Style says that en dashes get spaces, and em dashes do not.— Diannaa (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Correct. The problem (which the MoS does not deal with) is that unspaced mdashes look fine in print, but they are much more difficult to parse on a computer screen, which is why I prefer spaced ndashes, which are much easier to see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

My 2d. Maybe it's a UK tendency, but I endorse what BMK, says, the unspaced dash or hyphen always looks like a typo to me, whatever MOS says! Pincrete (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Chicago does not specify that en dashes can be used in place of parentheses (they say to use an em dash). But our manual of style allows it. The space immediately prior to the en dash should be a non-breaking space. Usage should be consistent throughout the article.— Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect A. Hitler. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#A. Hitler until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 06:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirect kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

In the Ancestry section, it states

"historians dismiss the claim that Alois' father was Jewish"

Why mention it, then? The article doesn't mention the other infinity things historians dismiss.

TerminatorXtotheEdgeofPanic (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well for a start, the Holocaust.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "the holocaust". His non-Jewish heritage doesn't make the holocaust any less or any more relevant. He's also non-slavic, we don't need a line stating historians dismiss claims of his slavic heritage.TerminatorXtotheEdgeofPanic (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It probably arrived because of anti-Semitic trolling, wherein Jewish heritage is enthusiastically ascribed to anybody bad. It happens on a near-daily basis somewhere in the encyclopedia. The statement is a way of pre-empting that. Acroterion (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also it is a lot more relevant that (say) "historians have dismissed the idea Hitler was a space lizard". What examples can the OP give of the sort of thing we are laving out?Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a few things we DO record historian's dismissing in relation to AH - many to do with his private life. Whether he had a 'French' child, whether he had affairs with this or that person etc. It's a judgement call, if we don't record some of these dismissals someone is going to ask why we don't and if we do .... well! Pincrete (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Pincrete. And as to his so-called Jewish heritage, there is no mainline RS historian that would agree with that claim. Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Hitler's paternal grandfather was a Jewish man living in Graz came from Hitler's personal attorney Hans Frank. The claim is usually dismissed on the grounds that Graz did not have any Jews at the time. Last year, Leonard Sax (who is, somewhat bizarrely, a psychologist) published a paper in the Journal of European Studies arguing that the issue should be reexamined. Sax says that Graz did in fact have a Jewish population then and that the claim to the contrary derives solely from a non-academic publication by a certain Nikolaus von Preradovich who (Sax claims to prove) was a Hitler admirer. However, Sax was unable to locate a Jew in Graz with the right name. I think this material belongs in the article, as readers will come here to look for it. Zero^talk 02:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how a single journal article by a non-specialist, and the inability of the author of it to prove his claim merits inclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

In the Ancestry section, please change "legitimated" to "legitimised". As far as I know the former is not an actual word. IF it turms out to be the case that 'legitimated' is the technically-correct word in this connect, then it should still be changed to something such as "declared legitimate." Either way, 'legitimated' has the appearance of being substandard, incorrect English and it should not be used, whether it is or isn't a real word (because if it is it is so obscure that to most people it looks like a made up word). Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done "Legitmated" is an actual English word, it's meaning is obvious, and there's nothing wrong with learning a new word every now and then. As long as the meaning is clear, we should not talk down to our readers.

And you, Firejuggler86, should have done 3 seconds of research before you posted this comment, which would have told you that "legitimated" is a word. I do hope you research your contributions to articles better than you did this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1) Caption "Hitler in 1942 with his long-time lover Eva Braun." should identify location of the image viz "Hitler in 1942 with his long-time lover Eva Braun at Berghof (Berchtesgaden)."

2) Caption "Film of Hitler at Berchtesgaden (c. 1941)" should add note to caption that "(the film has been digitised back to front (left - right reversal))" Source to confirm - check the Berghof floor plan here http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Pictures/Bergfloorplan/Berg.htm 203.206.89.202 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: 1) is not done because clicking that link brings up a window that has the caption "Obersalzberg- Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun with dogs (German_Shepherd_Dog "Blondi"?) at the Berghof" so the information is already present.

2) is not done because of WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Looking at the floor plan and then projecting from one 2D image to another with a different perspective requires such a combination of material. If this is to be added, we need a source that explicitly identifies the film as reversed. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Add to Sources Printed:

• Ullrich, Volker (2016). Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-385-35438-7.
• Ullrich, Volker (2016 2020). Hitler: Downfall 1939-1945. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-1-101-87400-4.

Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: What is the reason for adding this to the sources? Please see MOS:FURTHER and identify why this work is eligible for inclusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

These books constitute a major new multi-volume biography on Hitler by a prize-winning German historian. They haven't been used for the article as of yet, but they are obviously reliable sources and can be used at any time an editor wishes to. I'm adding them to "Further reading". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this one, but I have to agree with those recurring editors that tend to assume (1938) ia a typo captioning the main infobox photo of AH. I understand the logic that says identifying the subject is strictly speaking redundant, however, in most captioning - here and in the real world - the caption identifies the subject, even when doing so is not strictly necessary. Whether it be "Brad Pitt at the Oscars 2003" or "Mum and dad in 1970", WP articles, in newspaper/book photos, or private albums, the eye expects sufficient info to identify the subject, even when the subject is largely self-evident, or already known. This isn't a photo of 1938 - since such is impossible - but the effect on me is to assume the bracketed year must be an error which therefore draws more attention to itself than a bland caption, "Hitler in 1938" for example, would do. I will go with the majority on this, but have found myself agreeing with those trying to fix the naked year. {{subst:xsign}10:28, 17 August 2020‎ Pincrete}}

The article is named Adolf Hitler, the bolded part of the lede sentence says Adolf Hitler, the infobox carries the title "Adolf Hitler". There is a picture of a man in the infobox. Why in heaven's name do we need to insult our readers by labelling the picture as being of Adolf Hitler? Do we think they are idiots? Do we label all the fields below that "Adolf Hitler in office", "Adolf Hitler preceded by", "Adolf Hitler succeeded by"? No, we don't, because it is assumed that the information is about Adolf Hitler, just like the picture.

If there was another person in the picture, fine, yes, absolutely, more information is then needed to identify which one is Adolf Hitler, but with one person only, "(1938)" quite clearly says that this is a picture of Adolf Hitler in 1938. Do we think that someone will mistake "(1938)" as meaning this is a picture of the year 1938 personified? To label it "Adolf Hitler in 1938" is totally and completely redundant and unnecessary. Let's not treat our readers like imbeciles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

By that logic, Eleanor Roosevelt, Brad Pitt, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Mao Zedong, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, David Cameron, Emmanuel Macron - to choose a random list of the first X names to occur to me, have all got in wrong and are insulting the reader. They all make clear what the photo is of, usually by naming the subject and identifying when or where, or by whom, the photo was taken. Some, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Donald Trump and Andrew Johnson - have no caption at all, which to me makes more sense than (1938), a cryptic number floating without context. A painting in a gallery or a photo in a newspaper or book will often have an identifying label next to it, even when the subject matter is wholly familiar or obvious. I've never read an obituary or news profile where the photo alongside simply said (19ZX) - there may be no informational need to name the subject, but convention expects that any caption will at least make textual sense. If the caption said nothing, or if it said something about where/when/why the photo was taken - the convention would be satisfied. Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

In no way, shape or form can "(1938)" be considered "cryptic" as a caption to an image. It is in fact, extremely obvious what it means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There’s no reason to include the name, it is unnecessary redundancy. Especially, since his name is already written out in full above the picture in the infobox for the article. What listing the year does is identify when the photo was taken. There’s no need for anything else. Kierzek (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And the brackets are there because …… … ? I logically understand the argument you are both making, and, as I said at the beginning, I will follow whatever is decided ... but the "every other article on WP has got it wrong" and "practically every newspaper article gets it wrong daily by being explicit in its captioning" doesn't cause you to doubt a little? As I said, IMO no caption would make more sense (it isn't madly relevant which precise year the photo was taken) or "Photo taken in 1938", but why anyone would prefer "(1938)" to "Hitler in 1938" is beyond me. Yes it is confirming the obvious, but captioning often does that. I think its cryptic, quite a few other editors have dropped in and assumed it was incomplete or a typo. I've recorded my view. Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This argument is really lame but, what they hell, let's join in. "Hitler in 1938" is good, "1938" is acceptable, and "(1938)" looks silly. Zero^talk 07:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree that "(1938)" looks awful. There is nothing wrong with "Hitler in 1938" and it follows the caption format used on so many other articles. That has been the caption for so long and there haven't been any issues with it. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a statement near the end of 'entry into politics':

"Historians have noted the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups. Algis Budrys recalled the crowd noise and behaviour when Hitler appeared in a 1936 parade; some in the audience writhed and rolled on the ground or experienced fecal incontinence."

The statement from Algis Budrys (via Pontin 2008 - a review of his science fiction work) that states people experienced 'fecal incontinence' around Hitler because he was so mesmerising. Algis Budrys was 5 years old when he claims to have witnessed this. There is agreement that he saw Hitler, but is that really a reliable statement given his age and the fact his family was anti-facist? The idea that people literally shat themselves because they saw Hitler borders on ridiculous and brings down the tone of the article. If someone can find me a Ian Kershaw et al quote then by all means keep it, otherwise it should go. Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingray Trainer (talk • contribs) 13:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously unreliable. I'm deleting it until a reliable source can be found. Zero^talk 15:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. One edit closer to the 500 required to stop nonsense like that. Stingray Trainer (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Many citations completely failed verification.

Citation 172 is a clear example of a case where the claim is not backed in anyway by the given citation. The book is available at archive.org https://archive.org/embed/B-001-014-606

^{[failed verification]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateDyer (talk • contribs)

@NateDyer: Your statement could be read in a number of ways. What changes are you proposing be made to the statement While many trade union delegates were in Berlin for May Day activities, SA stormtroopers demolished union offices around the country. On 2 May 1933 all trade unions were forced to dissolve and their leaders were arrested. Some were sent to concentration camps....? Should the reference be moved to between "were arrested" and "Some were," with a different citation placed after "concentration camps"...? Should "Some were sent to the concentration camps" be removed? Should both sentences ("While many [...] camps"} be removed?

Also, how is that section not supported by these lines from the third paragraph?

On May 2, the trade-union headquarters throughout the country were occupied, union funds confiscated, the unions dissolved and the leaders captured. Many were beaten and lodged in concentration camps.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the word "demolished" to "occupied" to better align with Shirer page 202. That's the only thing I could find that was wrong with that section and its supporting citation. I have a copy of Shirer right here. (Actually I have two copies in case I spill my coffee on one) — Diannaa (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Evans 2005 page 13 says "raided... looted them, carried off the funds" and leaders were "beaten up and tortured in makeshift concentration camps".— Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2009, it was revealed that the skull fragments that the Russian government have kept as proof that Hitler shot himself was from a woman. This has been known for eleven years now, and there is no reliable evidence that Hitler committed suicide in the bunker, other than what has been presented and proven not to be Hitler. I do not feel that something so unverified should be labeled as fact, just because it has been presented as fact for over 70 years. I'll leave a credible source discussing this, and there are many other credible sources concerning the matter. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hitler-s-supposed-skull-really-belongs-to-a-woman-1.837652) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.161.12 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody sensible seriously doubted that Hitler had been shot prior to the skull fragment being widely known. While conspiracy theories of Hitler escaping were encouraged by the Soviets, and did circulate in fringe circles, the more common arguments were over whether he shot himself or was shot by somebody else. (The Soviets were keen on narratives suggesting that he was too cowardly to pull the trigger himself.) If the skull fragment is inauthentic then that only puts us back to the position we were before, where the eyewitness testimony and other evidence was pretty conclusive. The skull fragment was only ever the icing on a cake that didn't need any more icing. Anyway, we have a whole article about this stuff at Death of Adolf Hitler, which already mentions the skull fragment being from a woman, and we don't need to go into it here. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No serious mainline RS historian give any credence to the fantasy fiction of Hitler escaping. But it makes for good History channel programming and books sales. Kierzek (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

In the Adolf Hitler article it has been reported that there has been creators or editors that have added non-neutral or controversial information. Please remove the security on the article that prevents anyone from editing because the authorized editors have disallowed controversial information to be removed by saying it’s unconstructive. Wikipedia also won’t delete racist comments put on the discussion posts about the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1026:C893:154F:B2F4:22FD:36CA (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. What you describe would not be in the article. It might be on this Talk page. You're here now, so if you have concerns about racist comments, please raise them here now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no, we won't remove the already minimal protection of this often-vandalized article just because a random IP comes along and makes non-specific claims about its editing history or comments on this Talk page, neither of which can be substantiated by reviewing the pages' recent histories. If you have specific objections to the article's contents or suggestions for improving it, this is the place to state them. General Ization ^Talk 03:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The only discussion I can locate in the recent history of this discussion page that could be described (by someone) as having racist implications is this one, already archived by the bot, concerning a statement in the article that claims that Hitler's father was Jewish have been generally dismissed by historians. The discussion was civil and there is no evidence that anyone involved thought it was a "racist" conversation and should be removed. A clear consensus was established to leave the content in the article. Considering that the editor who made the initial argument that the content should be removed was blocked indef for non-constructive editing shortly thereafter, the IP may want to consider not pursuing this issue since it may generate unwanted attention. (I suspect there was more information behind the block than what is apparent from the editor's editing history.) General Ization ^Talk 04:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can post an edit request and if it complies with policies and guidelines, with a reference to a acceptable reliable source provided, it will be given serious consideration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course. I was referring to the IP's request that the protection be lifted on the article, the subject of this section. General Ization ^Talk 05:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

And I was explaining why lifting the protection is not necessary, in my view. Sorry if my comment was not clearer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Some examples might be useful so we can judge the merits of what we are no allowing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There’s no way the editing protection that is in place should be lifted. The article is too prone to controversy and vandalism. And as pointed out, people can freely make edit requests herein. Thus far, the IP has not made any legitimate edit request or specific points and is just making general opinion/forum comments. If that changes, then they will be considered. Kierzek (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I frankly think that the Article is terrible. It has false info that can lead students to a bit of a sticky situation. I hope you all are using this Article CORRECTLY, without messing with it. I have several questions not found in this article since I'm studying for a test and younger children probably don't know that wiki articles are editable. Please wiki, don't give others permission to edit. Some of this info is so old that I can correct as many as I want! Thanks for reading this though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8001:4680:9870:FCD2:41C3:FB0A (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Without listing specific problems (if not solutions), your post is useless. Also, the article is currently locked and has been locked for years. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You can ask for changes to be made here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is a Good Article, which means that many editors have scrutinized it. It's highly unlikely that anything major in the article is "false". It's much more likely that you own estimation of what is false and what is true is incorrect. If the "false info" you refer to is what I think it is, you better not base your test answers on what you think is true, because you won't get a good grade. Follow what the article says, and you'll do fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Add the following categories to this page:

Category:20th-century German artists|Painters

Category:German male painters

Category:20th-century painters|German

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.190.8 (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Please sign your post (4 x ~) and tell us why this should be done. Britmax (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The categories are for professional painters, which AH never was. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the information was incorrect and I would like access to change the things you did wrong. 137.90.207.207 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, We don't open up the article for you to edit. Instead, you say here what specific things you want to change, and how you want to change them, then other editors make those changes if they agree that they are improvements to the article. Be aware, though, that non-factual requests, such as to change the description of the Nazi Party from right-wing to left-wing will be summarily rejected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How can an encyclopedia not even mention his mustache in passing? Encyclopedia Britannica would never... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:757F:812E:5C5A:2297:FA55:C654 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

HITLER HAD A MUSTACHE?!?! Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What, specifically, did you want us to say about Hitler's mustache? That it tickled when he kissed the ladies' hands? That Charlie Chaplin sued the mustache for alienation of affections? Or that Hitler almost conquered all of Europe in spite of it? In what regard is Hitler's mustache relevant to anything? I just finished readed Volker Ullrich's new two-volume biography of Hitler, and I can't recall him mentioning the mustache once. Ian Kershaw may have mentioned it in his two-volume biography when describing Hitler's physical appearance during World War I, before he had adopted the "Hitler mustache", but I'd have to look it up to be certain of that. Did the images in the article not show the mustache, did we accidentally airbrush it out?

Let's get to the bottom of Mustache-gate! Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's get to the bottom of Mustache-gate! - Expletive/moustache deleted. Pincrete (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

NO, we have a picture of him.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI the mustache gets coverage at Toothbrush moustache#In Germany— Diannaa (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Hitler's mustache style - Toothbrush moustache. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

HITLER HAD A MUSTACHE?!?! Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC) What, specifically, did you want us to say about Hitler's mustache? That it tickled when he kissed the ladies' hands? Hey, that is a great idea! Let's include that bit of Wikipedia:Original Research into Tickling! 47.137.184.131 (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

i want to edit Crk2684 (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to state what you want to do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2020 (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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Crk2684 You've mistaken the procedure here. A request here doesn't result in your being given clearance to edit the article. Instead, you need to say here exactly what changes you want to make, and other editors will evaluate them and, if they think they are improvements, edit the article to include them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks! Can an admin please add 2-3 sentences about Ataturk's influence on Hitler, which should not be underestimated. Please see this Harvard book with several links at the bottom for a starting point: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674368378 Thanks! DivineReality (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That link is NG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, do you have any cites to other standard works which discuss Hitler's take on Ataturk? That this one author wrote this one book is interesting, but is there any general agreement among scholars, historians and biographers that there is a Hitler / Ataturk nexus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

change, or add, occupation from Politician To Austrian Painter 2600:1700:F280:C1E0:8582:1E5B:E1F:35D9 (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha! If only. Britmax (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hitler killed 17 million in the Holocaust and from Nazi Persecution the lead should mention this as it is used also on the Holocaust wiki page and it is from a academic institute the source and is a current estimate. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution 46.71.34.178 (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraph already says "He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust." and later in the lead: "Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of about 6 million Jews and millions of other victims whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) or socially undesirable. Hitler and the Nazi regime were also responsible for the killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theatre. The number of civilians killed during World War II was unprecedented in warfare, and the casualties constitute the deadliest conflict in history."

The article has to communicate a great deal of factual information succinctly and coherently, which I think it does fairly well already.Pincrete (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2020 (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) 14:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

adolf hitler was a german politican. he wanted to build germany into a better country after world war 1. he started the nazi party. he murdered thousands of jewish people, he forced them to wear the star of david on their arm. he also forced them to take birth control pills that wasnt even ready nor tested for use. he went and forced every black man to get himself "fixed". Truthseeker10111 (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2020 (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. PackMecEng (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Change Age at Death from 56 to 66 204.83.131.70 (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done: 1889 - 1945 is 56 years. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please ignore my math error. Sorry. 204.83.131.70 (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

no worry. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler had jewish ancestors

https://www.history.com/news/study-suggests-adolf-hitler-had-jewish-and-african-ancestors

93.198.214.167 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I will be changing the image of the article from the black and white version to the coloured version. Both are from a cooperation project and I think that the coloured version is better. If you think that I should revert it, please let me know why here. PyroFloe (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. A colorized image is basically an expression of someone's opinion about what the original colors were. They therefore are not reliable sources of information, as we require. Please do not restore the image unless and until you get a consensus for the colorized image from discussion here on this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bundesarchiv Bild 183-B24543, Hauptquartier Heeresgruppe Süd, Lagebesprechung.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So, I would like to edit the first sentence of this article. As I have discovered on Google, his real name is “Der Führer”, which means in English, “The Leader”.

Here is the edit I will make in the sentence: “Adolf Hitler, more popularly known as Der Führer (The Leader), ...”

Is that ok? Please let me know and I will reply. Thank you! JoshuaSaver (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

More popularly known than his actual name? Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok maybe I’ll change it to more commonly known as his actual name. JoshuaSaver (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

His actual name was Adolf Hitler. ‘Der Fuhrer’ was his epithet. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for asking. Also can you archive this discussion? Thank you! JoshuaSaver (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This article introduces Hitler as a 'German' politician, whereas he was in fact Austrian. He worked within the German political system, but was of Austrian nationality. 2A02:C7F:9CFB:B300:A1AF:406D:667F:6130 (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

He held German citizenship form about 1933.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

He is known for leading Germany as a German, which is the WP convention (citizenship at time of becoming notable rather than citizenship at birth). The situation is complicated by him always looking on himself as ethnically German and by Austro-Hungary no longer existing, so 'Austrian' would also not be strictly accurate. Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This article used to call him an "Austrian born German politician". All the change away from this basically correct description seems to have achieved is to cause arguments like this one. Britmax (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Since at least summer 2016 it has said simply 'German', but para 2 used to say 'Born into a German-speaking Austrian family and raised near Linz'. I have no strong feelings either way beyond being as clear as possible. Pincrete (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly brought up; there's several instances in the recent archives (#57, 59, 61). I think we should re-add it. "an Austrian-born German politician" (in the opening sentence) — Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hold on, Jonsey95, please don't be too quick to close the door.
  I agree that restoring "Austrian-born German politician" would be useful to the reader.
  Hitler was perhaps, along with Bismarck, the most significant German politician in history, but factors such as the relative lateness of the founding of the German state, its relationship and the Prussian competition with Austria(-Hungary), Hitler's Austrian birth, his rejection of the Austrian military and volunteering for the Bavarian Army, his being made a German citizen (basically by sleight of hand), the Anschluss and so on make it imperative that we be clear about his relationships to the two countries, and "Austrian-born German politician" would be a step in the right direction. It doesn't undermine his importance as a German politician, but makes it clear that his origins were elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  He was also probably the most significant Austrian in history. As far as significant German politicians go, let's not forget Kaiser Karl, who really did found a 1,000-year empire ... GPinkerton (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Metternich. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Adolf had 2 children recently confirmed by american historians 2A02:C7F:8AC6:7900:256D:5F1A:78DA:7337 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide a top-line source backing this up.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was reading up on Henry Tandey when i noticed his run in with hitler so i wanted to see if they went into more detail on hitlers wikipedia page. sadly i did not see this and would like to implement this run in into the world war 1 section of hitlers wiki page

-Kindly, Kip Kip225628 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That's the kind of detail you're more likely to find in a full-length biography (although, honestly, I've read five of those and don't recall hearing about Tandey) not in an encyclopedia article, which can only cover the highlights of Hitler's life. The article is already very long and I do not recommend that you add to it for this purpose, it's likely to be reverted as not significant enough to include. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In the final sentence of the "Defeat and death" section of the page, it states: "According to Kershaw, the corpses of Braun and Hitler were fully burned when the Red Army found them in 1945, and only a lower jaw with dental work could be identified as Hitler's remains." It should be added that while the USSR claimed this lower jaw to be Hitler's, later inspection from outside sources discovered it to be belonging to a young woman, therefore not Hitler's. 2601:40C:200:19E0:4090:7141:D1F4:90F8 (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Further the IP is incorrect on the facts, it was the skull fragment not the lower jaw that was determined not to be Hitler’s. Kierzek (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No doubt this has been debated previously although I couldn’t track down exactly this point in the archive: are we really satisfied with the first sentence describing him as “... an Austrian-born German politician and leader of the Nazi Party.” It sounds so...normal. Just another politician. Are we going for the banality of evil here? Surely, the word politician should (at least) be replaced with the word “dictator”? DeCausa (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We mention "dictator" in the third sentence, so would the entire first 3 sentences have to be re-worked? Do you have a suggestion for wording?— Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I see DeCausa's point, and, frankly, it has bothered me in the past as well, although I suppose I've gotten used to it. Would this be a suitable re-write (with all current links and notes):

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician who was dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party (officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party or NSDAP), becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and the Führer in 1934.[a] 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 6 million Jews and millions of other victims.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That wording works for me.— Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think BMK's wording is much better. I only have a quibble about "Nazi Germany" which was never the name of the place. What is wrong with "dictator of Germany"? (I guess this issue has been fought over before; if so I don't intend to reignite it.) Zero^talk 02:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally, the consensus has been to use "Nazi Germany", since it's the WP:COMMONAME, and indeed the name of our article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with BMK as to the sentence rewording and he is correct on the consensus name as to the country during that era. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree on both points. The BMK wording gives a more appropriate tone. DeCausa (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Zero0000's 'quibble' about 'Nazi Germany' - which is the commonname of the regime, not the country. This chap was not the Ruler of Tsarist Russia - despite Tsarist Russia being a common way to refer to the regime/historical period. Apart from being a bit dubious factually, stylistically, why use 'Nazi' in two consecutive sentences? Why not say "dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party". I concur with everyone else about BMK's addition of dictator to the opening sentence other than this. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with both Zero0000 and Pincrete. It's absolutely true that "Nazi Germany" was never the formal name of the German polity that came after the Weimar Republic (which was also never its formal name, but is universally used), but it is used consistently throughout the encyclopedia and in multiple reliable sources as the common name, which is what we go by, per WP:COMMONNAME. However, in the interest of consensus, I can live with dropping "Nazi" from "Nazi Germany". Diannaa, DeCausa, Kierzek, can you also live with that change, in the interest of getting the new construction in place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you (BMK) say on Nazi Germany but don’t have a problem with the alternative. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It isn't clear how it can be shown that "Nazi Germany" is the common name, since plain "Germany" is extremely widespread in relation to the Nazi period. Regarding this particular use, "dictator of Germany" beats "dictator of Nazi Germany" by a factor of 9 at Google Scholar. In Google Books the difference is similar or greater, see this. I don't like this way of making wording choices, but this evidence (such as it is) does not support "dictator of Nazi Germany" being the common name for that role. In historical writing, "Nazi Germany" is a convenient shorthand for "Germany during the Nazi period" and I have no serious objection to that practice. I would drop the "Nazi" from the first sentence but I don't feel strongly about it. Zero^talk 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with all of Zero's comment. There is a judgement to be made - in each context - as to whether the 'shorthand' ends up inadvertently implying a job-title (as in this instance imo), or some other anomaly such as a geographical place (he was born in Nazi Germany?). This is true of other shorthand forms of regimes, Greek Dictatorship, Communist Russia, Socialist Cuba etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is "everything-in-the-first-sentence-ism" again. And what, exactly, is a dictator? The first paragraph is a potted progression now, please leave it as it is. Britmax (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s anything to do with that. It’s about the tone of the opening sentence matching the article. DeCausa (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Besides, this is the new lead sentence: Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician who was dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In all fairness, that cannot be described as "everything-in-the-first-sentence-ism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "dictator of Nazi Germany … " is crass in the extreme to me, and as Zero points out, whilst "Nazi Germany" may be the shorthhand/commonname for the Third Reich, or for "Germany during the period when the Nazis ruled", "dictator of Nazi Germany … " is simply many times less common than "dictator of/leader of/ Fuhrer of Germany … ". I cannot recall having ever heard 'dictator of Nazi Germany ' or 'job description of Nazi Germany' being used in UK written English.

Ancient Rome is the common name either for the Roman Empire, or for the city of Rome in the Empire period, but no one would describe Nero as "Emperopr of Ancient Rome", it lacks both the conciseness of "Roman Emperor" and the precision of a fuller description, neither fish nor fowl imo. Although commonname is widely applied as a policy on WP, we usually err slightly in the direction of formality and precision in opening sentences of articles. This lady is "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms", which is a compromise between the conciseness "British/English Queen" and the other extreme - her long convoluted title including the full, formal description of the names of the countries over which she 'rules'. I am going to make a suggestion of 'piping' "Nazi Germany" . If people object strongly, I will have to live with it, but find the present wording neither precise nor concise and actually NOT the commonname for AH's role/job title. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tbh, you’re overthinking this. But, for my part, don’t have a problem with your compromise. DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. Zero^talk 11:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I object to piping Nazi Germany. We need to state flat out and early that these people were Nazis.— Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

”... who was leader of the Nazi Party[a] and dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then the Führer in 1934.[b] During his dictatorship, he initiated World War II]...” ?DeCausa (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously it would need to be re-worded some. — Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In what way? I’m proposing a re-wording. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: We need to state flat out and early that these people were Nazis. Why, if we aren't going to say anything about who/what a Nazi was? The very next sentence says that AH rose to power as leader of the Nazi party and gives the provenance of the word as a shorthand-form of the party's name. I suspect that anyone with the reading level needed to negotiate the lead has already heard the word 'Nazi', even if they only know it from films or as an insult - many, especially the young, won't realise however the more formal meaning and origin of the word. The Nazi Germany article anyway treats 'Nazi Germany' as a synonym of 3rd Reich, so it's about the regime/state, not specifically about what Nazis or Nazism was. I begin to even wonder whether inserting 'dictator' into the first sentence is worth this effort, we already say dictatorship in line 3.Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My original query was one of tone, not specifically about the need for inserting the word dictator - although that is one way of dealing with it. The original sentence was out of kilter with this article - with a change of nationality/party it could be used from anyone from Abraham Lincoln to Boris Johnson. It’s blandness didn’t appropriately match this article in my view. DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise with the reaction, and it is a fairly common one. However I wonder whether it isn't inevitable that the text seems a bit bland given the (deserved) notoriety of the subject and whether 'understating' a notch or two is necessarily a bad thing. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Anything that we could publish would have to "understate" the evil that was Hitler, which is difficult to express without rhetorical overkill, but we don't have to take it so far as to make him appear, in the lede sentence, to be a businesss-as-usual politician. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you create a template sidebar for Adolf Hitler? --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:31C8:9235:C1E2:5AB (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's an extremely large task. In the meantime, see Category:Adolf_Hitler and Template:Adolf Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is contrary to the MOS:ETHNICITY. I suggest removing this from the lead section. Aoito (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "ethnicity' in the lede sentence, there are two nationalities, "Austrian" and "German", because Hitler was born in Austria and was initially a citizen there, and had his historical impact in Germany, where he became a permanent resident and, eventually, a citizen. It is also where he became notable. While "German" can be use to describe an ethnicity, it is not used so here, and there is no such ethnicity as "Austrian". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

After all, he became noticeable as a German. MOS:CONTEXTBIO: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable", "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". No need to focus on his place of birth in the lead section. This rule also works in the article about Sergey Brin (Google co-founder), who was born in Russia but became noticeable in America. Aoito (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

" Austrian-born German politician" in the Summary already covers this very clearly and Beyond My Ken's answer is not only accurate, it is more than sufficient as written. REJECT proposal to change. --Obenritter (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 and PackMecEng, can you sum up the results of the discussion, or express your opinion? I dispute the recent change from Beyond My Ken. Aoito (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Must agree with BMK above. What he states is not only accurate, but has been long discussed before and this description was reached by consensus. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No opinion. Only here because I was pinged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Kierzek, is this not against the MOS:CONTEXTBIO? "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Aoito (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Kierzek (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with the subject's notability. Therefore, this ("Austrian-born") was not previously mentioned in the lead section. This recent consensus has been reached without considering the manual of style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. Aoito (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

In actuality, it was a very significant factor in shaping Hitler's life. In any case, it was previously there, then was removed. It has been restored by consensus, which your opinion does not change. Note that the MoS is not mandatory, it is only a guideline. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK - "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." MOS:CONTEXTBIO - "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Please provide a link to the discussion in which you reached consensus. I want to read it. Aoito (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's my recommendation that no further responses should be made to this thread, since the OP does not seem to be interested in the expressed opinions of the other editors who have replied to their query. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Austrian-born" from the leading section.

• MOS:CONTEXTBIO: "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."
• Hitler was born and lived for some time in Austria, but gained fame in Germany. Examples in other articles: Ted Cruz (born in Canada, but gained fame in the US), Henry Kissinger (born in Germany, but gained fame in the US), Sergey Brin (born in Russia, but gained fame in the US).
• WP:MOS: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions [listed in the article] may apply", ""If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence".
• In a recent discussion in which a consensus was reached, the MOS was ignored. Aoito (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done The change was made by consensus. Please show that there is a consensus to revert it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• What is more important - the opinion of several people in the discussion or the generally accepted guideline? Here's a big discussion (2015) that refused to add "Austrian-born" to the lead section. Because people in the know said it was against the MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Aoito (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Consensus can change. Please show that there is a consensus for your preferred version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and Mechanical Keyboarder: I saw your recent edits and reverts und would like to give my opinion on the matter.

1. It should be "who was dictator of Germany", not "the dictator". It wasn't ever a title or position, it just describes his ruling style. I suppose "the dictator" would grammatically be possible too, though.
2. "chancellor" shouldn't be capitalised in this case per MOS:JOBTITLES.
3. "becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then as Führer" is just wrong. It should be "the Führer".
4. "replaced the position of President" needs to have a capital P in President per MOS:JOBTITLES: "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description" --Yhdwww (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Please change "who was the dictator of Germany" to "who was dictator of Germany" in the first sentence.
2. Please change "becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then as Führer" to "becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then the Führer" in the second sentence.
3. Please change "replaced the position of president" to "replaced the position of President" in the second explanatory footnote (b).

Please also see the section above for details. Thank you. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Done More or less. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to add a citation. Is that ok? Citationeditor2000 (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

What citation?Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a good article, but i feel like this article needs one more picture. My editing habit for Wikipedia is adding pictures, so maybe other users can understand the article better. My username is Joshua's Number9, and i have reached 300 edits right now. I am close to getting 500 edits to become an extended-confirmed user. And again, I would politely like to add a picture. Thank you!

Please show us the picture you wish to add, and sign your posts (using 4 x ~) so we know who you are. Britmax (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_in_Yugoslavia_crop2.JPG

Where would you like to add it? also, could you explain what it would add to the article? It appears to be just a portrait-style photo. There’s already two portrait-style photos (in the Infobox and under the Dictatorship subsection) and the one you propose is poorer quality/grainier than either of those. By the way, you need to sign your posts by typing four tildes (a tilde is one of these: ~ ) at the end of your post. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This photo is not a good choice, as it is rather blurry. Also, there's a problem with copyright - the source image at the USHMM does not provide any copyright information or detailed source information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a grainy photo that adds nothing to those already in the article. It is unlikely to be used. Please remember to add 4x~ to your reply to sign and datestamp it. Britmax (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[

I agree, the photo would not be a good addition to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have to bring this up again, but @Mechanical Keyboarder:, you just put a "the" back into the lead, changing "was dictator of Germany" to "was the dictator of Germany". As a reason you gave MOS:JOBTITLES. I've looked at the MOS and can't find any rule saying it should be the dictator. I don't think it should be "the dictator" in this instance, so please explain your change. Thank you. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Has Germany had any others?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely this isn't a job title, partly because it isn't a defined job. It describes a vague function, much as 'leader' or 'ruler' might, as such it can either take or not take 'the', but omission marginally avoids the suggestion that this is a title IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "the" is probably optional here. Now I'm just wondering what Mechanical Keyboarder saw in MOS:JOBTITLES that applied to this. --Yhdwww (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)