Talk:Adolf Hitler

An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment) Happy Birthday to you Adolf Hitler!

---

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

• Adolf or Adolph
• Hitler's_Sexuality: please direct all speculation about Hitler's sexuality to this page
• Was Hitler catholic?

NPOV

The following pargraphs just struck me as entirly POV:

"Despite this there have been instances of public figures referring to his legacy in neutral or even favourable terms, particularly in South America, the Islamic World and parts of Asia. Future Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.

The "despite this" is adding in a pov making it seem as if you can't have the two together, obviously again the writers opinon. putting an even favorable is 100 percent pov, it implies that it is amazing that someone could like Hitler.

"While some Revisionist historians note Hitler's attempts to improve the economic and political standing and conditions of his people and claim his tactics were in essence no different from those of many other leaders in history, his methods and legacy, as interpreted by most historians, have caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history."

According to who has his legacy caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history, we either need a source or remove it, the writers opinon doesn't count as a source.

Please fix these problems, Thanks!

The second-cited paragraph is trash. The "Despite this" phrase in the first-cited paragraph is POV. And I guess a "Future Egyptian President" will have to be an anti-Pharoh mullah, God bless him (her)?--shtove 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Year Reich

Its been awhile since I looked at this article, and I can see that it is still anti-Hitler in bias, at least in the introduction. The introduction ends with a taunt: The Third Reich, which he proclaimed would last a thousand years, collapsed in only twelve. This taunt had been in the article in one form or another, for years. I tried to remove a long time ago, and after an edit war, the opposition basically came down to the position that they simply liked having it in the article.

This line is still the pet phrase of at least one of the long time editors here, is my guess. Its purpose is to rub in the idea that Hitler was a failure. This is completely POV. Compare the article on Stalin. You will find few POV expressions of disapproval that last for long in that article, thanks to the Stalinists who police it. It appears that here, we have anti-Hitler partisans who have at least some influence in this article. I don't have time to engage in edit wars; I simply want to express my disdain for the disgraceful inclusion of taunting in the article. Finally, don't waste your time explaining that the statement is factual. Factual statements can be put into an article in such a way so as to promote an editor's point of view.Drogo Underburrow 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you quote is not point of view, nor anti-Hitler. That Hitler was a failure is a simple statement of fact, not a judgement. Given his inability to live up to his own dreams - his failure as a military commander, failure as a statesman, failure as a leader - how exactly does one report on his multiple failures without actually coming out and saying them? What an odd tirade.Michael Dorosh 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That Hitler "was a failure" is completely a POV. You are so biased, that I believe you don't even understand your bias. Stating that Hitler was a failure, and giving facts to prove it, is exactly what NPOV isn't. Drogo Underburrow 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler said it would last 1000 years. It lasted 12. Factual and NPOV, we don't say "and Hitler was a failure". Please do not begin a discussion by insulting other editors. --Golbez 04:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right...you don't say "and Hitler was a failure"; You instead juxtapose two facts for the reader, that Hitler spoke of a 1000 year Reich, and that it lasted 12, so that the clear implication is that Hitler is a failure. Very clever form of bias. You have a POV to put accross, that Hitler failed, and you construct the article to say it. Some editors don't understand that making points in articles using facts is POV; others do understand, and don't care. Which of those two groups am I insulting, in your opinion? And what exactly is the insult? Drogo Underburrow 04:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith in other editors by blatantly stating that they are too blinded by their bias. How do you propose we mention that the 1000 year reich wasn't? --Golbez 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to make the conclusion that the 1000 year reich wasn't? In order to make the point that Hitler failed? That is what POV pushing is, using the article to assert the views of the editors. Its the editor who wants to say that Hitler failed. Its a POV. You certainly arn't inserting that line to say Hitler was a great genius. Do you see how the whole goal of the writing is to say an opinion?Drogo Underburrow 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We're inserting the line to portray what happened to Hitler's goals, yes. So you propose the sentence be removed altogether. Anything else you'd want removed from the intro? --Golbez 05:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's all. I don't like the article intentionally portraying what happened to his goals in a way that intentionally is making the case that he was a failure; that is POV pushing. Its one thing for a reader to surmise that on his own. Its another to selectively present and arrange facts in order to promote this conclusion. Drogo Underburrow 05:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Also, by his own definition, he is a failure, so I don't think it's POV. --Golbez 05:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You arn't convinced of what? The fact that Hitler might have considered himself a failure doesn't mean its ok for Wikipedia editors to say he is. That would be agreeing with him, which means we are also giving our opinion. It would be ok to give his side, though, and report that he thought himself a failure. Wikipedians should not insert their opinions into articles. The article should report what sources say, not what Wikipedia editors say. NPOV is describing an argument, not picking a side. That Hitler was a failure is not something the Wikipedia article is allowed to make a case for. That is POV, just as the opposite would be. A different set of editors who also did not understand NPOV might arrange facts showing how successful Hitler was, by their standards. For example, Hitler wiped out most of Europe's Jews; they could present facts to the effect that he was very successful in this. Of course, that would be POV, even though he WAS successful in killing Jews. Trying to show that he failed cause his Reich didn't last long is POV. Don't you see that success or failure, and arranging facts to showcase it, is inherently POV? Its not NPOV, which is presenting all sides of arguments fairly without expressing any opinion or arranging material so as to suggest who is right.Drogo Underburrow 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the sentence in question is biased. And we aren't saying he is. We're saying a major portion of his vision was the thousand year reich, and it lasted only 12. Objective fact. It's right there in black and white. To say that Hitler failed this goal is decidedly NPOV. I would like to see how you could create a properly biased statement about the numbers of killed Jews. Please, show me. --Golbez 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

An example would be: "Hitler rid the world of approximately 6 million Jews. If only he had been given more time, he might have completely wiped them off the face of the Europe." This statement is factual, and biased. Its promoting the opinion that killing Jews was a good thing. Drogo Underburrow 07:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's factual, you're speculating and making claims on his goals. Now if you said "Hitler said he wanted to exterminate all Jews in Europe; he managed to kill most, about 6 million", that would be factual and non-biased. --Golbez 13:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. How is it POV to say that Hitler was ultimately a failure? He shot himself in the head in an underground bunker just as the Red Army marched into Berlin. It's hard to imagine a greater failure than Hitler. NPOV means we have to represent all POVs on a subject. In whose POV was Hitler not a failure? You are creating hypothetical examples of people who are excited about how Hitler was "successful" in killing lots of Jews. But do such people exist? Some Neo-Nazis, at least, presumably approve of the Holocaust (but most Neo-Nazis would probably say the Holocaust never happened, as well...). But approving of the Holocaust is not the same thing as seeing Hitler as a success. john k 08:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is POV to call anyone a failure. Failure/success is opinion. Its a value judgement. There is nothing objective about it at all. It boggles my mind that people are even arguing about this. Drogo Underburrow 13:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Failure is not subjective if one measure's one's own goals and the results that arose from them. Hitler's goal was this at right: He didn't achieve it. He didn't eradicate the Jews, nor did he recover German lands lost at Versailles; a look at the map shows us what happened to East Prussia. Saying that failure doesn't exist, or there is no such thing as failure, is a POV in itself, and not a widely accepted one. Objectively, Hitler was a failure. If he wasn't a failure, then he was a success. Pray tell, Drogo, tell us what he succeeded at.Michael Dorosh 15:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Russiangoals.gif

NPOV would be to show that he his regarded as a failure by the majority of historians. Not that hard to prove. Agathoclea 15:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Failure and success may be in terms of objective critiera (there are lots of articles referring successful actors or successful politicians), or they may be unencyclopedic value judgements, so in this context the terms are not particularly helpful. The "Thousand Year Reich" was not a one-off campaign promise, it was intrinsic to the Nazi state as Hitler and others envisioned it. Thus it is notable, and unbiased, to point out the actual duration of "Thousand Year Reich". It's not even stated explicitly as a reflection on Hitler personally. Peter Grey 16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Settled? I'd like to clear a lot of the stuff on this talkpage to one or two archives. Agathoclea 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To fail is defined as not to succeed in one's purpose. The Third Reich was frequently referred to, by Hitler, Goering, Goebbels and lesser speakers, as the "Tausend-Jahr Reich". It lasted from 1933 to 1945. Not a thousand years. Therefore Hitler did not succeed in his purpose. Nor did he succeed in eradicating the Jewish people, or destroying bolshevism, or ultimately gaining 'lebensraum' in the east. If it is stated, on these facts, that he failed, wherein lies the conflict? Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Has it occurred to no one that a claim made in a speech by a fascist leader may not be a truthful statement of his goals or beliefs, but a rhetorical strategy aimed at exploiting the emotions of his citizens to shore up faith in his regime? If you believe everything Hitler said, you must be a very interesting individual.

That Hitler's reich failed to last a thousand years is a fact. But to use that fact to call Hitler a failure, which is the intention of putting that information in the intro, wording it the way it is worded, is a POV value statement, and a violation of NPOV. -- Drogo Underburrow 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Family

William Patrick Hitler is listed as "nephew," but shouldn't that be "half-nephew" since there was a separate marriage involved? 206.156.242.36 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Links

One Haham hanuka seems fond of inserting a link to the "Hitler Historical Museum." I've decided my contribution to Wikipedia is mostly going to be removing dubious links, of which that is one. It is an anonymous source, with no information as to who stands behind it given directly, although its links tend to be to neo-Nazi sites. Its content is inferior to all sorts of other sites on Adolf Hitler. It meets none of the standards for a reliable source. So I intend to remove it whenever Haham hanuka manages to reinsert it, and would ask others who watch the article to cooperate in the endeavor. Bytwerk 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, Bytwerk. Haham Hanuka is a known PoV pusher and tried in the past more than once to put this Neo-Nazi link, and was reverted (example). According to his pattern of behaviour, he waits a while, and tries again. I'll remove this dubious link altogether as per Bytwerk reasons. Noon 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(The link was removed already). Noon 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now reported HH for 3RR. He can't say he was not warned, as he marked the editsummary of the 4th revert acknowledging the fact of his violation. Just a reminder to everyone else - even given HH's history don't treat it as vandalizm - the 3RR rule applies to everyone in this case. And with another editwar going on today it could be easy to loose count. Agathoclea 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

His Mustache

Can we somehow adress his mustache? It it is very unusual, even in his time. Alot of documentaries I have seen with people who remember his take over usually comment on how comical it made him look. The only other person I have ever seen that had a mustache like his were comedians like Oliver Hardy and Charlie Chaplin. The word mustache dosn't even appear once in the article. Even a sentence or two adressing it might be intresting. --The_stuart 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of removing the semi-protection?

Hi, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind removing the semi protection from one of the most heavily vandalized pages. Just look at the page history. So much noise is generated by the vandals and the reverts, that it's extremely difficult to track good-faith edits and legitimate changes over a longer period.

-- nyenyec ☎ 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. But there are plenty of people watching the page for vandalizm - if you had not reverted I would have within another 10 seconds. Sadly for this case I believe that wikipedia policy forbits longterm protection. Agathoclea 23:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler Historical Museum

The external link to link removed Hitler Historical Museum was removed by User:Bytwerk without giving a reason, why should we avoid this link? --Haham hanuka 08:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There was plenty of reason given by a number of editors. Agathoclea 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you point to those editors' reasons? I visited the site - feeble, but the information contained there doesn't seem inaccurate, although it is rather pointedly incomplete eg. the one-para biogs of Hitler's friends and compatriots. And the links section doesn't appear overtly to connect with neo-Nazi sites (definition needed). Inclusion on WP of external links ought to depend on factual content: should a site be excluded for stating some of the facts - eg. translations of Hitler's speeches etc - while failing to refer to, say, the findings of the international tribunals at Nuremberg?--shtove 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous sources are not exceptable sources Agathoclea 22:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to summarize, the site is anonymous (the registered owner is "united. thought"). It provides no information as to who is behind it. Its mailing address is a strip mall in Herndon, Virginia. It is a sloppy site, with a variety of errors (typographical and otherwise). It claims to be unbiased, but most of its links led to neo-Nazi sites. There is no indication that the person behind the site knows German. No sources for any of the information provided are given. And there are much more reliable sites on the Internet that provide the same information. Bytwerk 12:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition it was put AT THE TOP OF ALL LINKS by a user who makes a lot of POV edits and is regularly blocked from using Wikipedia for breaking our rules [1] as well as permanently banned from using the system in his mother tongue. gidonb 12:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, on this one I could use some advice. Haham hanuka includes a link to the "Hitler Historical Museum" in this posting. I've noted that the site has been included in quite a variety of other language Wikipedia sites, too (which I've been removing). What this does is build the site's ranking on search engines like Google. So by slipping the URL in, Haham hanuka is using Wikipedia to help a bad site. I'm inclined to edit that by eliminating the hyperlink, leaving enough information for anyone interested to visit that dubious site. However, I'm unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia norms to know if this is appropriate or not. Advice from the more experienced? Bytwerk 14:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As repugnant as the site may be, I don't think that we have the right to edit someone's talk page comments to remove a link. john k 15:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That has not been done, as the edits in question where in the article. Saying that Link-spam should also be removed from talkspace. In this case though I would leave it for a little longer as there is still some (not much) debate about the content of the site and its relevance. That will give us also the time to find out the norms involved and come to an agreement here. Anyway I know that people have been "asked" to remove certain links from their User-Talk-page with a similar reasoning. Agathoclea 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it linkspam to link to an external site that you think should have an external link on a talk page? And user talk pages are not the same thing as article talk pages. john k 20:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been allegations of Searchenginefraud about this particular user. I left that particular link a little longer to give everyone here the opportunity to do a double check themselves. I have now removed it and people can check it in the history of this and the article page if they wish to. It will just be hidden from google. Agathoclea 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Source (Haiden, 1936, 1937)

I can find no reference on the source (Haiden, 1936, 1937) and feel highly disconcerted about this. Are you sure this is not a made-up source? No major book on Hitler lists it!

Janrpeters 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is probably Konrad Heiden. Bytwerk 00:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But then there should be a correct reference added into the article! Janrpeters

Janrpeters 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop writing numbers in letters when the numbers are greater than 10

Technically the proper way to write it is less than ten --> in letters, more than ten in numbers like 12. Someone edit the introduction to reflect this change 168.253.20.179 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the English rule on this to use numericals for numbers greater than twenty. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule as such, though it's commonly ten. The WP style guide says: "Numbers may be written as words or numerals, although note that many users prefer that numbers less than ten be spelt out."Bengalski 09:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely a matter of style. I have seen rules saying less than 8, 10, 12, 20, 100 and 1000 should be spelled out. When I write articles, I use 100. It's a matter of taste. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Guide to Syle recommends spelling out words below 100 in non-technical contexts, and below ten in technical contexts. I would certainly feel more comfortable with "seventeen" than with "17". AnnH ♫ 09:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It says "six million" anyway. As you approach larger numbers, writing it out is more efficient. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an important engineering communication subject, and there is no good consensus. My outlook is American English. The paramount thing is to look at the mantissa, the number of significant figures, and not the exponent when deciding to write out numbers. A term like three thousand is better than 3,000. A term like 3,432 is better than three thousand, four hundred and thirty two. If the exponent is a word, with a single digit mantissa, like six million, or seven thousand I use words. I also take the source of the number, like in estimations, 3.2 million is clear and is preferred over 3,200,000 or three million two hundred-thousand. Number are still preferred for some technical terms, like X-band microwave is at 10GHz and is preferred over ten GigaHertz, or a near infrared wavelength is written as 820nM. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Yes I usually use a capital M for meters, sorry! It causes no end of trouble for editors, but other engineers like it becasue it lessens confusion with milli-.) Dominick ^(TALK) 11:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1000 Year Reich

The article states: The Third Reich, which he proclaimed would last a thousand years... What is the source for this "fact"? Where does it say that Hitler said this? Drogo Underburrow 10:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler made frequent references to this type of timespan. If you want to see some references Kershaw's biography details a number of instances. --Davril2020 10:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Which volume is it in? What page(s) is it on? Please give a authoritative citation. Drogo Underburrow 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikiquote:Adolf Hitler for one reference, from 1931. Camillus (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Accourding to Third_Reich#History_and_terminology it was dropped in 1939. Agathoclea 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But still, Agathoclea, it remained colloquial and after the war was used with an ironic twist. I have heard some surviving Jews, jokingly giving as their age 1,020 years, as they lived during the Nazi Regime and additionally for twenty years. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well even if he wanted to after 1939 it could not be un-done that he said it prior :-) Agathoclea 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler did believe the "Third Reich" would last 1000 years. It is attributed and he commonly made references to it. Hitler stated in a speech on 24 February 1941: "In general, I should like to add one thing: The German people can look back upon many thousands of years of development. Its history goes back 2000 years. For 1000 years there has been a German Reich, a Reich which actually contained only Germans. During this time our people survived the most astounding blows of fate. It will also survive everything that the present or the future may bring. Indeed, it will do so even better, because it is my belief that there has always been a German people and, for more than 1000 years, a German Reich, but there has never before been German unity nor the compact organization of our people that we possess today, and there has not always been the leadership which the German people possesses today." [2] (maybe that pertains to the discussion?)

Category and name

Ok, not only is he in Category:Fascism, when there is aCategory:Nazism as a subcategory, but he doesn't even belong there, as there is in 14 goddamn subcategories of Nazism! What is it with editors that they feel the need to make categories fall into incoherence?! If you feel the crushing need to make categories pointless, at least get used to the habit of writing family name first in brackets (that is: |Hitler, Adolf]])! Otherwise, he will end up under A for Adolf, for those of you who have not yet figured out that computers can't automotaically figure themthings out. You have locked the page, so I can't modify it: when you do modify it, could you please watch out for any geniuses that feel I still haven't made a point? Prette please? Dahn 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is only semiprotected, so you should be able to do something. I would support a category-cleanup anyhow, as there is an awful lot there that is duplicated. A lot of people don't understand that normally there is no need to have the main cat mentioned when there is a subcat. Agathoclea 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just been looking through the categories and there is a larger problem there. If you go back through Nazi Leaders you will find a lot of categories repeated. Agathoclea 10:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Irascible tyrant?

The article states In Mein Kampf Hitler describes his father as an "irascible tyrant," Where does it say this? Please give the page number. Drogo Underburrow 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched three online versions of Mein Kampf with the search text feature in Mozilla Firefox, and a search form, but could find no word, "irascible." Tyrant came up only once, and then he was speaking of Jews. So I'll remove that part. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Hitlers father actually was an "irascible tyrant," but there was no way that Hitler was going to say that about his own father in Mein Kampf, for political reasons having to do with German culture in regards to the family at the time. Having read Mein Kampf, I knew that some editor had invented this "fact", but rather than take it out of this controversial article, I prefer letting someone else do it, and thank you for it. Drogo Underburrow 02:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you never deleted the text in question, so I will. Deleted from the article:

In Mein Kampf Hitler describes his father as an "irascible tyrant," although there is little indication that Alois Hitler treated his son more strictly than was usual for that time and place.

As this is simply false. Hitler wrote no such thing in Mein Kampf, and the second part is unsourced POV of the editor. -- Drogo Underburrow 05:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Haiden?

In the paragraphs about World War One there is the sentences: "Meanwhile he was treated by a military physician and specialist in psychiatry who reportedly diagnosed the corporal as "incompetent to command people" and "dangerously psychotic." His commander at the time said, "I will never promote this hysteric!" (cited from Haiden, 1937) However, historian Sebastian Haffner, referring to Hitler's experience at the front, suggests he did have at least some understanding of the military."

What is Haiden, and where are these supposed quotes coming from? Volksgeist 07:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Volksgeist

It should be Konrad Heiden. I've changed it. Bytwerk 11:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've probably missed it; however, where is it cited that he said these things? I see nothing on the article itself about where those quotes came from just (Heiden 1937). The parenthetical citations don't in a bibliographical form at the bottom of the article, either. Volksgeist 12:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone will chase down the appropriate bibliographic data, which should be easier now that the name is right? Bytwerk 13:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Should it even be included if there is no source of information for the statements? Volksgeist 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really - but I think people have allowed time to chase the source. Agathoclea 08:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian, not Authoritarian

I can't believe we actually need to be having this discussion. Hitler was clearly totalitarian--there were no autonomous institutions in Germany that in any way inhibited his absolute power, as there was a strong Catolic church in Chile that hampered the absolute rule of Pinochet. Describing Hitler's regime as "authoritarian" is just plain wrong. Stanley011 18:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This was a topic of a long disucussion recently. One side wants to describe it as a fascist regime, and the other protests saying that Nazi's and Hitler were not fascist, but totalitarians. I suggest you go back can read over the arguments. The language that is being used is a result of compromise. I don't no one is fully happy with it but its something all sides can live with. MikaM 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Stalin's rule with that of Hitler's might be helpful in this regard. For example, a general who disagreed with Stalin would likely end up with a bullet to the back of the head; a general who disagreed with Hitler would more likely be given a gold watch, a pension, and shown the way to the door. Stalin's power over the Soviet people was a lot more "total" than Hitler's was over the German people. Also, people obeyed Stalin usually out of the fear they'd end up dead otherwise; but Germans, except for those who plotted against him, obeyed Hitler more out of a traditional deference for their recognized leader -- and also due to their belief in Hitler's insane ideas. Even Hitler's generals who weren't hard-core Nazis, when asked to carry out military operations they protested were ridiculous and insane, nevertheless carried them out because of the traditional German military ideal of following orders (ie. Paulus refusing to go against Hitler's crazy order to remain in Stalingrad). The Webster's definition of "authoritarian" is as follows: "characterized by or favoring the principle of following in blind obedience to a leader". That sounds an awful lot like the German people's relationship to Hitler.J.R. Hercules 20:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

? Where? It seems to me that the only objection is they don't like the subject matter. Since they don't like admitting that Hitler was a Christian, therefore certainly would hate to see all the evidence given for this fact. But, to suppress it on the grouds that its a "hate site" is a bit of a stretch and points the the weakness of any legitimate grouds to suppress it.

Curiously, the link that I then removed, was restored. The link states as a matter of fact that, "Hitler planned to kidnap the Pope and abolish Christianity." It links to a news article that quotes this alleged plot from an Italian Catholic newspaper. I guess when it comes to their POV, its not considered pushing a "pet theory," eh? I do note that even the Jesuit Father Robert Graham, who is a big Piux supporter and expert in the subject argued in 1998 that "the evidence of an alleged plan to kidnap the Pope is, at best, mixed." Seems like double-standards here informed by POV pushing. I asked them to take it to talk page, but since they didn't, Im here asking for them to support their claims. Giovanni33 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing a link and replacing it with another giving a total different POV is clearly POV. Why can't both be there? Agathoclea 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Agathoclea, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be NPOV. External links certainly can be POV...that's a good reason to link, if the website does a good job of presenting a certain view. Furthermore, I think it rather suspicious when two editors who both proudly state on their user pages that they are Catholics who follow the Pope, insist on removing from the Hitler page a link to a website that espouses a view that Christians may not like. They then turn around and insist that a link to a news item favorable to the Catholic Church be restored. Now, I'm not saying the two editors in question are biased or did not have perfectly legitimate reasons for their actions; all I am saying is there is the appearance of bias in their actions. One would think that they would go out of their way to support the inclusion of viewpoints hostile to their religion, so as to demonstrate their complete fidelity to making Wikipedia articles give all points of view according to the NPOV policy, but I guess that didn't happen in this case. In any event, it certainly seems like there is an effort here to prevent linking to a website that does a good job of presenting a point of view, simply because that view is offensive. This is the honest perception of an outsider, who doesn't know any of the editors in question, and who does not have a firm opinion one way or another about the issue in question, that of Hitler's religious beliefs. I feel that in the interest of fairness to all viewpoints, that the websites in question all be linked to, both the one favorable to the Pope, and the one that says Hitler was a Christian or influenced by Christianity. Drogo Underburrow 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Drogo. I can understand your reaction, and I have no doubt at all that it's an honest one, but please bear in mind that not all editors display their religion or atheism on their user page, but that doesn't mean they don't have one. I would not be less loyal to Pope Benedict if I removed that user box from my page, and Giovanni would not be more eager to show Christianity in a bad light if he added a box saying, "This user is totally committed to discrediting Christianity." His contributions since he arrived here have a far greater indication that he's here for that purpose than mine or Str1977's indicate that we're here for the opposite purpose. As I said elsewhere, the average edits per page can give an indication that someone is here with an agenda. I have 2.25, Str1977 has just over 5, and Giovanni has nearly 12. Str1977 and I both have a large number of edits that are not in any way connected with our POVs — just adding information about books, films, pieces of music, etc., archiving pages, working on templates and infoboxes, etc. Giovanni's contributions have been almost exclusively anti-Christian, and he has violated various policies and guidelines in his determination to get his way. I bring this up only because you have suggested that there could be a problem with the motivation of the Christian editors, and in fact, it was not mentioned in the post I was about to make when I got caught in an edit conflict with you. Since Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, I don't think links should be added without some kind of consensus that they are reasonably reliable and that they contribute significantly to the article. A link should not get added simply because it's a favourite link or promotes a favourite theory.

Just for the record, Giovanni added one, which I found to be extremely biased; it supported his favourite theory. I was looking at it, when Str1977 removed it. Giovanni promptly restored it, and I removed it. I had had time to examine the site at that stage. Giovanni restored it, calling the removal "suppression" — a word he always uses when people find his edits too POV — and Str1977 removed it again. Giovanni then removed a link to a website which apparently claimed that Hitler planned to abolish Christianity, and then restored his own link. I reverted to Str1977, but my reason for removing Gio's Hitler-was-a-devout-Catholic-and-his-behaviour-is-reflective-of-Catholicism suggestion was that I found that link completely biased, and saw it as yet another attempt by Giovanni to edit article in such a way as to suggest that evil people who happened to have been baptized would not have done such evil things if they had not been Christians. With regard to my re-insertion of the other link that Gio removed, I restored it because it had been there for at least the last 500 edits (I didn't look any further back than that), and nobody had objected to it, so I thought it was possible that its removal was an instinctive they've-removed-mine-so-I'm-going-to-remove-theirs reaction. I was reverting anyway, as I was removing the biased link that Gio added four times. I haven't examined in detail the link about Hitler wanting to abolish Christianity, and I don't know who added it. I do feel, though, that in a page with so many editors as this one, anything objectionable would be spotted and removed (or at least objected to on the talk page) before five hundred edits had gone by. If there is a good reason not to have that link, let's look into it. My main objection was to Gio's addition, rather than to his subtraction. And I think it's a little odd to flag an external links section with the POV tag. I've never seen that done before. It's quite bizarre.

Also, Gio, you say, "I asked them to take it to talk page, but . . . they didn't. Please note that you made that request in an edit summary at 10:50 (UTC). Str1977 last edited at 10:43. He presumably is not at the computer at the moment. I can't think of anyone who goes to more trouble to answer your points. Str1977 has explained to you again and again and again that Hitler did not believe the things the Church taught, was not a practising Catholic, and resented Catholicism. With regard to Hitler's references to God — God is not a peculiarly Catholic or even Christian concept. If Hitler said he was a follower of Jesus (or whatever you say he said), I can only remind you of something I read in Professor Bradley's writings on Othello that we must remember never to believe any statement that Iago makes, even in soliloquys, unless there is other evidence for it. I don't think there's any reason to think that Hitler was such a fine, moral, outstanding man, full of integrity, that he would never have claimed to believe something unless he really did believe it.

Back to Drogo — They then turn around and insist that a link to a news item favorable to the Catholic Church be restored. Str1977 had nothing to do with restoring the link favourable to the Pope. I don't think he was online at the time. I restored it, for the reasons given above. I don't insist that it be restored. If it's unreliable, it should go as well as the one that Gio is trying to insert. I just felt that it was probably okay since it had been there for a while without drawing objections, and its removal was probably a reaction to the removal of the other link. AnnH ♫ 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain why I deemed "nobeliefs" a hate site. The title already suggests that it has an agenda and more specific: a negative agenda: NO beliefs - it sets to discredit all kinds of religions (that the argument used in this particular case is a non sequitur is another issue). It uses sensationalist presentation of dubious facts and opinions. There are scholarly treatments of that matter and it comes to different conclusions (I have repeatedly pointed to a book called "Hitlers Gott - Vorsehungsglaube und Sendungsbewußtsein des deutschen Diktators" by Michael Rißmann", unfortunately to my knowledge not yet translated into English).

The equivalent Christian (or religions, some people don't seem to see differences) website would be: "Nodoubts.com" or "Noinfidels.org" which has a section on every prominent atheist proclaiming how bad they were, even including those whose atheism (which is, in a turn around from above, not the same as not being a Christian or Jew or Muslim) is dubious or to whose outlook there is more than just atheism (atheist repeatedly point out, quite correctly, that Lenin and Stalin and Mao became mass murderers because of their Communism (apart from lust for power and megalomania) and not merely hecause of their disbelief in God (which is just a negative, a void to be filled be something/someone else).) If such a link (assuming they exist) appeared on an article about Stalin or Mao I would advocate its removal just as much.

I also had a look into the article called "Jews" and found no (endorsing or not) links to sites promoting the Protocolls of the Sages of Zion. Rightfully so!

Quite apart from the mere content, Gio added it as expressly "informative" - which is POV pushing again (and Gio, no, that is not encouraging you to add it with a different wording).

Why did I deem Nobeliefs worse than the Hitler-Museum. The latter page is undoubtedly more sneaky, since it hides its background and claims impartiality. However, part of its sneakiness is not to hit readers over the head with its message. Don't get me wrong, both are unacceptable websites and both should stay removed.

The "Pope kidnapping" I did not provide and I did not restore it - however, it was a news item a couple of months ago and hence it has been added. I am not familiar with these dealing but I can state, having "met" Karl Wolff before that his reported behaviour fits with the rest of him. Finally, I want to note that this link was no hate site with an hatefilled agenda.

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You are laboring under the mistaken impression that a website that Wikipedia links to, should strive to follow the rules Wikipedia does in its articles. This is not the case at all. An external website could well be biased; it can have an agenda; that doesn't matter. What matters is if it does a good job of presenting its case. Its supposed to have an agenda, that's why we link to it, to give one side a chance to present its case better, to have more material, or something that we can't do in the article. To me, the website you deleted does a good job of doing that, its a quality site, in terms of presenting one side of a story. That is all that you can ask for from an external site.

You are censoring the opposition here, whether you realise it or not, which is why Gio gets so upset, no doubt. He wants one side of a story told, and you won't let him, and thats wrong, NPOV demands that he get his say, just as the other side gets its say, too. Stop deleting this link, stop not letting the other side get its say, just cause you think they are wrong, biased, not factual, etc. Even if they are, its their side of the story, and they should get their say. Drogo Underburrow 15:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So should we link to the "sages of zion" and other stuff like that, including "no beliefs". I don't mind if a wesite has an agenda but it shouldn't be demagogy. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Drogo, they censoring a link that is valid, pertainent to the subject, and really an excellent discussion--one of the best I've seen so far on the net--- without any valid reason, other than a Christian may find it offensive. They have failed to give any good reasons or even back up their claims, i.e. not accurate, a "hate site" and other unsupported nonsense. All they are saying is that they don't agree. Well, they don't have to agree with that POV. The website gives a good argument, and that is probably why they hate it. As to the diversionary tactic of Musical Linguist about my pushing a POV, I'd only respond, no more than you. I also edit on all kinds of articles, such as Vitamin C and Anal leakage, which has nothing to do with putting Christianity in a bad light. In articles, I've seen a lot of white-washing and suppression of valid information that could be seen by Christians as putting them in a bad light. However, since I'm not pushing a POV, this does not concern me as it does them. Everone has bias, but the bias is put in check by having many editors of different POV's working to balance the other out. The problem comes in when the other side's intolerance acts to suppress their opposition from effecting such a balance, and not allowing the presenting of the other side. This is a case in point. I will restore this valid link (but not vio the 3RR rule), and I encourage all other fair minded editors who value the principals of Wiki guidlines to do the same. Giovanni33 05:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of the editors here against the actions of supressing the opposition and removing Giovanni's link that, i think, proves Hitler was a Christian. Its a big topic and we could even have a whole article in Hitler's religion. This link is very good at presenting that POV. Its obvious to me that the self professed conservative Catholics here simply don't want to let the other side speak. External links are supposed to push a POV; or at least if they do that is prefectly fine as long as it does so openly, honestly, and does it well. Gio's site clearly does that. I'm restoring it. Kecik 05:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kecik, I wondered when you would appear. Anyway, you are completely mistaken (but understandbly so): external links are not "supposed to push a POV", they are meant to present and illustrate or elaborate a perspective of this article, which might be a particular view. External links cannot be subject to the NPOV policy as WP has no control over the editing of these links - however, external links are not supposed to push a POV (which is not the same as to present a POV), nor are they allowed to spread bigotted and hateful messages, except when these messages are the subject of the article (quasi as documentation, as Mein Kampf is here). So if we had an article called "atheist bigotry", your link would it perfectly as an illustration. Here, it doesn't. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling a link an example of "atheist bigotry" would be POV - you think it is bigotry - the atheist doesn't. To be nPOV you would need to call it "Atheist views on $SUBJECT" Agathoclea 08:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what is the difference between an article that "pushes a POV" and one that "presents a perspective, a particular view?" Seems to be the same to me. Your comment that "external links are not supposed to push a POV (which is not the same as to present a POV)" doesnt make any sense to me. What is the difference? Its just a matter of semantics. If a link presents a certain POV, and argues for it, provides the evidence, etc.---is it not pushing a POV? Is not "pushing" the same as presenting? Again, just semantics. And, I disagree that the link I provided was in any way bigoted or hateful. You have failed to show that in the least, although you are entitled to your own POV, however flawed I happend to think it is. You dont have a right to impose your POV to the extent that causes you to censor and suppress the other POV (mine). Giovanni33 08:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That you cannot see the difference says a lot about your approach. "Pushing a POV" is to push a certain POV towards prominence, to give it undue weight, to include it where it shouldn't be included. Presenting is legitimate, pushing is illegitmate. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so the link is too good then, gives its POV promience. Well that is what is should do. Your point is only valid if ALL the external links were to have a simliar POV--then that would be POV pushing as you define it. To give a single site that presents its POV very well, is not. Your wanting to silence this POV is not legitimate. Giovanni33 11:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Agathoclea, it wouldn't be a fitting title for a WP article. However, it would most clearly reflect what the link in question is about. Browsing through these pages I cannot see what other editors have seen: scholarly, evidence, proof - yes, it has quotes, but these quotes are clearly chosen according to one criterion: "is this quote useful to somehow link Christianity/religion with Hitler/Nazism", mixed with the usual fallacy of saying religion = Christianity = Catholicism, so if Hitler says "I am doing the work of the creator" this is read as a Christiain statement (which is it not) and if he's speaking about Christianity this is read as speaking about Catholicism, despite his known anti-Catholic views (prevalent among German nationalists, not just Nazis). (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not true Str1977. The quotes are not selective, but rather comprehensive dealing with the subject matter. The site even has an excellent discussion of other sources, including sources that Christian apologists tend to use, its limitations, but that even using these sources and the quotes found in them, it clearly still establishes Hitler well within the tradition of Christian thinkers. And, no, the article does not make the sloppy argument that saying anything religious=Christianity=Catholicism. This is a straw man fallacy you are creating here, and its you who is using selective quotes to create a false argument which the article never does. How ever much you'd wish it were that simplistic and thus easy to dismiss, the truth is otherwise. I don't need to present the complelling evidence, since its all in these sites it links to below, which any reader can take the time to look over the merits of the argument. Everyone from Hitler's Christian Bible, with his notes in it, to his professions of following Jesus, etc. Infact, I don't think you evern bothered to look at the arguments of this site, because it doesn't specifically argue that Hitler was a Catholic, just a Christian, and talks reports what kind of Christian he was, by looking at what he wrote and what he said, along with other sources of documentation, i.e. his "positive Christianity." The link does a nice job of getting any reader informed about Hitler's religion and convincingly argues that he can not rightly escape the title of being a Christian.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm ttp://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm ttp://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm Giovanni33 08:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes true. If the quotes are not selective, show me one quote that doesn't help that view, that doesn't link Christianity/religion with Nazis? Of course, you will say: that's because they were all such devout Christians and they never said anything bad about Christianity or the Catholic Church. But that is you blind faith to your "spiritual leaders" or should I say mis-leaders.

A few notes on source criticism (excellent discussion? how many discussions have you read? I presume anything coming from the mouth of that site is excellent) does not make the website scholarly. They use these notes to knock down a couple of well known quotes - but that doesn't mean that they'd be using anti-Christian/anti-Catholic quotes/infos from credible sources. No, that wouldn't fit with their objective, clearly visible in the website title.

Straw man? Well, wasn't it you who quoted any reference to God as indicating Hitler's Christianity and any reference to Christ as indicating his Catholicism (quite in contrast to the discrepancy between Hitler's views and Catholicism, which is not defined by private judgment).

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided the links above. You are free to show yourself. It quotes all the known quotes used by Christians to try to show Hitler was not a Christian and discusses them. Most of your message above is hard to respond to because its full of so many wrong assumptions, forming a diatribe, so I don't think its worth a serious response. But, if you challenge the source of any of the quotes as non-credible, then please show which source is not credible. From what I see they are all rather mainstream and well known credible sources. That is whta I look at, not what website it comes from. And, yes, you have a classic straman fallacy on your hands, and trying to swtich subjects about what I have supposedly argued in the past. Well, another strawman, since I did not quite say that (but I'm glad at least you are not saying that is what this link says--did you confuse what you thought I said with what this link argues?). As to what my arguments are or were, that can be seen from the previous history of the talk pages, but lets stick to the subject of what the link argues and why you feel it should not be allowed to speak for itself. So far your arguments have failed. Giovanni33 09:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to censor the opposition, Str1977. I don't even agree with the views of the website in question; but I recognise that they are doing a good job of making their case. Note that doing a good job does not mean they are being fair, scholarly, factual, or anything else. What they are doing is making an argument, and you don't want their argument to be heard. That is a violation of NPOV. If you don't like this site, find a better one that makes a stronger case that Hitler was a Christian and/or the product of Christianity and Christian beliefs. So far, this site is the best I have seen at making that case. You want to replace it with nothing, silencing this viewpoint, and that is not right. Drogo Underburrow 09:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I am going to add a link to this website, on the grounds that it is a site dedicated to giving a point of view, and is the best example on the web of presenting this POV. Therefore, this site falls under Guideline #4 of the Wiki style guide on linking, which calls for linking to sites that present POV's. Removing this link is censoring this POV, unless you replace the link with a better one giving this same POV, that Hitler was a Christian or the product of Christianity. It is not ok to remove this link, as without it the article does not properly present the POV given in this link. I want to remind editors that NPOV is about presenting all sides, without taking sides. It is not about presenting a consensus view of the editors. -- Drogo Underburrow 05:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about this passage, Drogo:

"4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first."

However, I don't think this actually fits our situation, as we don't evenly depict both "sides" (one of which, BTW, is factual - and it's not the currently linked one). Also, consider the following:

Avoid

"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view."

And also "Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)?"

IMHO, a hate-spilling side is neither proper nor tasteful and useful only to certain ends (which are not the ends of WP).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a quick look through, and the claim that it is "unverified original research" as it in fact is a secondary source referenceing its sources. It then draws conclusions we could not draw here as they are POV. We could reference them as existing conclusions in contrast with POV conclusions that portray the other side. You are welcome to find an equally researched site that presents a different POV. Agathoclea 22:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Str1977's assertion, http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm is not a "hate-spilling" site. Moreover, its not a fact that the site contains factually inaccurate material, it is simply asserted by Str1977. But even if it was a fact, the site meets the exception clause, since it is a notable proponent of a point of view dealt with in the article. The site definately "is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view." which means it meets the standard of exception to the rule of not including sites with factually inaccurate material. The Hitler article better have multiple points of view, or its in violation of NPOV. This site meets exactly the reasons given in the Wiki style guide on linking for sites that should be linked to. Drogo Underburrow 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes in Links

I've been making occasional changes in links on this page, but perhaps it would be best to consider the whole collection. I think it is generally agreed that links should be from credible sources. Linkspam is a bad idea. But beyond that, shouldn't links be considered in terms of the reader? That is, links often get added that have no particular connection to the preceeding article. They may display POV, or take up some issue that 99% of readers simply aren't interested in.

That being said, here's my evaluation of the existing links. The "Portrayals of Hitler Project" is run by a credible German historian, and provides lots of information (and some documents) on how Hitler has been perceived over the years. I just added this one, and obviously think it valuable. There are two timelines. Surely we need only one? But more than that, the article itself is chronological, and why would most readers be interested in a long list of dates? I think both should go. The "Hitler and Mussolini" link is credible, and probably worth keeping — but I'm not sure how many readers are interested. Thje "extensive site on Adolf Hitler" does have a lot of information, even if it is not always reliable in details, and is worth keeping. I'd strike "Answer.com." It is Wikipedia once removed, with some links. Why link to ourselves? I'd strike "Hitler's Genealogy." It is in German, which most readers won't be able to handle. "Mein Kampf" is worth keeping as a prime source on Hitler, but there are two veresions listed. Let's eliminate one of them. The "photographs of Hitler" site happens to be mind, added before I got involved in Wikipedia. It draws several hundred hits a week from Wikipedia, and provides useful pictures. The "25 point program" is important for the history of Nazism, but might better by in the Nazi Party article rather than here? The "Hitler's Family Tree" probably isn't of great interest to most readers, and a bit hard to understand for those not up on genealogy. Cut it? "Hitler's grandfather" seems to me of marginal interest to most readers. The "Assessment of Adolf Hitler" site looks designed to sell the guy's book, and strikes me as marginally valuable. I think it should go. That brings us to "Hitler and the pope," the topic of the above lively discussion. It think it should go, since it is not central to Hitler's biography, and most readers are not likely to want to investigate that matter. The "psychological profile" is a fascinating historical document — but is it a good link for a general encyclopedia article? I think not. I'd like to replace the "comprehensive account of Hitler" link with a better one: http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/hitler/lectures.html. It includes the texts of lectures by a good German historian. I'd drop the "NS-Archiv," given that it's in German. The link to pictures in color probably is interesting for lots of visitors.

In sum, I think most existing links should go, and what remains should be useful to someone wanting to go beyond what Wikipedia says on the large issues. There are 57,000,000 Google pages that mention Hitler. If people slip in whatever appeals to their particular interests, as had already been done to some extent, I think the list becomes less useful.

What might others think? Bytwerk 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody objects, cares ... until WP:BRD :-) Agathoclea 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I care! Don't delete any of the links. :-) Drogo Underburrow 08:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I care too. Please keep the links. Im not opposed to adding other links, even replacing ones with others that make the case better than the one given does. But, until then, lets keep these links. Giovanni33 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler & USA

Those are helpful articles. Please consider adding information about the following:

1. Adolf Hitler’s notorious salute originated from the USA’s early Pledge of Allegiance and a (rexcurry.net/USA-pledge-of-allegiance-rexcurrydotnet.jpg) shocking photograph is here. The original Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag and a (rexcurry.net/USA-pledge-of-allegiance2-rexcurrydotnet.jpg) photograph is here. In actual use, the (rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html) second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by disinterested children perfunctorily performing the forced ritual chanting by extending the initial military salute, as shown by Professor Rex Curry. Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the (rexcurry.net/bellamy-edward-german-connections.html) military salute led to the hard, stylized salute of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute via the USA’s Pledge.

2. Adolf Hitler’s symbol (the swastika), although it was an ancient symbol, was used sometimes by the National Socialist German Workers Party to represent overlapping “S” letters for their “socialism,” as shown in (rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html) Swastika Secrets by Dr. Rex Curry. The same symbolism is shown in Hitler’s own bizarre signature, which Hitler alter to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist," and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on (rexcurry.net/bookchapter4a1a2a.html) Volkswagens.

3. The Hitler-style salute in the USA pre-dated the Nazis by 30 years and was created by Francis Bellamy (author of the "Pledge of Allegiance"). Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy (author of the novel "Looking Backward") and Charles Bellamy (author of "A Moment of Madness") and Frederick Bellamy (who introduced Edward to socialistic "Fourierism") were socialists. Edward, Charles and Frederick were brothers, and Francis was their cousin. Francis and Edward were both self-proclaimed National Socialists and they supported the "Nationalism" movement in the USA, the "Nationalist" magazine, and the "Nationalist Educational Association." They wanted all of society to ape the military and they touted "military socialism" and the "industrial army." Edward’s book was an international bestseller, translated into every major language (including German) and he inspired the "Nationalist Party" (in the USA) and their dogma influenced socialists worldwide (including Germany) via “Nationalist Clubs.” Many of their policies were followed in the USA and still are followed in the USA and caused the USA’s big, expensive and oppressive government.

The Nazi salute was far older, originating with Roman soldiers and Hitler got it through Mussolini, not the USA. Also, I see your links as an attempt at search engine optimization so I delinked the multiple links to what (I assume) is your own site. Apart from that misinformation, I don't see much new or enlightening in your post. --Golbez 07:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

kidnap link

I wonder if anyone took a closer look at the article. Apart from reporting on a report from a catholic source it said "But the reports of Hitler’s contempt for Pius have contrasted with other versions by historians and authors who have depicted Pius as being pro-German and have accused him of intentionally turning a blind eye to the Holocaust." In the light of this the linktext needs to change to reflect the content of the article. Agathoclea 14:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Military leaders

Is there a reason why he is not in the above mentioned category? I think I put him in there a couple of weeks ago.

Of course I might be missing something. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes in Links

I've made most of the changes in links I proposed above. I kept the links some people are enthused about. The result is, I think, more useful to the average visitor -- but we shall see what happens. Bytwerk 10:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the link to the .ws forum as it is a forum site. Did you get mixed up and wanted to include another link? Agathoclea 11:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The forum section is a relatively small part of that site, but I'm not inclined to defend its inclusion too strongly. Bytwerk 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It just stares into the face when you go to it. On the basis that we like verifyable content - or at least would like to verify who placed the content I feel uncomfortable. Agathoclea 11:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Hitler Alexender the Great in one of his former incarnations?

I have very interesting information about Hitler. Paramahansa Yogananda had revealed to some of his disciples that Adolf Hitler was Alexander the Great in one of his former incarnations. Before dismissing this idea as totally absurd, let us look at the similiarities of these two personalities. Alexander the Great had a great desire for conquest; so did Hitler. Alexander's spiritual teacher was a Hindu (infomation available in Autobiography of a Yogi) and Hitler had a sub-conscious liking for Hindu thought. For example, the Swastika is a Hindu symbol and Hitler believed in the superiority of the Aryan race. Should we include this controversial information in the article?

On a side note, in Conversations with God Book One by Neale Donald Walsch, it is revealed that Hitler went to heaven (as there is no such thing as hell according to the book) after his suicide! Should this small piece of information be included as well into the article? Of course, many people would strongly disagree about these two bits of information about Hitler. The world views Hitler as a totally evil man in absolute terms but the above mentioned book has a different view about this misunderstood personality. Any constructive feedback and comments would be appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What kind of a nutcase can this man be?If Hitler went to heaven,so should virtually everyone get there.Whatever.Alex lost his father when he was young.I read a book of Walter C Langer in which the Author claimed that Hitler lost him "spiritually" according to the analysis to his own writings,which seems flawed when talking about him.I also read an interview with Hitler's relatives that he constantly fought against his father and had a deep bond to his mother.AFAIK Alex had the same,but may have not fought against his father.So far there aren't too many interesting things,all generic Freudian stuff.Other than that,i don't know anymore.--CAN T 20:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Vegetarianism" of Adolf Hitler

I removed the incorrect and misleading category link Vegetarianism because historical evidence does NOT support the claim that A. Hitler was a vegetarian, on the contrary. There is a lot of evidence that A. Hitler continued to eat dead animal foods throughout his life. Indeed, the "evidence" cited in support of the vegetarian hypothesis is almost always of a form like this (see Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler):

• "Hitler was indeed, for the most part, a vegetarian — though he did occasionally allow himself a dish of meat."
• "From that moment on, she [Frau Hess] said, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings."
• "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar ..."

The deliberate consumption of foodstuffs derived from animal corpses such as (muscle) meat, liver dumplings, ham, and probably even caviar is, however, incompatible with vegetarianism, as defined on Wikipedia. This is tantamount to saying that someone is an avowed celibate with the exception of sometimes having sex with Russian prostitutes. I therefore removed the incorrect category link and will continue to remove it until there is some real evidence that Hitler was a vegetarian in the same sense as that used by Wikipedia and other english-language encyclopedias and dictionaries. Or maybe people want to suggest that he was a vegetarian only in between non-vegetarian meals. As Mark Twain said: "Quitting smoking is easy. I've done it a thousand times." Aragorn2 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

See also Category_talk:Vegetarians#Hitler. Aragorn2 17:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That same article states in its lead "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his death in 1945" - if you want to look at the matter as NPOV and WP:NOR you have to classify him as vegetarian for search purposes. People make POV fights over Categories because THEY dony don't want to be associated with Hitler. You all are associated with Hitler - Hitler had a nose - you all have noses - it follows that all of you are evil. Agathoclea 22:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler liked dogs, too. Goes to show that dog-lovers are just like Hitler. I notice that no mention of Hitlers dogs is made in the article. The evil dog-lovers have no doubt censored it out. Drogo Underburrow 09:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced that I looked at the matter NPOV because the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian despite his continued, deliberate consumption of ham, liver, sausages and poultry (e.g. squab) directly contradicts Wikipedia's definition of vegetarianism. If Wikipedia is trying (as I assume) to limit the publication of contradictory information, either the categorization must be removed, or WP's definition of vegetarianism has got to change (which would you prefer?). This is not a case of "No Original Research" in any way because I have merely reproduced material from published sources (entire books have been written on the subject).

It seems questionable whether people would find your nose argument convincing. Having a nose is, contrary to vegetarianism in most cases, not a conscious lifestyle choice, after all. Anyway, if you consider my objections to be primarily a case of not wanting to be associated (as a vegan) with Hitler, you might want to take into account that I removed André 3000 (again) from the List of vegans (see Talk:List of vegans#I_deleted_Andre_3000), and suggested the removal of the "Category:Vegetarians" link from Alec Baldwin, two famous personalities I would emphatically not mind to be associated with, for the sole reason that the categorizations are (rsp. seem) incorrect. I did both of this, by the way, before even stumbling upon A. Hitler in the vegetarians category. Aragorn2 17:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a question of WP:NOR#Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position when you claim AH was not a vegetarian based on definitions found elsewhere while historians claim that he was. Now you mention some books written on the matter. Again a) WP:NOR will ask how reputable these sources are b) if they are in contrast to the majority of published works they have to both be mentioned. It is then to the reader to make up his own mind. You might want to solve the problem by creating a subcategory of "disputed vegetarians" Agathoclea 17:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Over-linking

The introduction to the article is badly over-linked. The wiki style defines overlinked as having more than 10% links, having more links than lines, and low added-value items are linked without reason, i.e. plain dates like 1933. Ordinary words should not be linked. Furthermore, one of the links is even misleading, "facing crisis" takes the reader to Weimar Republic. The intro is ridiculous, just about every noun is linked. Links are footnotes. They call attention to themselves. Anywhere you see a link, ask if you would find acceptable "See (link)" inserted into the text. If not the item probably should not be linked. The rest of the article is badly overlinked as well. Drogo Underburrow 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Why not eliminate a bunch and see if anyone yelps? Bytwerk 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And the photo and biog box intrude too much on the text.--shtove 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

End of the War

The article mentions that near the end of the war, it was Hitler's stubbornness that had Germany continue to fight. From what I've gathered in different history books, however, states that surrender wouldn't have been realistic for Germany, since the Allies had called for an unconditional surrender on Germany's part. Thought I might mention it to help reach the NPOV standards 67.142.130.41 01:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Assassination attempts?

I think something should be added to this article, even if just a link, to the assassination attempts on him. 64.16.162.161 14:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)FactFreak

Image

The new image (16 April 2006) is much better - the editor was an IP but I agree with his comment that the previous image was propaganda-esque and the new image is more neutral. T. J. Day 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

ROHA's back.

You know what to do. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not know what to do. Someone who calls himself "Linuxbeak" says that we should know what to do when we read "ROHA's back". But I am new to this Wikipedia and do not know what "to do" at all. Sorry if I am not understanding what "Linuxbeak" means. Best regards, Lothar.

ROHA is someone who has a dynamic IP and pops up every once in a while trying to replace the pic we have of Hitler in the intro with a lower quality, "less propagandistic" one. Since he has a dynamic IP, the only way to stop his vandalism (yes, it's vandalism, as he's never managed to communicate why the one we have is so evil) is to semi-protect for a time. --Golbez 22:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed in trivia section

I'm tempted to remove a few of these "trivia" items without references-- specifically the flatulance one. I've no idea where one would even look to find that kind of reference, and it seems kinda childish anyway to include it. Anyone else think it should be cut? Fieari 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen mention of his flatulence problem. A source will probably turn up. Mattergy 09:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Kershaw mentions the flatulence. O'Donnell mentions the severe halitosis, also.Michael Dorosh 14:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Templated infobox created

I created a clone of the infobox of Hitler and protected it. This is to prevent ROHA from continually changing the picture as he has been doing since 10 November, 2005. I'm sick of seeing changes to this article that say "ROHA: removed propaganda" and "ROHA: note that so-and-so reverts back to propaganda without discussion." As such, I'm going to prevent ROHA from "removing propaganda" from this page. If people really want to/need to change the contents of the infobox, then they can discuss it here. Otherwise, that's the way it's going to stay.

By the way, I compiled/am compiling a list of ROHA's activities. This is located at User:Linuxbeak/Hitler article and ROHA. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

All academic, if the picture gets deleted on commons for lack of copyright status. Agathoclea 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That ROHA activity list (i.e. the stuff ROHA has been doing) is insane. The infobox shouldn't need editing very often, so protecting it with technical measures is reasonable given the revert war. Phr 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Under the Day of Potsdam section I noticed that only partical dates were given without the year part. So when I jumped into that section it was not clear to me in which year the day of Potsdam happened. This should be improved, or not?

Gott mitt Uns

Please stop edit warring over this picture and start talking. Please explain here why (or why not) the picture should be added. Some information about the picture's origin would also be helpful - currently it is completely unsourced. DJ Clayworth 19:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of the picture is to prove either Hitlers religious affiliation or his connection (or blame) of the church. It is not possible to come to NPOV article without overloading it with pictures trying to portray both sides of the argument. The text can do that quite easily as seen in the section which describes his religious affiliation. As far as the question goes if the church (local or the Pope in Rome) is to blame for Hitlers rise to power or his remaining in power - again that cannot be proven by just one picture and the issue is far too complex to be part of the biography of the person Hitler. If and when someone decides to write an article that describes the various theories and arguments that historians have brought forward (again NPOV without jumping to conclusions) then that picture would be well placed to portray one side of the argument. Copyright apparently is another issue - fair use would only apply to an such an article and not to his biography.

To sum up: Although I personally do not think str's trying to whitewash the church's active or passive involvement in the Third Reich is acceptable, I equally find that the use of the picture is inappropriate in the current context. Agathoclea 20:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea, I am not trying to whitewash anything. However, this picture is just an example of the questionable tactics used to push a certain POV. It is effective since a picture sticks better than thousand words. Also, we don't have reliable info about the origin of the picture yet, was it Nazi propaganda or was it created later? Unless we know this, we cannot place it in context and write an accurate caption. So before we can answer this, the picture definitely should stay out. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

a hitler biography

how did the death of hitlers niece/lover changehim as a person

Catholicism again

We currently have "However, as an adult he stopped attending mass and therefore was not a practicing Catholic.". Have we any evidence that Hitler did any of the other things a practicing Catholic does, such as go to confession, fast on Fridays, give to the poor etc.? If not then is it not simpler to just say "he stopped being a practicing Catholic"? DJ Clayworth 02:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be simpler, but it would be a violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Example_of_a_new_synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, unless there are reputable quotes for that. "stopped in this way" does not imply an all-out removal from Catholizism that is not provable. Ideally there would be some quote directly about Hitler that $INSERTNAME thinks his action/non-action made him $INSERTCOMMENT. Agathoclea 07:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Likewise we have "in public discourse he continued frequently to proclaim his Christianity". The citations give only two mentions. I realise that we would have to have hundreds of references to back the claim of 'frequently' up, and that would not be practical, but maybe we can find a respected author who also says that Hitler 'frequently' said this. DJ Clayworth 02:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The site on Hitler's Christianity that the two of our devout conservative Christian editors here keep taking out supplies such documentation, from respected Hitler biographers. For instance, just form his speeches alone, we can see the term "frequently" is accurate. http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm Giovanni33 02:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly not a violation of WP:NOR to say that he wasn't a practising Catholic, unless the claim that he stopped attending Mass is original research. You simply can't be a practising Catholic if you don't practise. It's impossible, and it makes Wikipedia look silly to imply that you can. It's like claiming that if we have a source saying that someone was naked we can't say that he wasn't wearing clothes unless we have another source saying that he wasn't wearing clothes. There may be a Wikipedian who doesn't know what "practising Catholic" means; there may be — in fact there are — Wikipedians who are anxious to insert things that will make the Church look bad, and who show a pattern of that across various articles. But the fact is — if someone does not attend Mass when it is possible for him to do so, he is not a practising Catholic. He may be a good person and a nice person and a clever person and a spiritual person, but he is not a practising Catholic. To attempt to redefine the traditional meaning of "practising Catholic" is original research. Please note that the attendance of Church services for many Protestant denominations does not have the same level of obligation. You can, as far as I know, stop attending Protestant churches without violating your Protestant religion.

I'd like to point out also that it's original research to say that he received Communion "as a devout Christian". Many Catholics reveive Communion in a very casual way. I've seen children chatting and giggling on their way back from the altar rails to their seat, with the Host still in their mouths. I've seen adults stopping to talk to friends just before or after receiving Communion. I have no idea whether little Adolf chatted and giggled, or whether he longed for the Eucharist like Blessed Imelda Lambertini. I somehow doubt that either is the case. I've never heard that he was pious as a little boy, though I confess I know little about him; and giggling in Church would probably not have been tolerated back then. However, I will say that although I have been a Catholic all my life, and have never dissented from any official teaching and have never lapsed, I certainly do not think that I received Communion "devoutly" as a chlid, and would be very hesitant to say that I do so now. We do hear stories of people getting up before daylight, and walking for two hours in bad weather in order to hear Mass and receive Communion, because they have so great a longing for it. But going to Mass and receiving the sacraments is a normal part of a Catholic upbringing, and does not in any way imply that one is or was "devout". I have changed "as a devout Christian" to "as a child", since it's not original research to say that he received the sacraments as a child. To say that he received them devoutly is POV, original research, and almost certainly inaccurate.

I also agree with DJ Clayworth that evidence of Hitler having claimed something twice is not enough to say that he "frequently" said something. I think that Str1977 would agree as well, as he said elsewhere: If AH always professed to be a Catholic, we would need a series of trestimonies through his entire life, right up to April 1945 (when his life ended after a non-Catholic marriage to his long-term concubine with a non-Catholic murder of her and himself). Even if we take his "always" statement from the 30s at face value, it cannot support Gio's POV.[3]

On a less important matter, I've also changed "took" to "received". The sacraments are meant to be gifts, not self-service help-yourself things. Even with Communion in the hand, which was strictly forbidden when Hitler was a child (and was only permitted eventually because so many people were defying the Vatican on this matter that Pope Paul VI gave in and changed the rule), Catholics are not allowed to pick up the Host themselves; it has to be given to them by a priest or extraordinary minister.

I see that Agathoclea added the {{unfererenced}} tag after He was baptized, served as an altar boy, sang in the choir, and received the sacraments as a child. However, as an adult he stopped attending mass, and was therefore not a practising Catholic. I think it looks rather odd there. First of all, if an article or section doesn't have sources, you don't put that template in the middle of a sentence; you put it at the beginning of the article or sentence. Secondly, it looks as if the disputed claim is that he stopped going to Mass. I don't think there is any dispute over that. It just seems that a few Wikipedians want to redefine the age-old definition of "practising Catholic". That is where the original research lies, not in the perfectly logical and reasonable claim that if you don't practise, you're not practising, if you don't eat, you're not nourished, and if you don't sleep, you're not rested. AnnH ♫ 09:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

{{unfererenced}} was a mistake - it should have been {{fact}}. I have not checked, is the devaut gone now? I have changed the frequently part in the sentence in question. To come back to the practising Catholic part, if - as you claim - anybody not attending mass is automatically not a practising Catholic then the mere fact that the article mentions that stopped going would suffice. It is your insistance at putting in print that he was not a Catholic despite being unable to provide a citation for such a statement, is pushing a POV. Which then gets all sorts of other people trying to prove the opposite POV. Why not stick to the basic verifyable facts and create some peace around this article. As pointed out further below it would show some good faith on your part if you could do the needed edits yourself. Agathoclea 14:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Agathoclea. The idea that one must go to Mass as a determinative and crucial ritual, and that without practicing this, one cannot be a Catholic is an assertion of fact that needs to be established by a reputable reference. I don't think its true. I know many Catholics who never go to Church, but they consider themselves Catholic. There are many requirements that various Christians’ faith require for their members, but the majority of those normally counted as Christians for all practical purposes, do not strictly follow such requirements of the faith---yet they are still considered to be Christian. If AnnH wants to authoritatively assert that some actions must be done, then she needs to prove this is true, otherwise it’s just original research and her own POV. I think we should stick to describing basic verifiable facts and not place POV interpretations on these known facts. Giovanni33 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

World Of Biography

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?--59.144.96.118 04:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I object. World of Biography meets none of the reasons to have an external link as given on the page Wikipedia:External links. -- Drogo Underburrow 05:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith

A link was removed without talk here; in the edit summary the reason given was that the website was biased. That a website is biased is no reason to delete it. Just the opposite. As I mentioned on this page before posting the link, this is a link to a site dedicated to giving a point of view, and is the best example on the web of presenting this POV. Therefore, this site falls under Guideline #4 of the Wiki style guide on linking, which calls for linking to sites that present POV's. I'm going to assume in good faith that the person who removed the link was unaware of this guideline. Now that it has been explained, the reason for the removal is invalid, and I'm going to ask the person to show good faith by putting the link back. -- Drogo Underburrow 09:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. However, your assumption of good faith carries an implication that the only possible "good faith" reason for removing that link would be ignorance of the external links guide. You did not seem to consider the possibility that someone might be familiar with the guidelines, and still think that it was inappropriate to add that link, and might disagree, in good faith, with your interpretation. For the record, I am familiar with the guidelines.

Number 4 of "What should be linked to" says, "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." However this is not an article about Hitler's religion. It's a very minority, fringe view that Hitler was a devout Catholic. And it is completely inaccurate. I see that guideline as meaning that on a subject such as abortion, or euthanasia, it is appropriate to have some websites that are pro and some that are anti. As far as I can see, there is no website linked to that is devoted to promoting the mainstream view that Hitler was not a devout, practising Catholic. Nor should there be, since the article is about Hitler, not about his religion. By the way, have we any external links to websites that argue that Hitler was a good man and that his extermination of Jews was a good thing for humanity? I don't think so; nor would I under any circumstances support such an addition. Yet such an addition, while outrageous, would be less peripheral to the topic of Adolf Hitler than a website claiming that he was a devout Catholic. And unlike the Hitler-was-a-Catholic website, it would be balanced by external links that gave the opposite point of view.

I fully endorse the removal of that link, and do not in any way consider that its restoration is required in order to show good faith. AnnH ♫ 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

AnnH (a.k.a MusicalLinguist) and Str1977 both are active in suppressing any information that could cast Christianity in a bad light, so I’m not surprised to see them tag-teaming again to push their POV by censoring the opposing view. Much of my time here so far is just trying to balance such bias. Now, to answer the arguments posed above, which are based on several faulty premises, and thus creates a straw-man fallacy in her argument.

• 1.Claim: AnnH characterizes this links as a “Hitler is a Catholic” site. That is not true. I wonder if she even bothered to read it? What the site does is presents a lot of the historical documentation and evidence that exits, which proves (or supports) the claim that Hitler was a Christian. It talks about Hitler’s particular conception of his Christianity, his “Positive Christianity,” and argues that alleged anti-church quotes are consistent with past Christians who were critical of the elements in the hierarchy and structure of the religion but not of the Christian relgion itself. It’s informative, scholarly, and well documented.

• 2.Claim: A Fringe view? This is not a fringe view or even a minority view. It’s is a common view, often talked about and found in many places. It might be disputed, but as far as I know, I have not read in any reputable academic circles where the case was made against this evidence or argument. In anycase, it should not matter. Its a legitimate real POV and should be allowed to have its voice as a single link for those interested in reviewing the evidence and see the argument. AnnH tries to make this claim that its "fringe," but its clear she doesn't even know what the view is! Thus, by distorting what the website is about, she creates a straw-man that she can then knock down with the “fringe-view” argument. If anything, the real extreme fringe view is the idea that Hitler was not a Christian of any kind. If she finds a site that does a good job at presenting such a POV, I would not try to censor it.

• 3.Claims: relevance-- it is not about Hitler, and therefore not relevant. Not true. It’s all about Hitler with an emphasis on his religious beliefs. It’s a specialty study/focus on Hitler’s religion, that argues the case that he is a Christian by any interpretation of the known facts, including the questionable “Hitler’s table talk quotes.” It fits perfectly here. Ann’s argument would be valid if I tried to insert this link into the Christianity article page, since this is not about Christianity per se, but rather Hitler’s religious beliefs (which happen to be Christian, and an important area of interest and debate). As such it certainly belongs here. Those wanting to know about Hitler want to know his religious beliefs. Giovanni33 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it is pretty clear that AnnH (Musical Linguist) hadn't really studied the website she was opposing linking to, and really didn't know what is on it. She thought that it argued that Hitler was a devout Catholic, when it doesn't say that at all. While its message on the connection between Hitler and Christianity may be obnoxious to a partisan Catholic advocate such as she is, to equate it with hate speech as she does, and Str77 does elsewhere on this page, is an extreme, and completely false comparison. Musical Linguist's opposition to linking to this site is in opposition to Wikipedia guidelines on what sites should be linked to. NPOV as well demands that all viewpoints be presented, and linking to this site is an appropriate way of presenting the viewpoint argued on this site. I ask other editors to help replace this link, www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm each time this self-proclaimed partisan Catholic editor, and her cohorts, remove it. - Drogo Underburrow 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I have not been in a position to give lengthy replies. I am away from home, and have been for the last few days. My hotel room has internet access that comes and goes, and there is no mouse pad, and I can't get the mouse to get a proper grip on any surface. So I will make this brief. "Self-proclaimed partisan Catholic editor and her cohorts" is a rather nasty choice of words — one which I would have hoped you would not stoop to. I openly proclaim my Catholicism on my user page, just as Giovanni openly proclaims his atheism on various talk pages. However, it is clear from my contributions that I am not on Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting my POV. I edit many articles that are completely unconnected. I fix formatting. I do RC patrol. I archive talk pages. Unlike Giovanni, I waited six weeks and nearly 200 edits before I made my first revert (other than a few reverts of vandalism or of deviations from the Manual of Style). Unlike Giovanni, I have sometimes reverted to something that was contrary to what I had voted for, in order to uphold consensus, even against my own wishes. (I can say the same for Str1977.) Unlike Giovanni, I have an edit history which shows an extremely low average number of edits per page — generally considered an indication that an editor is not on Wikipedia with a particular agenda. Unlike Giovanni, I have often stopped at two reverts, even leaving a page in the version I didn't like. Unlike Giovanni, I have never used socks to get my own way, taking extra votes and extra reverts. Unlike Giovanni, I do not have over 90 percent of my contributions promoting a particular agenda. I would say, in fact, that well under half my contributions are in any way connected with Catholicism. Your insinuations and accusations are therefore uncalled for and offensive, considering that you are siding with someone who has broken more rules than any other new editor I have come across, in his determination to get his way.

You say that I had obviously not studied the website. In fact, I had a good look at it when it was first linked to, and I found it highly partisan, and rather shabby scholarship. I fully agree with what Str1977, DJ Clayworth, and Bytwerk have said about it. I am aware that it does not specifically say that Hitler was a Catholic. But it is certainly designed to give the impression that he was a Christian. And my use of "Hitler-was-a-Catholic" was part of a hastily-written post and referred more to what the editor who is pushing this link is constantly arguing on this page and elsewhere than to what was actually on the website. Based on what Giovanni has tried (by fair means and by foul) to do ever since he joined Wikipedia, I have no doubt that his addition of that link is for the purpose of showing the Church in a bad light.

It is rather unfair that you seem to think that my open acknowledgment of my Catholic Faith is a reason not to take seriously my reasons for objecting to a biased, shoddy, inaccurate, mileading website. Believe me, if Giovanni33 were to put an honest userbox on his page, it would have to say, "This user is fully (and joyfully) committed to undermining Christianity on Wikiepedia." His contributions, his revert warring (he likes to use that word about his opponents who have reverted twice, or three times, or even accidentally slipped into a fourth revert, but he reverted four times, six times, five times, eleven times, AFTER being warned that he had already violated the rule, and even if we don't count the combinations of reverts with BelindaGong), his arguments on the talk page, his violations and false claims of consensus all show that he is here for that purpose. In fact, if you are honest, you'd have to agree that he has far more of an agenda than I have, even if he doesn't put it on his user page, as I have not used socks to get double votes and six reverts, nor have I ever continued to revert in full knowledge that I had gone over three in 24 hours. I would ask you to be less hasty in judging people's motives based on their user boxes, and more inclined to judge people from their edit histories. Any article that Giovanni has edited more than three times is connected with his agenda. I have absolutely no POV about Wikipedia, Michael Jackson, Wiki, Anne Frank, George H. W. Bush, Salem witch trials, Anne Frank, Human feces, Constantine I (emperor), Newbie, or Gillian McKeith, which can all be found among the 21 articles I have edited most frequently. AnnH ♫ 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of your most recent post is arguing that you do not have an agenda in your overall Wikipedia actions, and that Gio has one. Both arguments are beside the point. The issue here is whether we link to www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm or not. In this argument, you appear to be a Catholic partisan joining up with other partisans for the purpose of keeping the presentation of a POV that is unflattering to Christianity out of the Hitler article, which is a violation of the NPOV policy. If you put on your user page that you are joyfully obedient to the Pope, then you insist on removing a link to a website that the Pope probably wouldn't like, teaming up with another self-professed Catholic editor, you are going to create an impression of being an editor with an agenda.

I take your objections seriously, by responding to them at length. I feel you are making very bad arguments in support of your case. For one thing, you keep repeating that the website in question is biased. I keep pointing out that bias in an external site is not a reason to not link to it. I keep refering to the Wikipidia guidelines, where it specifically states that external sites may indeed be biased. What makes this website worth linking to, is that it does a good job of presenting its "biased" views. The purpose of linking to it is to make sure those views have a voice in the article; that is what NPOV is all about. Now, an external link is a very modest way of presenting a view. It hardly takes any room, and many people won't even go to external links for various reasons. So to insist that the only link on this issue be removed is a pretty extreme form of censorship. Instead, may I recommend you find a website that has an opposite view, and add it, which is what NPOV is all about? -- Drogo Underburrow 17:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection, and that of most others, I think, is not that the web site in question takes an objectionable view, but that it is a shoddy web site. I've challenged Giovanni33 to come up with single reputable scholar who supports the argument made on nobeliefs. So far, that has not happened. Quality is important. Amassing quotations isn't an argument. As I pointed out elsewhere, one could compile dozens of quotations in which Hitler spoke eloquently of his devotion to peace. A web site that provided those quotations would certainly have a POV, but not one many would think much of. Ditto here. Find a good way to make the point rather than supporting a weak site. Bytwerk 17:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Others on this page have stated just the opposite, that the website was convincing. Whether it is "shoddy" or not is in the eye of the beholder. The fact is, that without this site the argument won't be made at all, so this is the best there is, and belongs. Saying the argument gets no coverage until it comes from a source you approve of is your way of keeping the entire POV from being expressed. We are not talking about huge resources and space here...just one link. Drogo Underburrow 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that I've pointed out why the site is shoddy, and challenged those who like it to find any reputable source that makes the same argument. There are, in fact measures of shoddiness, and this site meets them. If your argument is that it is simply a matter of the beholder, then anything goes on Wikipedia. My point is not that the support has to be from someone I approve of -- it has to be from someone who builds a case that can meet the standard expectations of truthfulness, reliability, etc. So, for about the fifth time, a challenge. Find any reputable scholar who makes the argument. If you can't do that, guess what, it's a shoddy site. Bytwerk 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

More on Hitler and Christianity

OK, here's another attempt to clarify the matter. First, the site "nobeliefs" is not a particularly good site. It is not "scholarly" because it has lots of quotations and pictures. In many cases, those its are presented stripped of context. Givanni33's comment above to the contrary, the site hardly represents scholarly consensus on the matter. I speak with some experience on the matter, having published rather widely on the Nazis. That being said, there is good scholarly literature on the topic of the relationship of Nazism. Hitler, and Christianity. An excellent example is Richard Steigmann-Gall, "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945," (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). A good review of that book is available here: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=55161057430311 So I suggest that rather than arguing about a dubious site, the link on the topic be to the review above, which will lead those interested to a good treatment of the subject. Bytwerk 02:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I favor this book review to be added but do not favor removal of this site, which is not dubious at all, and almost strictly provides Hitler's own words, from his many speeches and writings. They are not taken out of context so as to be misleading. The site offers vaulable information in a comprehensive and overall way for those interested in the subject. The book is good for a more detailed look at the issue, but requires the purchase of the book. The site gives more information and is free. Giovanni33 02:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, they are taken out of context, and they are misleading. I challenge you to name a reputable historian who would make the case as strongly as that site does. I'm not disputing Christian influences on Nazism. However, to print a picture of Hitler against the background of a church, for example, and claim that that is evidence of Hitler's Christianity is simply silly. Hitler claimed he was in favor of peace hundreds of times. I do not think many would argue that those statements should outweigh his actions. In the same way, most Germans were at least nominally Christian. For Hitler to attack Christianity too vehemently would have been bad politics. Bytwerk 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So since you personally disagree with the views expressed on the nobeliefs site, and think that the arguments on it are misleading, that means you get to decide for everybody, censoring the site? No wikipedia reader gets to see it, cause Bytwerk has decided what is right and wrong. Drogo Underburrow 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The mistake you are making is that ths doesnt have to be an even handed treatement of the subject in the way an article does. It can make the case in stronger terms, it can push a POV, as long as that POV is accurately described. That is why the site is good becaues it does the best job of pushing for this POV. Here is another site that is also good: http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/p/NaziChristian.htm If you are making the claim that the quotes are taken out of context, you have the burden to show exactly how, and which quote is taken out of context and misleading. I dispute that claim. Your POV, as stated above, is a POV, and I disagree with it. The case is made against your POV that Hitler was just pretending to be a Christian because to do otherwise would be bad politics on this site, and the evidence it provides makes a strong case, I think, for this possition. The use of the Chuch picture is not its argument or evidence per se, only one that fits in the the theme, although it is an accurate picture and does say something that so many Nazi State activities wrapped itself around Christian symbols. The evidence for its claims, though, on based on the totality of the evidence prestented, not simply one picture. When you consider the whole picture (all the evidence) its not misleading at all. Giovanni33 02:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A bad case does not improve because it is made strongly. I repeat my challenge above: Find a reputable historian who agrees with the case the site makes. And I gave an example of something on the site taken out of context -- the picture of Hitler in Nuremberg against the backdrop of a church. Bytwerk 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You have not established that this site does a bad job presenting this particular POV, only that you don't agree with it. But you have failed to support your claim. You only protest the pictures of Hitler with the Church but you don't say how or why that is out of context or misleading. I don't think its misleading at all. That is a Nazi propaganda poster that says "God is with us." That was a common slogan of the Nazis, and the same can be seen on the Nazi uniforms, on the belt buckles. The photo, btw, can be found at the US Holocaust Museum and is of Hitler rallying his Nazi supporters in front of the Church of our Lady in Nuremberg, circa 1928, photographed by Heinrich Hoffmann. If anything the photo is misleading because it doesn't show all that. But it is not misleading to show that Hitler's affinity with the Church. Infact, even Nazi's cointed had engravings of Catholic Churches. The one I'm thinking of depicted the Pottsdam Catholic Church that was stamped on Nazi Coins, that looks almost identical to this photo. To accurately show the depictions Hitler's regime used in connection to religion, photos included, is precisely in context. So, I don't know what your argument is.

As far as citing a historian that advances the argument, this is not necessary for the argument, but not hard to do. Notable Hitler biographer John Toland wrote of Hitler's religion clearly: "Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god..." Also, Guenter Lewy, author of "The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany" comes to mind, and quotes Hitler as saying that he "... regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of our national life." Lastly, there is historian John Cornwell (writer), in Hitler's Pope. But, all this is besides the point. I can find plenty of websites that all echo this particular POV, so it's a POV that is real and widespread, and warrents a link here, esp. one like this one that pulls together almost all the known quotes and references that supports it, along with a scholarly discussion of sources--the best on the web.Giovanni33 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for a picture of that Church nazi coin, and guess where I found it? The site you want to take down. They have two sectiosn full of photos. This page shows the Church and State fushion. Nazi Germany can be said to have been a Christian State infact, by this evidence: http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm This proves that the one picture is not taken out of context but is part of the larger and consistent context of the State placing itself in the context of the Church due to its own religious affiliations and bent. Giovanni33 06:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

While I have not read the book you cited, I did read the review you linked to. That review would be inappropriate for the Hitler page to link to, as its not about Hitler, but about religion and the Nazi party in general. The "nobelief"'s site is still the best site I have seen for making the case that Hitler was influenced by Christianity. No professor of history has taken the time to construct a scholarly rigorous webpage on this topic. Does that mean we should not present the viewpoint at all? That is the practical effect of you are saying. If we do not link to the "nobeliefs" site, flawed as it may be, it means that the viewpoint in question will not have any advocate at all, which is precisely what the partisan Catholic advocates here want. This site is the best there is on promoting its view. I'm asking all editors to fight censorship and replace this site each time its deleted. Drogo Underburrow 04:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just been looking at this linked site. It has many, many problems with neutrality. For a start it seems to try to take as proof of Hitler's Christianity any form of quote in which in religious connotated word appears. Here is an example: "Thus my faith grew that my beautiful dream for the future would become reality after all, even though this might require long years.". Anybody of any religious (or non-religious) belief could make that quote, or most of the quotes on the same page. The fact that they try to use this as evidence makes me doubt even more the quality and sincerity of this site's research. DJ Clayworth 17:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, let’s take a look at two of the sources Giovanni33 cites. We’ll start with John Cornwell’s “Hitler’s Pope.” Gionvanni33 cites a passage in which Cornwell quote Hitler. Now let’s quote Cornwell: “Hitler, in fact, had two views on the churches — public and private. In February of 1933 he was to declare in the Reichstag that the churches were to be an integral part of German national life. Privately, the following month, he vowed to completely ‘eradicate” Christianity from Germany. ‘You are either a Christian or a German,” he said. “You cannot be both.’” (pp. 105-106). Or how about Toland? Giovanni33 cites one passage in which Toland claims he was “a member of the church in good standing.” It doesn’t say Hitler believed in it, or was in any way motivated by Christianity — which, in fact, Hitler’s private statements clearly refute. So what is being done here is to put a touching confidence in Hitler’s public statements. He wouldn’t have lied, would he? There isn’t anything else in Toland I can think of to support the point,. I don’t have a copy of Levy handy, but again Giovanni33 doesn’t cite Levy, rather Levy’s quotation of one of Hitler’s public statements. So I repeat my request: please provide an argument from a reputable historian who agrees with the case made on the web site in question. It hasn’t been done so far. In fact, the Cornwell book strongly supports the opposite point.

Meanwhile, the picture I cite has Hitler standing with a church as a backdrop. Let us assume for the sake of argument I had a picture of Giovanni33 standing in front of a mosque. It rather doubt that he would take that as evidence that he should begin attending Friday prayers.

Quite simply, no one with scholarly standing is likely to look at the site in question and say: “This is a good site that builds a well-supported argument.” Bytwerk 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture of Hitler posing in front of the Church is what it is---an attempt by Hitler and his regime to use symbols of Christianity, to merge itself with the Christian Church (infact the Nazi party was founded in a Church--the reason why the Chuch is stamped on the Nazi coin mentioned earlier), so this is valid as one part of the many pieces that all fit together to paint a picture. If that picture is convincing or not is another question but the picture is, as reported, not misleading. Its historical and accurate. What you are doing is removing the picture from the context and that is why your analogy fails. I'm not Hitler. But, If I were, and I brought my army pose in front of the Church on purpose and used the slogan "God is with us!" that would be fair evidence, to make of what you will. You act almost as if it was just by happenstance that someone happened to take a picture of Hitler standing in front a Church, and by that reason alone, drew a conclusion of his religion. Nonsense. This is not what the site does, nor what anyone argues. That would indeed be silly. What the site does is compiles a lot of evidence, and presents it for the reader to make up their own mind. The evidence is the totality, which helps to inform the reader of the very real role of Christanity in the Nazi state, and of Hitler's use of it. Let the evidence be seen. That is all I ask. You want to censor the evidence, but even your arguments that it's misleading does not stand. You simply disagre with the conclusion. But that is not reason to impose your POV by silencing this POV.

About other scholars, how about historian Konrad Heiden? He write: "It was at this time [1922] that [Hitler] began to believe in his own God-given mission. It was no accident that—in his own words—he 'learned from the Bible with boundless love how our Lord and Savior seized his whip,' and marched on Jerusalem. Was not he himself armed with a heavy crocodile whip, marching through the streets of his beloved Munich, which he sometimes called the 'Mecca' of National Socialism? A short time previous, it is true, he had admitted in a chastened mood to his friend Georg Schott: 'All of us are nothing but little Saint Johns. I am waiting for a Christ.' But the period of modesty was drawing to a close. Were not all the signs by which Heaven customarily announces its prophets being fulfilled in him? The fanatical faith of the disciples, the rejoicing of the masses, the hostility or contempt of those in high places—and now wasn't he going through a sort of Golgotha? His Golgotha, to be sure, was nothing more impressive than the month in prison which he wished so fervently to avoid; but before going in, he took leave of his people with the words: 'Two thousand years ago the mob of Jerusalem dragged a man to execution in just this way.'Der Fuehrer, p. 280] And, "A metaphysical line runs through [Mein Kampf], not always easy to find amid all the vulgar vilification and barren, long-winded meditations; here a man seeks for God and discovers himself. This is exactly what happened to Soloviev's Antichrist; he too, like Hitler, had written in his thirty-third year, a book in which he claimed to be the Savior. [Der Fuehrer, p. 281].Giovanni33 03:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this could go on forever, but Giovanni33 still has not provided a single reputable scholar who makes the argument of the site in question. Instead, he his doing exactly what that dubious site does: provide a variety of out-of context (or downright wrong – e.g. his Cornwell example, where the book he cites supports the opposite point). Yes, the Nazis did use the symbols of Christianity. In fact, I’ve written a book that makes exactly that point. But then, Giovanni33 claims that the party wanted to merge with the church. There is no evidence for that at all, the very opposite. The Nazis were assuming Christian symbols not to merge with the church, but to supplant it. As one Nazi writer claimed, Christianity had taken over the symbols of old religions and filling them with new content. Gradually, pagans became Christians, the writer argued. There is a large literature on the Nazi use of Christian symbols, but the scholarly argument is not that the Nazis were trying to merge with the church, but rather replace it with their own political religion.

By the way, how about supporting the claim that the Nazi party was founded in a church? That’s simply not true.

But let’s look at Heiden. Heiden picks up on the religious language Hitler used. No doubt about it, Hitler used a lot. But Heiden never says that Hitler believed any of it. In fact, he quotes Hitler as calling Munich the “Mecca” of the movement. Is Hitler now Islamic? And Heiden is citing Hitler’s public statements, which no one denies. Heiden, by the way, is a valuable contemporary account, but he wasn’t a scholar, nor did he have access to the vast amount of material that since has come to light on Hitler. So let me repeat the challenge. How about looking at, say the best biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw’s two-volume effort, and trying to find some evidence there?

And finally, Giovanni33’s charge is that those who don’t like the dubious site are trying to censor it. Simply untrue. If he can find a site that makes the argument that upholds reasonable scholarly standards, I’ll happily support it. But if one of my students were to support a paper using that site, the student would not do well. I’m interested in the quality of sources on Wikipedia, since lots of students use it. I’d like to see them find good and reliable sources on Wikipedia, not weak ones. Bytwerk 11:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Present the evidence

Fellow Wikipedians: Once again we seem to be falling into the trap of trying to reach a conclusion instead of presenting the evidence. In other words, we are fighting over whether we should write "Hitler was a Christian" or "Hitler was not a Christian", when what we should be doing is presenting the incontrovertible facts and allowing the user to make up their mind. We have a certain number of facts (Hitler was brought up Catholic, proclaimed his Christianity in later life but didn't practise Catholicism). Let's just use those. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Spot on.--shtove 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let the reader decide. And keep the link to the nobeliefs site, so the reader can decide on that evidence, too. Drogo Underburrow 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, as well. We should stick to stating the established historical facts, ie. that Hitler was baptized a Roman Catholic and confirmed (at age 15), never formally or publicly left the Catholic Church, and continued to profess his Christianity and Catholicism his whole life. However, in later in life stopped attending mass, and was in this way at least not a practicing Catholic. I think the text as it stands now gives a good job as presenting the facts. The link should be allowed so readers can look at the argument and evidence for themselves. Giovanni33 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree about the site. The site is horrible, and we must be able to find a better one that says the same thing. It presents wildly unsubstantiated allegations. Some of the evidence it uses to 'support' its view of Hitler's Christianity are about the equivalent of saying that George W Bush is a communist because he once drank vodka! DJ Clayworth 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a better one to replace it with, one that makes the same argument, then replacing it would be great. What I object to strongly is replacing it with nothing, or with something that doesn't do a better job of making the SAME argument. The real issue here, in my opinion, is that people opposed to this site, oppose it for what it says, not how it says it. I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that people are objecting to the quality of the site. If that was their concern, they would find a better site, not simply delete this one. I suspect that someone will now replace it with a site that makes an entirely different argument, and claim its the same one. I see no evidence of good faith in this dispute. I see Christians who don't like the message looking for reasons to oppose this site. Drogo Underburrow 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If there was a better site that presented the same arguments I would be happy to make a link to it. However since this is the best site we've found that makes the case, doesn't it call the whole of its case into question? I can find a whole lot of lousy sites claiming that aliens have taken over the White House, but I don't include them in the White House article because 'they are the best sites we have that talk about the theory'. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way I would have no problem with linking to the book review that User:Bytwerk cites above. DJ Clayworth 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I do; the review doesn't mention Hitler. But I ordered the book, and plan on putting what it says about Hitler, into the Hitler article; and I expect User:Bytwerk to back me up if other editors try to remove what the book says. Drogo Underburrow 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. So you have no idea what the book actually says, haven't read it, have no idea what sources are used, but you are so convinced of the book's veracity you have already made up your mind what it says and how you will use it to push your POV in this article? Did I just read that right?Michael Dorosh 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Mother's faith

Str77 removed Adolf's mother was a devout Catholic and raised her children in the faith. from the article, adding an edit note "(let's focus on him and not on others (also, "devout" is overused anyway))"

First of all, lets avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over content. Instead, place such comments, if required, here on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.

As to the objection itself, you deleted the material because it is about Hitler's mother?? In the childhood section of a biographical article? That is absurd. Besides which, the sentence is there in reference to Hitler. Explaining that his mother was a devout Catholic, gives the reader a sense for what sort of household Hitler was raised in. Drogo Underburrow 18:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday Herr Hitler!

To the Wikipedia Thought Police: you have not converted a man because you have silenced him.