Talk:Adolf Hitler

Article beginning has wrong publication date for Mein Kampf

Second paragraph says it was released 1924. It was released 1925-26. I can't edit article to fix this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinvention (talk • contribs) 08:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please share your source for this new date with us, and the article may be adjusted accordingly. Britmax (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The article says the book was released in 1925 and 1926. The lead was poorly worded - Hitler was released from prison in 1924, not the book released in 1924, so I've added a few words to make it clearer. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

James H. Meredith (1999). Understanding the Literature of World War II: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 75–. ISBN 978-0-313-30417-0. Volume 1 of Mein Kampf was published in 1925 and Volume 2 in 1926.

Oh, the article is locked. What a surprise. :) 77.69.34.203 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

German politician?

It seems unnecessary to start the article with "German politician". I'd like to remove those two words. This would make the article start with "...was the leader of the..." Any objections? Andrew³²⁷ 15:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hitler spent 14 years attempting to achieve power before he became chancellor and then the dictator of Nazi Germany. Leaving out "politician" essentially makes those years unaccounted for. Granted, "politician" is perhaps too conventional a word to describe someone like Hitler. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and add "political agitator" to the description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not follow Joseph Stalin's lead and use the phrase "was a German revolutionary and..."? Hitler did attempt to lead a revolution against the German government? Just my two cents because "agitator" suggests that he was largely alone or unpopular in his actions, which sadly he was not.--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

A good point. I've added "revolutionary" (rather than replacing "political agitator" with it), because after the Beer Hall Putsch and the time he spent in prison, Hitler decided that the Nazis would forgo taking power through violent overthrow and would do so by legal means, but they didn't stop political agitation., using the SA to create social chaos which people then reacted against, incorrectly ascribing it to the communists.

BTW, I'm well aware that these are BOLD edits, so I'm prepared for potential reversion and discussion, all I ask is that editors give the changes serious consideration, and perhaps come up with other options for the rather bland, understated and not-quite-on-the-nose "politician". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

He spent most of his political career prior to the takeover as the leader of the Nazi party. I think "politician" and "revolutionary" are superfluous. The best thing, I think, is to look at how RS -- especially his main biographers -- describe him in their ledes. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Because they are -- unlike Wikipedia articles -- books and not encyclopedia entries, biographies rarely start off with a straight-forward statement such as "Rudy Gorgonzola was a record-holding mountaineer and composer of music for the banjo," so I'm not sure how useful that advice would be. Kershaw, for instance, begins "The first of many strokes of good fortune for Adolf Hitler took place thirteen years before he was born"; Fest with "All through his life he made the strongest efforts to conceal as well as to glorify his own personality"; and Bullock with "Adolf Hitler was born at half past six on the evening of 20 April 1889, in the Gasthof zum Pommer, an inn in the small town of Braunau on the River Inn which forms the frontier between Austra and Bavaria." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You make a good point. Maybe I was thinking of the back covers more than the opening pages. I agree with your earlier assessment that "politician" (although accurate) seems way too conventional a term for the lede. He also, of course, was a revolutionary, though a case could be made that Lenin and other Communist leaders are more "deserving" of the term because they were explicit about seeking to wipe out the status quo whereas Hitler harped more on "restoring" Germany. Look back at the talk archives for guidance; the lead sentence has been discussed extensively through the years. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "revolutionary" seems to fit more easily on the Communists than on Hitler, but, in fact, he and the Nazis did talk pretty consistently about the "National Socialist revolution" they desired, and then after Hitler came to power, the SA agitated for a "second revolution", which, of course, was one of the reasons that the SA leadership was wiped out in the Night of the Long Knives. Although you're right that Hitler talked quite a bit about restoring Germany's greatness, he wasn't essentially looking for a literal return to some previously existing socio-political order, but wanted to create an entirely new one from the "best" elements of the past combined with entirely new and very modern "scientific" elements. His desire to create that unique mixture makes him a true revolutionary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I am agreeable to the present wording and believe it describes him over the course of time. Kierzek (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like consensus might already be against me on this one, but I think we should not use that word without a source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa you raise a good point, it should be RS cited and if one cannot be found, I would be agreeable to it being changed accordingly. I don't have time to look right now. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa:, I'm reasonably certain I can come up with a source for either "revolutionary" or "political agitator". Which one concerned you, or was it both? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Both, since both are in use in the article! Thanks BMK. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at it later today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added sources, but I'm not entirely satisfied with them, so I'm going to continue to do some research. I've also ordered Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary? to see what conclusions the author comes to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The word ya'all are looking for his "demagogue." Political agitator? Tell it to the Six Million. 76.14.112.104 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be a good word to use instead of "political agitator", if you have a source. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See the quote on my my user page. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

First saw this when it was posted, and totally support its use. Glad to see colleagues reactions too. Can we not use Kershaw's quote? Seems a a start. Demagogue is perfect. Irondome (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Demagogue is perfect. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I personally prefer the word "demagogue" to "political agitator". Political agitator just strikes me as someone who isn't really all that relevant...an outsider who just makes a fuss over things without actually ever wielding power. A demagogue is a much better description of Hitler, especially when we take into account that his oratory skills were vital in his ability to seize control of Germany in time.--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

was Hitler a political revolutionary--yes but Schoenbaum focuses on a different issue--whether NSDAP caused a a social revolution)) Martyn Housden (2002). Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary?. Routledge. pp. 2–3 has much deeper coverage --see pp2-4 at https://books.google.com/books?id=HPKFAgAAQBAJ Rjensen (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should switch "political agitator" to "demagogue" using Kershaw as the source. Since the amendment has 5 supports so far, I am going to change it right now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to object - if anyone was a demagogue, Hitler surely was -- but I will provide my thinking on it, just for the record.

It may seem odd to say about a man who perhaps more closely approached pure evil than anyone in modern history (with Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot close behind him), but I didn't want to use "demagogue" in the lede sentence because it is, essentially, a value judgement, whereas "revolutionary", "political agitator" and "politician" are all fairly straight-forward descriptions of what he did. I would not have objected to using "demagogue" later in the lede, even combined with something on the order of "According to so-and-so, Hitler was the most evil man to rise to lead a major country in the 20th century" (or whatever equivalent of that can be found). I don't mind value judgments such as that near the end (or at the end) of the lede, but I think to have them in the opening sentence is less encyclopedic and more tabloidish than is ideal.

Of course, given the consensus here, I'm not going to change anything, I just wanted to say why I didn't jump on the "demagogue" bandwagon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I fully take your point BMK, however it could be said that the term "demagogue" is actually rather restrained. Rjensen (talk)'s link refers to Hitler as a "revolutionary". However there is at least one account of a deeper, almost messianic pseudo-religious conversion experience in the text given, where an individual recounts attending a meeting This can be confirmed in countless sources which could be cited. The sense of a German messiah, a spiritual awakening in the German Volk, a return to pre-Judeo-Christian values, a blood and soil tribalism, a pagan worldview implanted on one of the most industrialised and advanced peoples on the planet. This is disturbing and creepy stuff. Yet countless contemporary and post-war sources would validate it. Hitler was beyond a demagogue. He was the high priest of the fetid 19th century philosophical racial pseudo-science which reached its culmination in the works of Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He was more of a shamen, who in his speeches visited other realms and returned with his revelations. Was Hitler a revolutionary? Yes. The 13 years of the Third Reich saw greatly enhanced social mobility, primarily through the aegis of the Nazi Party, saw unprecedented state control and utilisation of national resources, and a complete upheaval of traditional structures such as the judiciary, the control of the family in nurturing youth and a complete re-ordering of a society purely based on a evil and illogical concept of "race". I would say the use of the term demagogue is frankly, rather tame. Irondome (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

{ec} Yes, I completely agree with your analysis. As I said, I think the addition of "demagogue" to the lede is an improvement, I just wouldn't have put it in the lede sentence, but the editorial consensus to do so is one I can certainly live with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing short of calling Hitler pure evil will ultimately do from a moral perspective...but Wikipedia is about enlightening people and providing them with information. I think that at the beginning of the lead, calling him a "German revolutionary" and "politician" are both acceptable phrases to use in the opening sentences as they are both verifiable accurate statements that have no moral qualifications attributed to them, and if a consensus exists to also add in the phrase "demagogue", then I say we make that change. In order to strike a balance between explaining what Hitler literally was and what Hitler did in the context of human decency and morality, I support the proposition that we add in some value-based statements later on in the lead, such as the numerous references by writers and historians throughout the 20th and 21st centuries who described Hitler and his actions/views as "evil". I think there's a mention to that phrase later on in the article itself actually. If we can take that and also add a variation of it to the lead, I think we may solve the problem of what to call him in the opening paragraphs.--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

I would agree with that approach entirely. Maybe a new section, even a new article even. But it's a tough issue, on many levels. Irondome (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have an article dealing with Morality and Nazism? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to make one final bid for a stripped-down lede sentence, mainly because I have a hard-to-articulate (though I'll give it a shot) aversion to labeling Hitler a "revolutionary" so high up in the article. What's wrong with simply "Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ]; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was the leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Führer ("Leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945"? My problem with "revolutionary" is not based on a lack of RS; clearly it's an accurate term for Hitler. I feel, however, that over the years the word has become more identified with positive traits (innovation, ground-breaking, pioneering, etc.), and I'd like to do everything within reason to distance Hitler from those connotations. Later on, the article goes into detail about the literally earth-shattering impact of his ideas and policies -- and that's fine, because it contextualizes them. Bottom line, there's no WP policy preventing us from calling Hitler a revolutionary in the lede. But does that mean we should do it? Scaleshombre (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That is a good point, but keep in mind that Stalin's article also calls him a revolutionary in the lead, and his regime is usually linked to Hitler's as among the most brutal and evil forms of tyranny to ever take root on this earth. Stalin is routinely listed alongside Hitler as one of the most important, yet also evil, met in history. Calling Stalin a "revolutionary" in the traditional sense is also an accurate statement as he participated in the revolution which brought down the Russian Empire. Likewise, calling Hitler a "revolutionary" is also an accurate statement as he tried to lead one against the Wiemar Republic, before ultimately working to seize power at the ballot box. Even then, the Nazi Party routinely referred to the "National Socialist Revolution" as a thing that happened, and within the party there were calls for a "second revolution" against the non-communist elements of German society after the Nazis took over. From a purely historical analysis, I think it's an accurate statement that Hitler was a revolutionary...not in an idealistic sense, but rather from the perspective that he sought to overthrow the previous order in Germany and replace it wit his own, and he resorted so several means in order to achieve that end.--White Shadows ^{New and improved!}

If you read the "Legacy" section, you will see that the moral aspect of both Hitler and the Nazi regime are dealt with; for example: "Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral". And while I agree personally that he was "evil", we do have to present it according to the RS sources and in a non-passionate way. And I must note that User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris quote from Kershaw on his user page is an excellent perspective of Hitler and Germany. In addition, I don't believe the lede sentence should be "stripped down", it gives a summary of the man to the general reader and frankly is the part that shows up on Google search. Further, as some of you will remember, the lede was worked on and worked on and reached by consensus, with even a part going to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. The recent added words of description are appropriate and RS cited. Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The word "revolutionary" has a lot of connotations both positive and negative and I am therefore not in favor of its inclusion. As the current consensus appears to be to leave it in, I have re-ordered the three descriptors, putting "politician" first and "revolutionary" last. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe the re-order of words is better to convey the importance of each; and as far as including the word "revolutionary", I believe it should be included, but with that said, if consensus changes given the connotations of the word that can be drawn, I will not object to its removal. Kierzek (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note that I have received the Housden book, Hitler: Study of a Revolutionary?, and have replaced the citation to pages 2-3 (where Housden states the scope of his study, without providing any conclusion) with a cite to pages 184-197, in which Housden firmly concludes from the evidence of the rest of the book that Hitler was, indeed, a revolutionary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"NSDAP" vs. "Nazi Party"

The vast majority of people, including our readers, have almost certainly never heard of the "National Socialist German Workers Party" or its initials in German, "NSDAP". This is why our article on the organization is under the name that most people know it by, the Nazi Party. We are not -- or should not be -- in the business of whitewashing Nazis by referring to their party by a name no one knows it by. In writing articles, it's certainly fine to alternate between "Nazis" and "National Socialists" or other equivalents, that's simply good writing to prevent endless repetition, but in listing information in the infobox, which is intended to be a quick summary of the most important and pertinent facts about the subject, it is a distinct disservice to the readers to use terms that they're not familiar with, when there are perfectly good terms to use which they are familiar with. We're here to serve our readers and to convey information to them. We cannot do that if we cloak important information in obscure or esoteric terminology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, to refer to Hitler's death place as "Germany" -- but linking it to "Nazi Germany" -- is also sub-standard. "Germany" can refer to many different polities: the German Empire, Weimar Germany, or the current state, for instance, while "Nazi Germany" refers to one thing only. There is absolutely no sense in listing "Germany" and linking it to "Nazi Germany", when it is easier and more informative to our readers to simply list "Nazi Germany" as Hitler's place of death. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Incidentally, the change from "Nazi Germany" to "Germany" (linked to Nazi Germany) was made yesterday with this edit. The long-standing status quo of the article is to list the death place as "Nazi Germany", so since that has been disputed, any change from it requires a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Germany" by itself is not the name of any "polity", it is the name of a country in Europe. No one is going to think, just because we do not give the country's name as "Nazi Germany" that maybe Hitler died in the German Empire or Weimar Germany. Your reasoning makes no sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"polity: an organized society; a state as a political entity"

Get a consensus to change the status quo of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I'll wait for consensus. It's not a crucial issue anyway. As for using the name "National Socialist German Workers' Party" rather than "Nazi Party", I simply think that there is a benefit in being formal and correct in the infobox. You may possibly be correct that most readers are not familiar with the term "National Socialist German Workers' Party", but it is going too far to call the name "obscure", when it is widely used, for example, in scholarly literature. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Scholars and others intimately familiar with this subject matter don't read Wikipedia to get information, people who don't know about it, or want to know more, do. The purpose of an infobox is not formality, the purpose is to convey information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Initially, the full formal name of the Party should be used (just as German Workers' Party is used), with the initials and common name "(NSDAP; Nazi Party)" and in the body, "(NSDAP), commonly known as the Nazi Party". After that, Nazi Party I believe is the better way, as it is the common post-World War II name used and the one general readers know. In the info box, I would suggest using the formal name of the Party with a tweak: National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party). I would suggest a consideration to change the part that reads: Führer of the German Reich and Führer of the National Socialist German Workers' Party to: Leader of the German Reich and Leader of the Nazi Party. I await other editors to weigh-in with their thoughts. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What you write makes sense for the article itself, but the infobox is a somewhat different matter. There, quick presentation of information is what's important. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

True. Then for the info box, I believe the formal name of the Party should be used. Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Really? That surprises me, since the purpose of the infobox is to provide quick information, and it seems counter-productive to provide that information in a form the typical reader will not understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see what others say, I will go with consensus. Kierzek (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

[[National Socialist German Workers' Party|National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party)]] as a kludge? It's cumbersome, and I'm not sure I would seriously support that. I can see both sides - Nazi Party is the most widely known name in the English-speaking world, though NSDAP would be factually more correct. I'm slightly leaning towards calling it NSDAP - even though the infobox is there to provide some basic info for a casual reader, I don't think that it has to simplify it too much. NSDAP was the name of the party at the time, and the reader could learn that by glancing at the infobox. If they don't know what NSDAP is, it's linked to the Nazi Party article. Besides, I doubt many readers coming to this article don't know that Hitler was a Nazi - thus, having the full name of the party visible at the first glance might be helpful to the readers. byteflush _Talk 02:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party) would make everyone happy, I can live with it, although my preference would still be for the direct and easiest conveyance of information provided by Nazi Party. There's no need to link National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party), since it links directly to Nazi Party (and so does National Socialist German Workers' Party for that matter, and NSDAP -- since our article is at the title Nazi Party, all roads lead there eventually). My only concern is to provide information efficiently to people who read only the infobox, but I take your point that if we can familiarize them with "National Socialist German Workers' Party" at the same time, we've killed two birds with one stone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

NSDAP alone, should not be used in the info box as it is only the German initials for the Party; that would be confusing to a general reader, I believe. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I was... errrm, tired... at the moment, so I may have caused a confusion. By NSDAP I meant National Socialist German Workers' Party, I just shortened it - using the German initials - so, yeah, my bad. =) byteflush _Talk 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that Nazi Party is the common name and should be used in preference to other less common names. Likewise, Nazi Germany is Wikipedia's name for the political entity existing in Germany at the time of Hitler's death. Someone who died in Oslo in 1943 died in the Reichskommissariat Norwegen not in Norway, which did not exist at the time. It would be incorrect to say that the Prague uprising occurred in Czechoslovakia (it was under the administration of the puppet Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.) Catrìona (talk)

Yes, I should comment on that, as well. I believe Nazi Germany is more precise. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'll note that the editor LargelyRecycylable reverted away from the status quo ante (which was "Nazi Party" and "Nazi Germany") without reference to this discussion. BRD specifies that articles should stay in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, so it really ought to be returned to that. I asked them on their talk page to revert their edit, but they point-blank refused. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well noted? Your tone suggests scandal but I can't find it. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request, 28 June 2018

Greetings! The following categories are currently unsupported and must be either removed from the article, or sourced and included in the prose, per the provisions of WP:CATV.

• Category:Pan-Arabism - no mention of "Arab"
• Category:Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians - no mention of "Orthodox"
• Category:Anti-Armenianism - no mention of "Armenia"
• Category:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment - mentions that he invaded there, and "sentiment" could easily be described/sourced, but this should actually be Category:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Europe.
• Category:Anti-Catholicism - no indication of hatred for the Church.
• Category:Anti-Masonry - no mention of "Mason" etc.
• Category:Anti-Americanism - "the American and British troops, which he perceived as far weaker." - is that really enough? Category:Anti-British sentiment is lacking here, if so.
• That is all for now! Thanks! 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your explanations are not sufficient, and some are outright stupid. This appears to be a pro-Nazi request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how it is "clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." That is all I am asking. There is presently no verifiable information in the article which supports these categories. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

"Your explanations are not sufficient, and some are outright stupid. This appears to be a pro-Nazi request." Wikipedia:Civility is a policy. Don't reply to a request for sources with insults. Dimadick (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If a request is stupid and has the distinct appearance of attempting to ameliorate the evils of Hitler and Nazism, I will say so, and saying so is not an insult or a violation of policy, it is an observation of the quality of the request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request, 28 June 2018

Please tag this article with {{Category unsourced}} because of the seven categories which are not clearly supported by verifiable information in the article, per WP:CATV. Discussion on interpretation: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#What does WP:CATV really mean? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented to support the contention that the categories above are unwarranted. This request, like the one above, appears to be profoundly ahistorical, and driven by a personal POV. Beyond My Ken (talk)

What evidence of absence would meet your threshold? The categories are unwarranted because there is found no evidence which can support them. The WP:BURDEN is not on me, it is on you. Once again, I request that you quote to me, from the article, supporting information that clearly warrants membership in the categories. I could not find any, or I would not be requesting their removal. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This a well vetted GA rated article; no, it should not be tagged as such. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It is true that the article does not directly back up each category but I see this as just WP:Wikilawyering. It is accepted by all that Hitler led the Nazi Party and was Fuhrer of Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany was indeed against all the groups suggested by the categories and actively repressed them. I hope that is uncontroversial too. So, to deny these categories on the Adolf Hitler article is to suggest that the Nazi Party sometimes pursued major policies substantially distinct from those that Hitler himself advocated. That's pure BS. The whole point of Hitler being Fuhrer was that the entire Nazi state was the embodiment of Hitler's will. His apologists can't pretend that Nazi Germany had an agenda distinct from that of Hitler himself on any significant matter. If Nazi Germany was, to pick an example, anti-Mason (and it was) then it is perfectly reasonable to say that Hitler was anti-Mason. Now I'm pretty sure that anybody who has the stomach to trawl through all of Hitler's rantings will find something to back each category up but I also do not think that we need to do this.

The only room for discussion I see here is on "pan-Arabism". Hitler advocated this as a solely tactical move to destabilise the British. He certainly never gave a hoot about the Arabs on any point of sincere principle. Does insincere pan-Arabism count as pan-Arabism? I think it is reasonable to say that if he advocated it then the tag is valid. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You are forgetting something important. Wikipedia:Categorization of people demands that we "Categorize by defining characteristics". Are any of these defining in this case? Dimadick (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

And you are forgetting that fervent disdain and hatred of all Untermenschen is a defining characteristic of Hitler's philosophy, as was the "coordination" of all religions. Hitler's regime continued to persecute Catholics in various ways even after the signing of the Concordat with the Papacy for instance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I am already aware of it. We have entire articles on Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany and Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland. The problem is that the artile on Hitler neither links to them or even mentions them. Dimadick (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Then the categories are correct, and CATV is an inadequate guideline (not policy), and can, in this instance, be ignored per WP:IAR, which is overriding policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you are the one arguing that we continue to omit and ignore documentation and description of Hitler's policies and beliefs such as these, when I am advocating that they be sourced (which they can) and described (which they are, even elsewhere in Wikipedia), per the policy we call WP:V. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Really? I find it interesting that you're attempting to remove categories which are well-known attributes of Hitler's views. I wonder why anyone would fight so hard to to that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

My wish is not that they be removed, and it is wholly disingenuous of you to accuse me of this. My wish is that the article comply with policy. In order to do this, there are a couple of options which have been suggested. Removing categories is a poor choice, it is the lazy way out; especially in these topics where membership is well-documented outside the article and clearly attested in sources. When I check articles for WP:CATV and WP:EGRS I attempt to salvage the categories by checking sources. But it seems the only way to get some attention for the necessary compliance of this WP:GA is to propose something drastic. I freely submit that I have no objection to restoring the categories once the required documentation is in place, inside this article. Your accusations have no basis. Now, leaving the categories in, as they are, is tantamount to baseless name-calling and unfair to the subject of the article, but also the readers, first and foremost. If I come here researching Pan-Arabism, I would be eager to know what Hitler thought and did about the concept, but I would be disappointed to find no information at all, neither here nor in the main topic article. Likewise for the other six categories: the cats are hanging out there, like drive-by tags or forgotten vestiges of a long-gone article revision, and nobody wants to cop to them in honesty. If you don't want to write substantive parts of the article, I can't induce you to do so, but you're defending a status quo that delineates a decidedly inferior article, and I could suggest that consideration on a WP:GAR, if that's what you'd rather do. You're defending an article that omits precisely the beliefs and behaviors that you seem so intent on portraying, yet I stand accused, for making suggestions for its improvement. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, whitewashing can take many forms and use many techniques. Hitler learned a similar lesson when the Beer-Hall Putsch failed and he decided that the Nazis would come to power through legal means, as well as extra-legal ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed off-topic comments. Please review WP:NOTFORUM and consider suggestions for article improvement which belong here. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And, as you can see, I have restored it, as it is relevant to the edit request you made. If you still think it should be removed per NOTAFORUM, start a discussion here and get a consensus, or, even better, log into your account and edit from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken has retaliated by removing my comments in an WP:EW which he prefers to discussing article content. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I was in the process of restoring my comments and yours as well when you interrupted with an additional comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC

1. Include support for these categories in the article prose and cite sources for them.
2. Remove the categories from the article to comply with WP:CATV.
3. Retain the status quo.

• Category:Pan-Arabism - no mention of "Arab"
• Category:Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians - no mention of "Orthodox"
• Category:Anti-Armenianism - no mention of "Armenia"
• Category:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment - mentions that he invaded there, and "sentiment" could easily be described/sourced, but this should actually be Category:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Europe.
• Category:Anti-Catholicism - no indication of hatred for the Church.
• Category:Anti-Masonry - no mention of "Mason" etc.
• Category:Anti-Americanism

Adolf Hitler as a soldier during World War I (1914–1918)

The image with this label may not be from WWI. It's on his NDSAP photo dated 1921 (although he's still in uniform). One cause for confusion is that he had to partially shave his mustache, so people may have thought this was his "original" appearance—but this is actually trimmed from the longer, curly "Kaiser" style he wore before. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you have a point, so I removed the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Long-time lover Eva Braun

The second-to-last paragraph of the main section currently includes the phrase “long-time lover Eva Braun”. It should be changed to “longtime companion”, because 1. longtime doesn’t need a dash 2. there’s no evidence Braun and Hitler were in “love”, but there is to the contrary. She was always kept at a distance; Albert Speer attested that they kept separate bedrooms. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The word "lover" can also have the meaning of being involved in a sexual relationship rather than a romantic one. That's the usage that is intended here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

English is my secondary language, but the term "lover" translates to sexual partner and mistress (lover). Nothing to do with romance. Dimadick (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa as to its use herein. No need to change the word. Kierzek (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There’s no indication they were sexually involved, whether romantic or not. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not correct per the RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Clearly Hitler and Braun established an (one might say the ultimate) "committed" relationship, even if it was not a "healthy" one (or overtly sexual) by most standards. I really don't see a need for us to inject our own interpretations of the word "lover" as it pertains to Hitler and Braun. General Ization ^Talk 22:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with the above editors. "Lover" is a better word than "companion". There's very little doubt that they were sexual partners. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

People interested in sourced content on their sex life can refer to Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun, both of which are Good Articles in which I was heavily involved so I personally can verify that the sources used in these articles all check out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)