Talk:Adolf Hitler

In section "Path to Defeat"

In the second paragraph it says "Soviet troop concentrations on Germany's western border." Shouldn't it be "Soviet troop concentrations on Germany's eastern border?"

I didn't want to just change it because I don't know a lot about WWII and I may just be interpreting it wrong. I just though the Soviets were on the eastern border of Germany.

Neosiber (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is now fixed. Thanks! --Dianna (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Query about Hitler's alleged expulsion from school

I'm having trouble verifying Hitler's alleged expulsion from the Realschule in Steyr and the events that may have precipitated it. The story of him getting drunk and soiling his grade sheet is only traceable to Robert Payne, and I have not seen it mentioned independently anywhere else. Kershaw does not mention it, despite covering his childhood extensively. Payne apparently was given to embellishment and also suggested the now-discredited story of H's visit to England. So my question is whether the expulsion story has enough merit to stay in the entry. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be removed. Kierzek (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with its removal also. --Dianna (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Done! Many thanks to both of you for your prompt input (and general diligence on this entry). Malljaja (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012

I would like to add some more updated information

203.51.60.65 (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC) thanks

• What is that information? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Russia vs user

This article states that the einsatzgruppen existed in "Poland and Russia". This is incorrect, or at least incomplete. For example, they operated very prominently in soviet Ukraine which is emphatically NOT "Russia". Please change this to "Poland and the soviet union." even though the "russia/soviet union" error is freqUently made even by educated people, I am shocked that it has survived for so long in such a major article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This information has been added to the article. The Baltic States also. Thank you for your interest. --Dianna (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

May have had affair in June 1917 resulting in son born in France in 1918

In a reverting edit summary User:Diannaa said "We don't have room for" a mention that Hitler may have fathered a child with a French teen but I believe room could be made for a brief mention of something that is fairly consequential if true. The Telegraph discusses this as do French sources. The person who claimed to be Hitler's son may have been trying a little too hard by sporting the mustache he did, but apparently recently revealed German military documents show cash deliveries to the supposed mother during the German occupation of France. It's also said that paintings found in her attic bore Hitler’s signature and a painting of a woman by Hitler is said to look just like her.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Says who? These claims are very poorly sourced. There is an article on the 'son', Jean-Marie Loret. Improve the referencing on that one. If the claim is shown to have significant plausibility then it should be included here. But at the moment it looks pretty fringe. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The matter in the end has WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems and should not be included. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a Good Article and is still over-size by about 1000 words; that's why I feel we don't have room for this material. It has been our policy on this page not to include speculative poorly sourced stuff. Where does it end? May have visited Liverpool, may have only had one testicle, may have been bitten by a goat? It's not the sort of stuff that should be included in this article, in my opinion, unless and until it is proven to be true. --Dianna (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for guess work here on wikipedia as per WP:FRINGE.Moxy (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the sceptics that this qualifies merely as an unsubstantiated rumour. That a newspaper had carried this at one time or another is not strong enough to build a case. As far as I recall, Kershaw not mention this at all mentions it only in a footnote (#116 of "Elation and Embitterment" in Hitler: Hubris), but he does and says that when Hitler served in France, he was very wary of even interacting with females there—it beggars belief that he would have fathered a child that way. Malljaja (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

At issue here not whether to include a claim about the subject's testicles. At issue is rather something sourced to Le Point, which the upscale Focus (German magazine) has described as a "renommierten", ie renowed or prestigious, source. WP:FRINGE applies to views inconsistent with the mainstream view and it's not immediately obvious that there is an inconsistency. It's possible that the primary reason this hasn't appeared in standard Hitler biographies is because the new evidence came out too recently, no? More convincing in my view would be the fact that FOCUS is skeptical, although FOCUS's skepticism is so strong it seems to extend to climate change, something that is arguably WP:FRINGE.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Virtually any new titbit about Hitler gets reported in papers because people love stories about Hitler. There is nothing whatever meaningfully new or of importance about this story, which has been running for decades. If this had just been revealed, you might have a point, but historians have had a long long time to chew over the evidence. They simply don't take it very seriously. At the moment it's just one of many claims and stories made about Hitler. They are a dime a dozen. Paul B (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an old claim from the 1970s that has been disprove and is why he did not inherit the rights to Hitlers published works that are worth millions and millions. The new report simply says Loret is in the same blood group as with 1/3 of the population (we already studies hes DNA and it did not match so who cares). Also handwriting is generally not an inherited trait, thus prove nothing. The publication did not have any peer review process done, nor did the international scientific community believe it was worth investigating in the past. Just because it was published does not make it credible. I still read stories about Elvis being alive or that Micheal Jackson is not dead and is hiding in a monastery in Africa. What matters is the scientific process, to skip these steps leads the scientific community to dismiss the claims outright. When the scientific community approves things is when we include scientific info in articles. Going straight to news publication over the scientific process is not good ... See: The Scientific Method Made EasyMoxy (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Paul B and Malljaja have convinced me this should be excluded, at least for now.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

were did you get your information? because if you have a reliable source it should be briefly mentioned in the article. ( user: Matthew.congdon1414 )

"Hypnotic blue eyes"

In the section "Hitler in media", he's described as possessing "personal magnetism" and "hypnotic blue eyes". I submit that this is phrased from a non-neutral POV and is unverifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.233.96 (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The works of some historians have cited these two qualities (e.g., Kershaw and Larson) with the caveat, however, that not everyone had the same experience when meeting him, with some comparing his appearance, for example, to that of a barber. Both impressions should be presented—time permitting, I'll try to dig out some references to this effect. Malljaja (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The bit about the hypnotic eyes is from Bullock (1999) page 377. "Unitl the last days of his life he retained an uncanny gift of personal magnetism ... This was connected with the curious power of his eyes, which are persistently said to have had some sort of hypnotic quality." So it should stay in; it is properly sourced to one of the primary biographers. Impressions from those unaffected by his charm could be presented as well, though, if some material can be found. --Dianna (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Erik Larson's "In the garden of beasts" p. 157, were he cites Putzi Hanfstaengel's observation at his first meeting w/ AH that "Hitler looked like a suburban hairdresser on his day off"? Kershaw gives an account of von Papen, who too was unimpressed by meeting him in person. (I've not been able to locate the exact passage in "Hubris" yet, though.) Malljaja (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now added some info regarding his effect on people in more private settings from two sources. Feel free to amend if needed. Malljaja (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Mental illness

The health section omits all mention of mental disorders. 188.29.18.18 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The books I read stated that both he and Eva Braun were obsessed with personal cleanliness, but I found no information on any mental disorders. If you have found a reliable source that covers this topic, please provide more information and one of us will check it out. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)