Talk:Adolf Hitler

Entry into politics

The second paragraph states that Hitler was a police spy (Verbindugsmann), however this does not seem to be entirely true. A verbindungsmann is more a communications adviser, a referent, someone who gathers information openly. Hitler was assigned to attend a DAP meeting and advise on what the party was up to. This was not spying.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide references at this time. I'm just fresh from a lecture by professor of history at the Moscow State University and thought this was worth sharing. The professor has devoted a great deal of his historical research activities to national-socialist movement in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knavehearts (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Other victims

Many blacks from the Rhineland and the 'rhineland bastards' as they were termed by the Nazi state were sterilized under Nazi rule.

How come they do not appear on the other victims section?

No Suicide

I know it is contested by most and probably not true but many people think that Hitler may not have committed suicide. Why is there no mention of this in the article? There is a mention of the fact that he might have been homosexual, even though he probably was not. So long as somebody can find an RS that says he may not have committed suicide, or even that states some people think that - I think it can and should be in the article - possibly with its own section. As an aside, I think the fact that he may have been homosexual should also be expanded to at least a few lines, if not its own paragraph. DegenFarang (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can source these things you can edit the article accordingly. Britmax (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely the suicide thing has come up before and been shot down for some reason... DegenFarang (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the crucial phrase in what you originally wrote is "So long as somebody can find an RS that says...." is perhaps the reason you are after. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok two people now said I can add it with an RS so nobody get their panties in a bunch when I do it :) DegenFarang (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No don't misrepresent what I said; I just echoed what you said with... "So long as somebody can find an RS that says....". The need for reliable and trustworthy secondary sources applies to anything in Wikipedia but more importantly extraordinary claims are going to have to provide extraordinary evidence. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and I did not misrepresent what you said. Both of you are saying that if RS's can be found there is no reason it cannot be included. All I said that you said was that no other reason exists why it should not be included. I assumed such a thing would have been debated heavily on this talk page but it appears that it has not. DegenFarang (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph at the end of the defeat and death section. I think this is deserving of its own section but wasn't sure how to name the heading or what size to make it etc. If somebody agree's it should be it's own section if they can please do that. I'm also not set on my wording feel free to edit it as you please - though I believe I have found reliable sources that conspiracy theories do exist and there is some evidence to lend credibility of some of them (though I believe the theories to be most likely false). DegenFarang (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section. As I said, it can't be taken seriously if you bring up theories that he went to Antarctica or the Moon. Also, a tabloid like The Sun hardly qualifies as a source, of any kind. Fred8615 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I undid your revision, I cited multiple sources and added several sentences, you removing them all because you don't like one of the sentences or one of the sources is a bit lazy. I was not aware The Sun was a tabloid but I believe The Times and The Telegraph are RS's and I know the New York Times is reliable and they all discussed the theory he is not dead in light of the discovery of the skull not being his. Please edit what I wrote that you do not like, don't simply remove it all, as much of it is clearly backed up by RS's. DegenFarang (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:FRINGE drivel, and has no place in the article:

• The Telegraph article is titled "Adolf Hitler alive: weird conspiracy theories" - so it admits that's it's a fringe theory.
• The Sun simply isn't a reliable historical source.
• The NYT concludes the article with: "There were no major discrepancies in any of the accounts, so suggestions that Hitler did not commit suicide and had escaped from Berlin represent nothing but gratuitous sensationalism. It is just another attempt to exploit the nightmare conspiracy theory that the source of unparalleled evil lived on somewhere, in secret."
• As such, I have removed the entire paragraph.

Hohum 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What he said. I've been through this before on the Patton article with that stupid Wilcox book claiming Patton was murdered. That didn't belong there, and conspiracy theories that Hitler escaped, when the overwhelming evidence is that he did die in 1945, doesn't belong here. If you really want to push this, create an article about these theories (if there isn't one already) and put a link in the See also section. Fred8615 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning that the skull fragment isn't Hitler's does raise the question. Further, according to the History Channel's documentary on the subject, if memory serves, it was not possible to hear the gunshot outside the room Hitler was in. If this is so then there is, indeed a discrepancy. Personally, I'm convinced Hitler committed suicide in 1945. The History channel's piece failed to mention important caveats:

1. The veracity of soviet sources. Up until the demise of communism, no scholars could have examined the skull and it's not likely that there was any way, at the time, to determine if the bones were actually his. There were plenty of reasons for the Soviets to lie. Oddly enough, the traditional story is that Hitler and Braun commit suicide and are then taken out and burned; so how could the Russians have found a corpse? Yes could have beenn a double as the show intimates or a fake to disenchant any remaining Nazis or to appease their political bosses.

2. No chain of custody: He was buried with others and moved at least once. Could it be that after the remains were dumped, they get word that someone wanted a "trophy" so to speak. A quick thinker picks a skull fragment realizing no one would know the difference. Spiker_22 99.11.5.151 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.5.151 (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "Führer" in the infobox

Shouldn't it be italicized? The Sartorialist (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.64.130 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Adolph Hitler in New York newsreel

If genuine then an interesting historical visit, that should be included. Hitler in New York http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEly8nXA6Oo

Begaoz (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have very serious doubts. I don't believe either Adolph Hitler or Adolf Hitler ever visited the USA, and certainly not after either of them had come to power. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a fake - funny as well. More interesting is whether he ever visited England. I have heard rumours he visited Liverpool but I think that's probably not true as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquax (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? This was taken from an episode of Star Trek Voyager. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

spelling error

ancestrythere is a minor spelling error at the beginning of the ancestry section that i cannot fix.

Could you please explain why you changed "Hitler" to "Aldof"? The change does not appear constructive. UserVOBO (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well written article

I would like to nominate this article to be featured on the front page. --BoJackson34 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify because it is not a Featured Article. Please feel free to make it so, however. Rodhullandemu 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll also have your work cut out - it's already been demoted from Good Article back to B class, and it's a very long article. It would need some teamwork to get it back to GA and then to FA.--Kudpung (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Section: Austria and Czechoslovakia

In the section Adolf Hitler#Austria and Czechoslovakia I have corrected a typo in the German, and corrected the translation for accuracy. However, <ref>{{harvnb|Murray|1984|p=183}}</ref> is provided as a source for this citation, and the errors may be in the original source material; I have no way of checking--Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC).

More errors

I have corrected several grammatical errors. However, <ref name=Marrus-37>{{harvnb|Marrus|2000|p=37}}</ref> is provided as a source for this citation, and the errors may be in the original source material; I have no way of checking. --Kudpung (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just searched 44th President of the United States, (not the "44th president of the united states of america") and it directed me here. I have no idea how to fix that but it needs to be fixed right away!