Talk:Adolf Hitler

Template:Controversial (history)

Edit request on 20 June 2012

Wish to add something: date of death 1st May 1945, confusing my students. additional wish to add something on the following topics: additional nazi swastika symbol copied from Hindu swastika symbol Mohamedaddeen (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Multiple sources place his suicide on 30 April. The origins of the swastika, discussed at Swastika, are beyond the scope of this article. Rivertorch (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Aryan supremacy

I don't know why this revert was un-reverted for discussion, but no discussion initiated. Either "Aryan supremacy" is the same as "anti-Semitism" (Aryan = non-Semite) or it is being confused with Nordicism, which was certainly a factor in Nazi ideology, but not a programme as such. In fact, in practice this is is better described as "Germans are better than everyone else" - or German nationalism/supremacy - which is already listed. "Aryan supremacy" is far too vague and ambivalent. Paul B (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Kierzek (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. -- Dianna (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the late explanation for reverting my own edit — I've got sidetracked by analog activities. I've been asked about why I reverted Aryan supremacy, and wanted to open this for discussion here, and now got beat to it. I too agree with Paul's assessment and his re-revert. I do not recall Hitler using the term and it certainly is not on par for pulling votes like maligning the Versailles Treaty and invoking Bolshevik conspiracies. Malljaja (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Birth certificate vs. baptismal certificate

This phrase, "Alois's birth certificate did not name the father" should really read, "Alois's baptismal certificate did not name the father". "Birth certificates" did not exist at that time. One could argue that baptismal certificates are equivalent to birth certificates, but they are not really the same thing, and this sentence is needlessly imprecise. MonteGargano (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've change "birth certificate" to "baptismal register"; this is according to the wording of the sources I have. Malljaja (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Advisory

'This article is frequently vandalized, which is reverted immediately. If you wish to try test editing, please go to the sandbox located at Wikipedia:Sandbox.'

What' the point in having the 'test editing' section when there is clearly no 'test editing' intended whatsoever?!

DAFMM (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler and German nationalism

When it talks in the childhood and education bit and states "Hitler became obsessed with German nationalism from a young age" would it not be better to describe that many German Austrians felt the same or people living along the Austro-German border?

"The area where Hitler grew up lay along the German border, where many Austrians considered themselves to be German-Austrians and expressed loyalty to the German imperial house." - Source

So wouldn't "Hitler, like many Austrians living along the Austro-German border considered themselves German Austrians and began to develop his German nationalist ideas from a young age" come across as better?

Whilst adding the picture of the ethnic groups in the Austria-Hungary Empire to show how many ethnic German people lived in Austria and all along the Austro-German border to make it more clear to people reading the article?

There should be something mentioned about him being Austrian in with the collaboration of his German nationalist views, since he wasn't the only Austrian who believed in a Greater Germany and was a Pan-German in his day.--GermanicSnake (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unable to review the quoted source as Google won't let me access it. The source you are quoting is a self-published book, and therefore is not suitable for use in this article. The source used in the article (Evans 2003) says that Hitler was strongly influenced by Georg Ritter von Schönerer, whose supporters were particularly numerous in Linz, and by the music of Wagner, with its Germanic myths and legends. -- Dianna (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

GS, we've been over this Austro-German story before — my suggestion is to let it be. Malljaja (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, there is many sourced cited books that say that the German Austrians considered themselves Germans first back then and were German nationalists (not just books but many citable sources too, it should make the Austrian-German relation more noticeable as anyone can claim to be a German nationalist.

There is a difference between Germanic and German as well!

Malljaja some people since 1945 want to deny Austrians are ethnically German and the "first victim" myth and all others are rubbish.

German Austrians is more better suited, before it used to be something along "Hitler, like many Austrian Germans considered themselves Germans etc etc" - why was that even removed?

It is certainly better than what is shown now.--GermanicSnake (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The content was removed because it doesn't tell us anything revealing about Hitler; and because the claim that Austrians think of themselves as Germans is not backed up by reliable sources. What is better for the article is a matter for consensus to decide, and my opinion is that the material does not belong in the article. -- Dianna (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about then not now. It is true to say that the vast majority of Austrians these days do not see or consider themselves Germans (despite still of course being ethnically German) but back in Hitler's day the vast majority of German-Austrians that were born in Austria-Hungary still did consider themselves Germans regardless whether they were born German citizens or not. There is many reliable sources that can back up the "Austrian national identity" the de.wikipedia.org "Austrian identity" confirms this and makes it clear that until 1945 (roughly) Austrians seen themselves as Germans and then after the war distanced themselves from the German nation and the German identity.

Yes it does tell you about Hitler as he himself was a German Austrian born on the Austro-German border, it tells you his citizenship and ethnicity combined together and 'why' he became a German nationalist because it was rife in Austria at that time as they wanted to all be part of Germany and strived for a Greater Germany.

Why do you think in 1918 the name was the Republic of German-Austria and the Anschluss was welcomed by the Austrians?

Of course people like yourself might be the traditional enemy of the truth and deny Austrians being Germans but this is backed up, in fact until 1866 Austria was part of Germany and its only because of a historical unfortunate event (German war) that Austria never unified Germany but Prussia.

If the Austrians won the German war in 1866 would you question their Germanness?

Anyone can become a German nationalist, the Austrian roots makes it more notable for readers to see why he was one even though he was not born a German citizen.

I am not trying to say in it "Austrians are Germans" but to say "Hitler, like many German-Austrians" is more accurate, and it claims from a very young age but really he didn't pick up his patriotic German nationalist beliefs until after he served in the army (this is also what it states in his military career page of Wiki).--GermanicSnake (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, this information is non-notable and not backed up by reliable sources. Frankly, your insistence on including such minutiae is very tiresome. Consider dropping it, because it's got you into hot water before. Malljaja (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me what you consider a "reliable source" - there is many sites and books citing what I've said as well as historical evidence, nice deflecting what I've said though. :)--GermanicSnake (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The content guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Books should be scholarly works from reputable publishing houses. Peer-reviewed journal articles are good. News sources should be from publishers known for a high level of fact-checking (New York Times, Times of London, Wall Street Journal, for example) but we should not source to opinion pieces or editorials. Websites are mostly not ok; the only ones I would consider adequate for Good Articles on WWII are Yad Vashem and USHMM. Blogs are out, as are self-published websites and books. There's a notice board at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where editors can get an opinion on the reliability of any source. Regardless of your sources, my opinion is that we don't have room for a discussion of pan-Germanism here in the Hitler article. It's off-topic, and should not be added to the article. -- Dianna (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of reputable sourced books available about the German nationalist in Austria by the German Austrians, news sources you actually consider reliable any journalist can type them up and why should a Holocaust site be considered anymore reliable than others (Yad Vashem)?

You also deflected my question regarding the question about the German war and the German question, also the two Anschluss (one failed, one successful) - it states from a young age but on Hitler's military career wiki site it says after he served in the army, stating he was German Austrian or an Austrian German makes it a lot more easier to understand why he WAS a German nationalist and not an "Austrian" nationalist.--GermanicSnake (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Religious Views

There is a picture of Hitler meeting Haj Amin al-Husseini who is identified in the caption as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The picture is dated 1941. According to Wikipedia itself, Haj Amin al-Husseini was only Grand Mufti of Jerusalem till 1937. This is a serious error that gives the impression that somehow Hitler and Muslims were aligned or working in concert. Al-Husseini was traveling Europe on his own agenda, not representing any Muslim nation. Out of thousands of pictures of Hitler, why is the particular picture with the false caption on display in Wikipedia? It very well can be taken as an attempt to smear Muslims, and should be taken down.

Samwayfare (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What you need to do if you wish the image to be removed is nominate it for deletion. The photo is not hosted here on English Wikipedia, but on the Commons. Here is a link to two versions of the file: File:Haj Amin al-Husseini meeting with Adolf Hitler.jpg, and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1987-004-09A, Amin al Husseini und Adolf Hitler.jpg. I have amended the caption of the first photo to show he was former Mufti of Jerusalem at the time of the meeting. I did not edit the caption of the second photo, as it is a translation of the original caption from the Deutsches Bundesarchiv, who donated the photo to the Commons, and the captions should not be changed on that particular set of photos. For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme. -- Dianna (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is two politicians meeting. It has nothing to do with Hitler's religious views. Britmax (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. I did not realise we still had the picture here in the article. Does anyone else besides Samwayfare think the picture should be removed from this article, or moved to a different section perhaps? -- Dianna (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Brimax, that this picture merely documents a meeting between Hitler and al-Husseini. It does not in any way suggest that the two men had a shared agenda or were "working in concert" nor that al-Husseini was representing a Muslim nation. So I don't see why it needs to be removed or even moved within the article. Malljaja (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be removed on the basis that the subject of the photograph is not mentioned in the article. Pics should not be merely decorative; they should illustrate the content. I have removed this pic in the past on that basis, but someone has put it back. -- Dianna (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the meeting had nothing to do with Hitler's religious views so it should not be there. A little history as to their meeting: Haj Amin al-Husseini opposed the British controlling Egypt and Palestine. He actively collaborated with Germany and Italy, meeting Adolf Hitler and asking him to back Arab independence. Hitler promised him the leadership of the Arabs after the British were driven out of the middle-east. Later, he helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS; specifically a Bosnian Muslim division; the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar. Since the guy is not mentioned in the article, I am neutral on his inclusion; but the photo should be moved, at least. Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In light of the above two comments, I agree that removing or moving the image may indeed be in order. I do not have strong feelings about this either way though. Malljaja (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the caption. I strongly feel the purpose of the picture is to simply malign Muslims. Wiki is used to describe major milestones in a summarized article. This was an insignificant meeting, a detail in Hitler's life that does not belong in Wiki. As others noted, Husseini is not even mentioned in the article. I feel someone's intent was to associate Muslims with Hitler by showing a person easily identified as Muslim by his clothes and head dress. The false caption identifying him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem only added to this smear. The picture should be removed as it is not relevant to the article or major milestones in Hitler's life. Samwayfare (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible to say what the motive of the editor who chose the picture may have been (I've no idea who that was and see no reason to scour the archive seeking him/her out). It may well have been simply to have some sort of relevant image for that section. Hitler did praise Islam, as he saw it as a martial religion, unlike Christianity. The article does note this, and there is more detail in the Religious views of Adolf Hitler article. I'm in two minds about it myself. I think it's as good a picture as any to have. As this is the article on Hitler himself, any image really should be directly about him rather than Nazi ideology in general. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was homosexual

New studies are showing that Adolf Hilter may in fact have been a homosexual. His interest in the Hitler Youth is a sign of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuteness93 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This information should be added when you find a supporting link, of which there are many across the webverse124.176.222.19 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)