Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 5, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 27, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
Archive
Archives

Untitled[edit]

Untitled[edit]

This Article is false...

The very most important reason that you know that Hitler didn't care about animals is because he killed, tortured, and made so many people suffer. Humans are animals, mammals and Hitler did not show any love or emotion to any human except to the ones who were fighting by his side. Oh and he eats pork making him not a vegetarian..

Bree Wilson reference[edit]

May I suggest the reference be removed along with it all statements from it? The author clearly doesn't read German on a level that would make the text a reliable source, as indicated by the title of the text. Couldawouldashoulda hearsay through translations or unqualified attempts at one's own translation don't make a reliable source. --OliverH (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the first only ever vegetarian politician who was openly advocating vegetarianism get's attacked by his enemies, full of hate[edit]

Someone here wrote, that because his enemies blame him, after death and unable (and illegal) to defend himself, of atrocities, therefore he could have never do anything good, and must hav evil reasons for doing everything in his life...

I could say the same, a man who ordered ration cards for dogs, who stop the torture of animals could not have ordered that which their enemies accused him.

We both can play this card.

And I win because my point can be proven without doubt, there is no discussion about the official published laws protecting animals, stopping vivisection and forcing a better treatment of animals. While you, only have doubted documents, obtained through torture, by the soviets, confession written in English by German officials who didn't speak English, and information proven false and exagerated by the so called Nuremberg trials, which the US Supreme Court considered an insult to law, a joke and a dishonor.

He calmed his Navy Chief of Staff saying he couldn't implement vegetarianism, YET.

Why doesn't this article talked about how the situation of animals changed with the "Liberation"? What happened? I tell you, laboratories were allowed to torture again. With Hitler's laws, mistreatment of animals did end with people in jail, for years, 3 years for killing a pig in unhuman ways.

So, run away from here, you lying cowards! You should be ashamed, all the fake vegetarians and fake nature lovers, grow testicles and accept the facts, free yourself from the war propaganda of the winners (the winner who won because they trully were brutal, merciless and didn't give a damn about animals or humans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.9.203 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use wikipedia discussions for propagating inane conspiracy theories. The comment you most likely wanted to contend to was just as useless, but it would be better if neither instead of both of you "play this card". And for replying to other comments, please do so within the corresponding section instead of starting a new one.Makrom (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Article has been Highjacked and pushes a POV agenda[edit]

I agree, this article has been highjacked long ago by people with an agenda, reffing any old talking head, regardless of expertise.

Bree wilson for a start is completely unsuitable, and Robert Payne is heavily criticised for his broad assumptions and complete lack of any credibility as an authority on Hitler. Just google him and see. I half expect to see a quote from 'some drunk guy I met once'.

Also, the MASSIVE refs at the bottom of the page are entirely inappropriate for wikipedia. Refs are supposed to be REFS, that is, a reference that people can go check to read more. NOT a gigantic extension of the article.

The whole article has become a systematic collection of any duffer who backs up the notion that 'Hitler wasn't reallllllllly a veggie', for an obvious and yet very silly, agenda.

Someone sort this out, I have tried but the revert monkeys are in town. 87.114.2.169 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you talk a lot from "agendas", maybe you have your own. Bee Wilson (in the section "'Hitler was reallllllllly a veggie'", as you would say), seems and expert historian, according to his article, and expert in Hitler's diets. Robert Payne is an important and recognised writer and historian, and an expert in the life of Adolf Hitler. Criticized? As everywhere, but if you want to make a critic from his writings, make it in his own article, and using good and reliable sources. I really don't think either that be appropriate compare Payne with "'some drunk guy I met once'."
And the REFs can be used also as notes, according to a lot of articles from this Wikipedia, but in that point, maybe you have a little reason: some of the notes would be better more short (now I am thinking in the "Proctor 1999, p. 136 ...", the "Arluke & Sanders 1996, pp. 144, 150 ..." and the "Rudacille 2001, p. 88 ..." notes). But I don't believe these notes would simply dissapear, only would be more shorts, showing only the essential information. Akhran (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


BUT where has Bee Wilson gotten her opinion on Hitlers vegetarianism from?

This statement of hers; "For a start, his distaste for meat knew no pity of animals."

Flies quite blatantly in the face of the actual facts of Hitler's concern for Animal welfare.

Germany's Animal welfare laws were the strictest laws in the world at that time and were a direct result of Hitler's distaste for the use of animals for testing, kosher slaughtering and general abuse of animals. This is of obvious importance when considering Hitler's beliefs and directly gives a possible insight into his vegetarian diet.

I added a small section on this (Animal welfare in Nazi Germany), to be improved later, so why has this section been removed by you?

Bee wilson is simply attributing what she thinks Hitler must have been like (bad, evil, madman etc.) rather than actually talking from any scholarly insight into his character. She is a poor source. Hugh Trevor-Roper Alan Bullock or Ian Kershaw are proper historian sources.

And yes the refs should be shortened to the basics, then anyone who wants can look them up.87.114.2.169 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delete the section about "Animal welfare" you introduced, I only reverted the big quantity of changes you made, by the causes I have said before. But in any way, that section fits more in an article about the article you linked or in a article as Animal welfare. Animal welfarism or environmentalism has really little to do with "vegetarianism". Most of the activist in these movements eat meat (because animal welfare say that can be acceptable kill an animal for food if any unnecessary suffering is avoided and environmentalism say that is OK if is done in a sustainable manner).
About Bee Wilson, I think she is more expert in Hitler that we are, so I will not question his knowledge. You question that, but I think we aren't experts historians. Maybe his cite included in the article isn't really good and could be rewrited (maintaining the meaning of this affirmation of the sentence), but I don't agree his work isn't a reliable source for this article. Akhran (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the legitimacy of the references are a POV in themselves, but generally if the references come from published works (books/journal articles) then they are acceptable. It's up to the readers to decide their veracity. However I agree that the referencing is being abused. Some of them are miniature essays that are irrelevant to the subject. Notes are supposed to clarify information in the article, not to extend it. For instance the reference which includes a min-essay on Wagner's anti-Semitic theories are irrelevant to Hitler's vegetarianism. They only warrant mention to the extent that some of Hitler's views are linked to them. As for the section on animal welfare, I don't see why that can't be brought into the article, but it should be restricted to legislation and policies that were brought in under Hitler to illuminate his compassion for animals, and it should be brief. After all like an editor pointed out the article isn't about animal welfare in Nazi Germnay, but Hitler's involvement in animal welfare in Germany is relevant to a possible vegetarian lifestyle. Betty Logan (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree in the point that the "min-essay on Wagner's anti-Semitic theories" is too long and includes information not linked to the article, but I disagree that is any link between the Nazi animal welfare policies and the vegetarianism of his leader and that section fits in this article. If he would promoted animal rights and vegetarianism, then a section of this type would be neccesarily, but Nazis (and his leader) promoted only animal welfare, position that points that "is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals for food, in animal research, as clothing, and in entertainment, so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided". An that's not a vegetarian position, referring to food. Referring to "animal research" the Nazi laws that ban vivisection (August 1933) only were running three weeks, after which Nazis permit again vivisection under regulation. So I don't see connection with Hitler vegetarianism. Akhran (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The animal rights section is relevant to the extent that Hitler's vegetariansm is being questioned. There generally is a strong correlation between a person's vegetarian dietary practice and their views on animal rights, so it's relevant in that it may provide motivation for Hitler's private dietary practices. I don't advocate a whole section on it, but I can see a legitimate argument for including a brief overview in regards to Hitler's general views on animal welfare because it provides a context for the pro arguments, and demonstartes consisten behaviour in other areas of his life. If an editor wants to add a brief overview of Hitler's participation in animal welfare to the article I wouldn't have any problem with that. Maybe they can write it up here first so we don't have any edit warring on the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
But the the matter is that there isn't an "Animal rights section", is a "Animal welfare section". And "Animal rights" and "Animal welfare" is really a different thing. You say "There generally is a strong correlation between a person's vegetarian dietary practice and their views on animal rights", and that's true, but Nazis didn't have animal rights policies and laws, they have animal welfare policies and laws, and usually for reason different from the reason that makes "ethical vegetarians": to avoid what they called "Jewish science". Akhran (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we actually need an article on such a specialized topic? Why isn't it simply included under "Hitler" or "vegetarianism"? --Maybellyne (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Akhran by his own profile is an animal rights activist and therefore by POV rules should be excluded from editing this article.64.167.16.142 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe, as do many folks who study German history around the times of the Nazis, that a section ANIMALS is appropriate. I don't think that it should be termed 'animal rights' (since Hitler was at best an 'animal welfarist' who acknowledged their personhood and sentience and thought, therefore, that using animals should be done while minimizing pain). Whether this relates to his (and other Nazis') beliefs about extermination (gas chambers, etc., in the context of eugenics) could be researcher and more scholarship could be sought. The topic 'Nazi views on animals' can be found discussed in publications from then into the present, with varying degrees of credibility. I personally do not believe that Hitler was a consistent vegetarian, and that, even if he were vegetarian with only minor exceptions, it seems to have been correlated with urgings for him to care for his health. However, more evidence than testimony from a former food taster would be necessary. The possibility of 'false memories' in only one individual is something which must be countered by searching for comparable testimony, which seems to be lacking. MaynardClark (talk)

Bee Wilson's opinion[edit]

I don't see why this person's opinion should feature so prominently (in a special paragraph, no less), especially considering s/he clearly misinterpreted H.'s words (whether wittingly or not, I don't know). It is not clear (and it should be, considering this is a supposedly encylopedic site) where this person got the impression that H. "knew no pity for animals", but what is certain - to those who have taken care to actually read extensive texts about this topic, including entire dinner-table conversations - is that he did not "boast" about visiting slaughterhouses. He usually closed his graphic descriptions of animal slaughtering - aimed at his blissfully oblivious meat-eating guests - by commenting on their (the guests') "hypocrisy".


Not good table manners, I agree. But it's not the same as "boasting". And it certainly doesn't equal "no pity for animals".


EVERYBODY deserves a fair and intellectually honest treatment. Lies and misinterpretations never amount to any good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.156.41 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Change to the intro[edit]

The intro starts off by saying; 'Hitler is said to have practised some form of vegetarianism' Countless of the reliabe sources support that he was a vegetarian, so I think it could be said with certainity that he was indeed a vegetarian, instead of this uncertain and 'guessing' opening to the article, a second thing we need to change is the postfix, the 'some form of vegetarianism', again its a vague, imprecise formulation. I believe the intro of the article should, as according to all the sources, settle straightaway that hitler was a vegetarian. Which form of vegetarianism he practiced seems a bit to pedantic and unimportant for the intro. I think we should elaborate later on in the article, which 'form' of vegetarianism he practiced. So to include these 2 changes, I vote we change the beforementioned sentence from the opening to: "Hiter was a vegetarian" -its simple straight to the point and very accurate. Anyone in favour?Averagejoedev (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the opening sentence is loaded; it's unquestionable he practised vegetarianism, the question is to what extent, so I support your revision. The problem with the lead though is that it's too short to adequately summarise the issues that the article covers, but in the absence of a properly written lead I support removing the bias. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay I have now changed the lead. I think there are a other problems in this article. For instance; The statement that Hitler he was not an 'Ethical vegetarian' and in fact the entire use of Rynn Berry (a vegetarian activist, with no historical expertise) as a source in the "Questoning Hitler's Vegetarianism" section, needs to be questioned, and possibly removed. I'll open a new talk section to handle this.Averagejoedev (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rynn Berry teaches in history at The New School (for Social Research) in NYC. He has written a number of historical books. He is a practicing vegan. He is an interesting and wry speaker.

"It's unquestionable he practised vegetarianism, the question is to what extent." Vegetarians dont eat meat. Not a little meat or every once in a while but no meat at all, hence the term. Hitler ate meat. Whether he ate it rarely or not is irrelevant. He was an omnivore (ate meat and non meat to various extent). This is a little like saying Hitler practiced sexual abstinence but had sex every once in a while. The only people being pedantic here are those writing that hitler was a vegetarian. The intro should be reverted from stating an absolute to at the very least stating that there is dispute on the matter. august 2011

There is no hard definition. Vegetarian societies might like to think there is and have their own unambiguous definitions, but in common usage there are plenty of people who eat meat who identify themselves as vegetarian in some capacity. That's why we have phrases such as "strict vegetarian", or "pesco-vegetarian", "semi-vegetarian" or "flexitarian" which is basically a vegetarian based diet with a meat component. Wikipedia can't adopt a single rigid definition since it would violate WP:NPOV. Even the disputers generally agree that his diet was vegetarian based or geared to a reduced meat-intake, so the dispute is really only over his level of adherence i.e. was Hitler a strict vegetarian or a flexitarian. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
"Vegetarian societies"? They still have those? The Oxford English dictionary defines vegetarianism as:"a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons." Websters dictionary defines vegetarianism as :"1 n. one who believes in or practices vegetarianism. 2 adj. consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products" Thats a pretty "hard definition." Common usage varies from place to place (ive never heard your line of argument before) and belongs in urban dictionary dot com. You say "Wikipedia can't adopt a single rigid definition since it would violate NPOV" then why does the heading say that hitler was a vegetarian when he wasnt? Diets cant be "vegetarian based", they can be vegetable/fruit based and supplemented with meat. Until the modern era most Europeans, excluding the ruling classes, ate mostly a non meat diet based on one or two basic staples which they supplemented with meat whenever they could rarely afford to buy it (or illegally hunt it on rich peoples preserves). This was because meat was expensive and dangerous to poach. This doens't make them vegetarians and they certainly didnt consider themselves as such. Looking at the citations of the "flexitarians" wiki page it seems to me its something made up a few years ago for no reason whats so ever. If you want to write that Hitler was a "flexitarian" whatever. But from i understand he went on diets because he was was in poor health and that's what his doctors recommended to him. august 2011
Well, the whole article should be deleted as this only concerns a very minor aspect of Hitler's life, unless one considers that his long and boring discussion about vegetarianism are one of his most prominent activities. The way the sources are chosen and presented laos raise questions. For instance, the sentence "In his post-war reminiscence The Enigma of Hitler, Belgian SS General, and friend of Hitler's, Léon Degrelle wrote: "He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed."[13] contains several factual inaccuracies. To start with Degrelle never became SS general, but was Standartenführer, i.e. Colonel. How can one furthermore write that Degrelle was Hitler's friend when he did not meet him more that two times (and maybe only once). Thinking that Degrelle - who is furthermore known to have been a liar all his life long - could have first hand information on Hitler's eating habits is just as ridiculous as taking Degrelle as source. --Lebob (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The user 'Betty Logan' intermittently speaks up for the idea that Hitler was vegetarian, but then, clicking on her name repeatedly shows that the user is no longer very active in Wikipedia, even though she has only minute before the identity check, made a reversion or a rewrite. I think that the article about Hitler's vegetarianism should exist but should be renamed to Hitler's presumed vegetarianism. Further, the article is about Hitler and vegetarianism, which should discuss not merely Hitler's dietary practices, but Hitler's relation to the practice and then-prevailing theories about vegetarianism and diet in the lands under his party's jurisdiction. I think that the Léon Degrelle citation is unreliable (for the reasons stated above, and for other reasons. According to the International Vegetarian Union, diets that aren't exclusively plant matter (or plant matter with eggs and/or dairy), are not vegetarian diets (by 'the international definition'). My position is that Hitler tried different diets; he may have made occasional comments about the ethical reasons for being vegetarian, as 'social actors' are wont to do, but they don't disclose the inner self in real, long-term, genuine or authentic, and dependable ways. MaynardClark (talk)

Notable?[edit]

This version of the Downfall viral(-ly mutating) parodies clip is somewhat tangentially related to Hitler's vegetarianism (but more directly related for H's love of his dog).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Payne[edit]

Copied from user talk pages:
Hi, I noticed your (nirvana2013) alterations to this article. One of the problems of putting Robert Payne's views front-and-center is that Payne's book is universally regarded by historians as complete garbage. A problem with this article is that it gives the view the Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight. All actual specialist historians agree that he was. The "evidence" that he wasn't is an accummulation of gossip articles in cookery magazines and the like which have no real evidentiary value at all, since they are not based any first hand testimony or experience. One of them actually mistakes a joke for a fact (ie that Hitler was a vegetarian but he made an exception for ham - to prove he wasn't Jewish). Paul B (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just following Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article lead was certainly not following NPOV, as it did not include any arguments against him being vegetarian. I disagree that the article "gives the view that Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight." If anything to me the article gives undue weight on him being a vegetarian. The article name is "Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism", not "Adolf Hitler's diet." Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The inset of Neugeist/Die Weisse Fahne (German magazine of the New Thought movement), a popular magazine of the time and therefore no more credible as a bearer of real fact than Vogue or Teen i the US today, is evidence that NPOV is not maintained in this article. MaynardClark (talk)

The universal view of specialists on the subject is not too much weight. It is precisely due weight. A good case could be made for excluding Payne altogether on the grounds that his book is totally unreliable. It might be more appropriate to say in the lede that some vegetarian activists such as Rynn Berry have felt the need to deny Hitler's vegetarianism and that it was a topic of debate in the popular press at one time. But the view of actual specialist biographers is unanimous - unless you have evidence to the contrary. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to NOT be a 'universal view of specialists on the subject' (only the repeated assertion that there is universal view of specialists on the subject' (particularly by those who want to assert their respective opinions (or 'convictions') on this matter. To me, it seems that even those who believe that Hitler was intentionally vegetarian would want to acknowledge in the initial sentence that 'it is widely believed' (and there is also controversy, which the article discusses) or 'a majority of historians and commentators think' but substantial doubts have been raised, etc. (which the article would outline). Instead, the 'battle' seems to be about which POV would prevail (who yells the loudest). To be sure, few (if any) of us who are discussing this topic knew Hitler personally (so nearly all of it is second and third-hand comment, or maybe even fourth-hand or worst). For instance, a newspaper reporter interviews an elderly woman before her death; the woman claims to have been one of Hitler's several food tasters (did she do this? did she taste ALL his food at the time?). She says she never saw meat come through to be tasted. MaynardClark (talk)

If you want to change the lead to NPOV by incorporating Rynn Berry and other critics instead of Robert Payne, feel free. Although please note Rynn Berry uses Robert Payne's work as a major source in his book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover. By the way, it does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines excluding Robert Payne (a renowned biographer) because you or historians disagree with him. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the idea that Payne is a "renowned biographer", unless "renowned" just means "well known" (but "renowned" somehow sounds more grand doesn't it?). Imagine applying that to, say, Hitler himself: the "renowned political theorist" (well, he is isn't he? He's famous and he had a theory of politics). Being renowned grants no status whatever. It's much better to be an extremely obscure expert as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Whether I disagree with him does not matter, that's true. But you are strangely conflating that with whether historians disagree with him. That does matter - a very great deal according to Wikipedia's rules. That's exactly how we determine what is and is not a reliable source. Experts in the field decide. See WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hence I did not call him "renowned" in the article, as that would be POV. Lets just say the book is a reliable source then, as per WP:BLPSOURCES i.e. not self-published, not primary, not original research, not libel and not tabloid. You can always add a sentence from a secondary source disagreeing with Robert Payne's assessment that Hitler's asceticism was just propaganda e.g. "Although biographer x believes Payne's view on Hitler's asceticism was incorrect because..." Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES? The article is not a BLP (biography of a living person), unless you think that Adolf is still hiding out somewhere in South America, so the policy you point to is wholly irrelevant. The point I was making is that it is highly arguable whether Payne can be considered a reliable sourrce at all. I think not. You seem to be wilfully ignoring the argument. Paul B (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
My mistake. But isn't BLP stricter on sources due to the risk of legal action? If it meets BLP, will it not meet BDP? I am not ignoring your argument. Wikipedia guidelines define Robert Payne's biography of Hitler as a reliable source. Wikipedia editors like us should not try to get involved with whether the information we write is true or not but just reflect the sources as they are handed down to us, as per WP:VNT. It may well be true that Hitler was vegetarian. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm still at a loss to understand why you are raising BLP here. WP:BDP is for recently dead persons, and in any case I think Hitler's surviving relatives may have more problems with his memory than worrying about whether or not he ate dumplings. I think the best way to deal with this is to raise the matter at WP:RSN. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Letter from Rynn Berry to the Editor, New York Times[edit]

Extensive copyvio removed, was a fairly extensive letter. If you have a link you can add that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rynn Berry Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a remotely reliable source. Letters to ther editor are not acceptable sources. Berry is an ideologue to start off with. You will notice that he never mentions any of the major biographers of Hitler at all. That's because they completely contradict him. But he's not honest enough to mention that. So he has to go with such third-rate suff as "A Concise Biography of Hitler", which is just a potboiler compiled by someone with no specialist expertise. Fuchs is the man who wrote the following notorious piece of drivel "The principle (sic) function of this army-like organization [the SA] was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals". Most of this stuff just regurgitates the absurd gossip-sources he used before. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Dione Lucas not reliable? It appears anyone who noted Hitler was not strictly vegetarian is an unreliable source in your eyes. Perhaps the issue here is terminology. There are many people today who call themselves vegetarian, and are referred to as vegetarian by media/biographers, but they occasionally eat meat or fish. These people (as defined by the Vegetarian Society) are not truly vegetarian but flexitarian or pescetarian. I would suggest the article is moved to Adolf Hitler's diet to maintain NPOV. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course she isn't reliable. She's writing a cook book containing gossipy stories. There is no evidence she ever even met Hitler (she never says she did). It's just a story to liven up the book for readers of the time. In any case she is a primary source. Reliable sources such as Kershaw got their information directly from Hitler's own cooks. It's Berry who is ignoring sources, not me. He simply blanks-out actual testimony from close associates of Hitler, cooks and kitchen staff, instead, preferring as "true, gossip in magazines written by people who probably never even met him. Doesn't it strike you as odd that no actual major biographers of Hitler are mentioned by Berry, but instead he relies on potboiler books written by non-experts. Why would that be? Paul B (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
We are going round in circles. Yes Dione Lucas is a primary source, but Rynn Berry is not. However, if meeting Hitler makes the source more credible then please note that Robert Payne met Adolf Hitler in 1937 (which is more than can be said for his present-day biographers), an incident which Payne describes in his book Eyewitness. If Berry, a vegetarian, cannot be considered NPOV on this article because of his dietary choice, then by the same token Christian biographers should be excluded as reliable sources on the article Jesus. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
What a fatuous remark about Berry. Rynn Berry is not reliable bacause he is not an expert, not because he is a vegetarian. He systematically trawls through the most unreliable sources to find any that backs up his preferred view and systematically ignores the overwhelming evidence against it. I have no idea whether, say, Kershaw, is a vegetarian or not. It does not matter. He is an expert. Daniel Goldhagen, who, as it happens, is a vegetarian, does not dispute that Hitler was too (though I'd never be too happy relying on him, for other reasons). You are producing straw man arguments and you are repeating Berry's methoids by simply 'blanking' all the reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
My remark was in response to Churn and change's comment at WP:RSN: "I think the books on Hitler's vegetarianism per-se are unlikely to meet WP:NPOV (for some reason vegetarians seem to think the association denigrates them, and write books to prove Hitler was not one [e.g. Ryan Berry's Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover])." Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I was once at a vegetarian restaurant and they assured me that Hitler and other people considered bad by history were not vegetarians. Editorials by non-experts have no business being included on this page. If there is no evidence other than conjecture it should be listed as such. When historians, such as Hugh Trevor-Roper that had access to Hitler's staff report it, contemporary magazines report it, and his food taster reports it, it's probably true. His motivations in becoming a vegetarian can be questioned, as well if Joseph Goebbels influenced his move toward becoming vegetarianism, which is how it would be appropriate to lay this article out. Without the Rynn Berry comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.97.98 (talk) 07:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism". The suggested target is not gaining consensus and the previous title had substantive opposition. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


Adolf Hitler's vegetarianismAdolf Hitler's diet – It is disputed that Hitler was vegetarian (see Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism). The current title does not adhere to NPOV, unlike other neutrally titled articles such as the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong support. The current title is Godwin's New Coatrack against vegetarianism. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
    The title isn't coatrack unless the reader is stupid enough to believe that vegetarianism is bad just because Hiliter might have been one, and if the reader is stupid enough to believe that then renaming alone wouden't fix it. The only way to fix that "Coatrack problem" is by saying that Hitler definitely wasn't a vegetarian.
If the article is Coatrack it's because of it's content not the title. The only thing I can see that could be Coatrack agents vegetarianism is the Deborah Rudacille quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talkcontribs) 21:32, 8 November 2012‎
  • The article title places the words "Hitler" and "vegetarianism" right next to each other, parroting an age-old anti-vegetarian staple. This is not my interpretation but plain evident for anyone unless they're blinded by bias. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This talk page is like jumping into a hornet's nest! Having read through the page and tried to understand the arguments it is clear there are agendas driving many opinions about the content and titling. It is up to us as contributors and editors supposedly not to edit / title an article so it does not represent a POV. There is clearly enough evidence in the controversy about Hitler's diet and alleged vegetarianism to try to make sure that no statement is made such as 'Hitler was a vegetarian' or 'Hitler was not a vegetarian'. There is simply controversy about this. Too many contributors have made statements in the talk pages (without with references) defending one or other of the positions. Hitler may have lived some time of his life as a vegetarian or he may not have. It is not up to editors / contributors to draw conclusions. It is up to us to collaboratively create an article that presents all reasonable and verifiable views and let the reader make their own conclusions. Following this line of reasoning I think that the title is too POV. Hitler's vegetarianism is not undisputed fact and therefore an alternative title should be created. Robynthehode (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is just about his alleged vegetarianism, not his diet in general. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The topic should be Hitler's diet in general, because an article specifically about Hitler and vegetarianism automatically turns into nothing but a coatrack for anti-vegetarianism. Please don't feign ignorance of the public discourse. You know very well what I'm talking about. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't surprise me to hear that some idiots were saying that vegetarianism was bad because Hitler might have been one, but I've haven't herd of a public discourse about that. Please don't feign ignorance of WP:AGF and the fact that that that not everyone is aware of the same public discourses that you are. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, well, I've stumbled upon it so often that I honestly find it hard to believe that any media-savvy person has never heard of that meme. Consider just this: The second result a Google search for "adolf hitler vegetarian" yields is titled "Vegetarians are Evil - Adolf Hitler Was a Vegetarian".
    But anyway, you don't need to know of the meme to follow my argument. My point is that perception of the title as denigrating toward vegetarianism by association is plausible, and by no means only the reading of "stupid idiots". Maybe some people are more prone to be influenced by suggestion, but there actually is the intrinsic spin of having the words Hitler and vegetarianism right next to each other in big letters at the top of the page. By having this article and especially this title we're not reporting on the discussion so much as demonstrating it by example.
    Let me ask you the same question as BDD below: Would you actually oppose the addition of more general information (i.e. unrelated to vegetarianism) to the article because the article is only about Hitler's vegetarianism? Do you want the scope of the article to be limited to Hitler's vegetarianism? --213.196.214.177 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Emmette's right. Hitler's diet isn't notable on its own; the entire article is about whether Hitler or not was vegetarian, not about other aspects of his diet. It's unfortunate that anyone would think it a legitimate criticism of vegetarianism that Hitler was one, but that's a poor reason for a rename. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • the entire article is about whether Hitler or not was vegetarian -- In other words, the current article is intrinsically POV.
    Hitler's diet isn't notable on its own. -- That doesn't strike you as remarkable when vegetarianism is directly and exclusively an issue of diet?
    Let me ask you this: Would you actually oppose the addition of more general information (i.e. unrelated to vegetarianism) to the article because the article is only about Hitler's vegetarianism, or would you support a move at that point? Asking because I'm confident that the article could easily be expanded with more general info on Hitler's diet. Should I look for sources and add a section to the article? Or do we want this article to be solely about Hitler's vegetarianism even though we could have a more useful, more comprehensive and more neutral article? --213.196.214.177 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with anon. The scope of this article is diet i.e. whether Hitler was an omnivore, flexitarian or vegetarian. An expansion of the article into what he ate on a typical day would be useful in establishing his dietary philosophy. The article is not about Hitler's wider animal rights/welfare beliefs and actions e.g. how could Hitler reconcile the collateral destruction of livestock, pets and wild animals through the action of war (0.5 million horses in Operation Barbarossa alone)[1], plus the Nazi's taste for uniforms made out of black leather. I still don't understand the reluctance to change the article name to NPOV. I suspect there would not be the same objections moving Adolf Hitler's homosexuality to the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Right, I wouldn't object to such a move. Note that the latter title is where that article is. And "there is considerable evidence that... [Hitler had an] antipathy to homosexuality, and no evidence he engaged in homosexual behavior." Here, we have pretty broad agreement in reliable sources that Hitler was a vegetarian, and he also self-identified as such. Doubts about his vegetarianism are a minority view, and should weighed appropriately. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that's true. "Doubts" about his vegetarianism are based on more contemporary sources that define vegetarianism in a way that differs with the definitions used by previous writers. They are neither undue nor a minority view. Therefore it may be argued that Hitler practiced semi-vegetarianism but not strict vegetarianism. This could make the current title inaccurate. Based on this evidence, I've always thought the proposed title Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism was the best title for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article properly focuses on the issue of how he classified himself and how others thought of him. As the article shows, his dietary identity relates to Nazi propaganda, his social relationships, and so forth. What kind of broth or vitamin pills he ate is trivia. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is fact no doubt that Hitler was a vegetarian, but even if there were real doubt about it, this would still be the subject of the article. It is not about his diet - how much he ate, whether was balanced, if he liked cabagge. It's all about his vegetarianism. Nothing else. The sexuality article is about what it says its about. Alleged homosexuality is just one of the many claims that have been made. Again the truth is simple, but people love stories about Adolf. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The article is in fact about his diet: whether it was vegetarian or not. As pointed out above, putting his vegetarianism in the title loads the article towards that, apparently disputed, conclusion. At any rate, "Hitler's vegetarianism" is an awkward title (to my eyes at least). "Hitler's diet" is more natural. For example, we generally would title a section "Hitler's religion" or "Hitler's religious beliefs", not "Hitler's Protestantism", especially if the nature of those beliefs is disputed in the article itself. Glaucus (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It could also be expanded to other notable aspects of his diet. I see claims in there disputing his non-consumption of alcohol. Without knowing the literature, that alone might be too minor a viewpoint to warrant its own article, but be worthy of a section inside a larger article on his diet. Glaucus (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. Per other comments, I can't support moving to "Adolf Hitler's diet" unless there are multiple aspects of his diet that are noteworthy. However, "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" could address the POV titling concern. Formerip (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I support this suggestion. Glaucus (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be fine with that also. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Support for Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. Much better than the current title, and it shouldn't pose a problem for any of the opposers who are concerned about the article scope. In case this request is closed unsuccessfully, we should immediately resubmit this proposal instead. --195.14.223.86 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Singalongschmee (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Singalongschmee (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support I am not particularly swayed by the arguments that the title exists to slur vegetarians in any way. That's a non-starter for me. But the argument that Glaucus makes seems cogent and relevent and has swayed me that a name change is in order, even if the current one does not violate NPOV in any way (I don't believe that it does), there is still a good reason to move it nonetheless. FormerIPs suggestion seems like a good second alternative, but I prefer the "diet" title better. --Jayron32 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't matter that some people try to redefine the word "vegetarianism" to exclude Hitler's or other people's behavior, if he identified with the movement or if other people identified him with it (which they do, and "vegetarianism" is the word that our sources use), then our title should indicate that clearly. Shrigley (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The point here seems to be that sources are in dispute with one another, which I think cuts the feet off your argument. Formerip (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose, though the proposal seems well-intentioned. I don't see this as a neutrality issue. The topic of the article is "the question of whether Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian"; the title is simply a shorthand for that. I think FormerIP's suggested move to "Hitler and vegetarianism" (now a redirect) is worth considering, as that title doesn't imply an affirmative answer to the question. Would the nominator consider that as an alternative? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
My preference is still "Adolf Hitler's diet", but if there is no consensus I would support either "Hitler and vegetarianism" or "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" as alternatives. They are an improvement over the current title at least. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notable and extensively discussed that it warrants a focused article. General question of his overall diet isn't the concern in the literature. Let's reflect the literature, not our own POV. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • We're not "reflecting" the literature so much as parotting the anti-vegetarian propaganda therein. If that matches your POV, I'm happy for you, but it isn't a valid reason to keep the POV title. --195.14.223.86 (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hitler's biographers are not "anti-vegetarian" propagandists. Show me a single source from an "anti-vegetarian" propagandist (who are these people anyway?). Paul B (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Diet is too general. The comparison with sexuality or religious view is not quite accurate, imo. With the title "hitler's sexuality", reader would know it is about whether he was gay or not. On the other end, if the article titled, "religious view of hitler" is about his view on Christianity, the the title is spot on. If it is about his occultism, then the title should be changed to "occultism of Hitler". Vegetarianism of Hitler is the title which make appropriate reference to the issue discussed here. Vapour (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with everyone else that the subject of the article is Hitler's purported vegetarianism, so eradicating the 'vegetarian' aspect from the title is being deliberately obtuse. It is pretty much accepted that Hitler adopted some vegetarian practices, even if he didn't completely convert to a full vegetarian diet so I don't think the title is particularly misleading. That said I wouldn't have any objection to the suggestion above of Hitler and vegetarianism, it seems to be free of any non-neutral connotations. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the current title is POV, the proposed new title is inaccurate. I suggest calling the article "Hitler and vegetarianism". TFD (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The current title is inherently POV, to the point that it could reasonably offend. The article covers more than simply whether or not this individual was entitled to describe himself as a vegetarian, so a title referring to his diet more widely is both more accurate and more clearly neutral.Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe that arguments for and against the move are supported by good evidence. The current title is more a matter of convenience than anything else. It should be possible for both sides to compromise and choose a neutral title. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree a compromise title could be 'Hitler and vegetarianism' but 'Hitler's diet is better. Reasons: Most, maybe all contributors here are approaching the subject/title knowing something about that subject. All the best encyclopedia articles are written assuming the reader doesn't know anything or very little about the subject. That is why someone would look up the subject in an encyclopedia to be informed by a succinct and balanced article which also directed them to sources and further reading. So: 'Hitler's vegetarianism' is clearly biased because if you put yourself in the position of someone who knows nothing about the subject such a title immediately suggests Hitler was a vegetarian. Despite ill informed comments by Paul Barlow above and others in the talk page there is dispute about whether Hitler was a vegetarian AND for what reasons he may have followed a vegetarian diet, if he did at some time in his life. Furthermore the logic followed by Vapour above is simply wrong. We cannot assume that a reader would know that an article entitled 'Hitler's sexuality' is about whether he was gay or not. There are other sexual orientations other than gay or straight. Similarly re an article entitled 'Hitler's Religious Beliefs: it cannot be assumed that it would be about his Christian beliefs or not. Again lots of other religions out there. Vapour is erroneously thinking that what he knows about these subjects, everyone knows. That is not the case. The point I am making, to state it again, is that an article should be written and titled as far as is possible assuming the reader doesn't know about the subject. Further to other points made: a vegetarian diet has and is straightforwardly defined. It is precisely because people who eat only white meat, or only meat on a Friday, or only fish or etc etc that those who ARE vegetarian have had to add such prefixes as 'strict'. It is not vegetarians (strict) who are trying to redefine vegetarianism but people who have followed, for whatever reason, diets that partially resemble a vegetarian one. All those who have opposed a title change however strongly or not, simply do not seem to comprehend that the title 'Hitler's vegetarianism' implies he was a vegetarian. Such a title is not short hand for the ensuing discussion in the article about whether he was or not, it instead sets the article up to be POV. Let's go with 'Hitler's diet' (and this is not too broad because the essential discussion about Hitler's diet is precisely about the controversy over his purported vegetarianism so it wouldn't include other details about his diet unless they were relevant to other beliefs of Hitler) or at a push 'Hitler and vegetarianism. Robynthehode (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • "Hitler's diet" might infer that he was on a diet, or that he invented a diet. Compare with Atkins diet. The interest to readers is whether or not he was a vegetarian, not specifically how many calories he consumed. TFD (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The comparison makes no sense. The proposed name is "Hitler's diet", not "Hitler diet". And the meaning of the word diet in "Atkins diet" is in fact the same as in "Hitler's diet". In neither case does it refer to "diet" in the sense of caloric reduction. Glaucus (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
A comparison of "Hilter's diet" to the "Atkins diet" is incorrect. Grammar, namely the apostrophe, is all important here. Perhaps TFD means "Atkins' diet" (article does not exist) instead of "Atkins diet" and the "Hitler diet" (again, article does not exist) instead of "Hilter's diet." Diet is the general term for "food consumed by a person or other organism" as opposed to fad diets and dieting; "the practice of eating food in a regulated fashion to decrease, maintain, or increase body weight." Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Were Germans expected to follow the Hitler diet? TFD (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't know. Does it matter in terms of this discussion? Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
No, Germans were not expected to adhere to Hitler's diet. It was his personal choice. Even his inner circle did not adhere to this, as many drank, smoked, and Herr Goering was a drug addict. King of Nothing (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The only aspect of Hitler's diet that is in any way noteworthy was his vegetarianism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
But that is the issue here. It is disputed that Hitler was vegetarian, at least by dictionary and the Vegetarian Society definitions. Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Nirvana2013 and Glaucus. 'Diet' is a simply defined in dictionaries and critically is NPOV in regard to this discussion. Can we come to some sort of compromise or decision about the title? I have made extensive arguments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talkcontribs) 13:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Your 'arguments' are a compendium of irrelevancies. All of the major sources on Hitler written by actual specialists agree that he was a vegetarian. He did not eat animals. (Obviously he became a vegetarian. There was a time before that). There is no dispute in the major sources. All of the sources quoted in opposition are potboiler books containing notorious egregious errors of fact or they are gossip articles written in popular magazines that have no claim to any scholarly authority whatever. Paul B (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Paul B. You may be right about Hitler being a vegetarian but that should rightly be part of the article itself and not the title. You need to show in the article with relevant references your strident view that he was incontrovertibly a vegetarian. The discussion here is about the title and that there is doubt presented by other authors about his vegetarianism. Your repeated insistence that YOU are correct on this subject is turning into self righteousness. Do you have a hidden agenda? Robynthehode (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: At least "Hitler and vegetarianism" would be an improvement over the current title. And there are other aspects of Hitler's diet besides the supposed avoiding to eat animal flesh ("strict [or true] vegetarianism" is called like that for a reason…) readers would want to know. For example, what are the historic positions in favor or against that he were teetotal? Algorithme (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Strong Oppose: There is definitely more than enough historical evidence that Herr Hitler was a vegetarian (the fact that some revisionists historians have attempted to cast doubt does not change the overwhelming evidence). The title is no way offensive, as some here have tried to suggest. Just because Herr Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't in any way imply any negative connotation to vegetarianism. That being said I would definitely be okay with "Hitler and vegetarianism". But including a large portion of the article and/or changing the title to put increased weight towards those who doubt his vegetarianism absolutely violates WP:Weight as the overwhelming majority of historical sources say he was a vegetarian. King of Nothing (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I am glad you support the alternative "Hitler and vegetarianism," if not my recommendation. An article on Paul McCartney's vegetarian views, diet and activism would most likely be called "Paul McCartney and vegetarianism," not "Paul McCartney's vegetarianism" which is both clumsy and grammatically incorrect. "Paul McCartney's vegetarianism" sounds like he has invented his own version of vegetarianism, per Sepp Holzer's permaculture. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Just because Herr Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't in any way imply any negative connotation to vegetarianism. -- You're clearly not a vegetarian. --87.78.45.126 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
So the fact that Hitler had a moustache implies negative connotations to moustaches? Paul B (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a good point. How many people today do you see wearing a Charlie Chaplin/Hitler-style moustache? Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You still, do, but yes the "toothbrush" is not very popular these days, and I guess that's probably because it is almost exclusively associated with Hitler. But moustaches in general are not. That's the analogy with vegetarianism. If non-meat eating were largely associated with Hitler and hardly anyone else, you might hasve a point, but it is not. I'd guess the vast majority of people could draw a picture of his square-moustache, but don't have a clue that he was vegetarian. It's not distinctively associated with him. Even if it were, of course, that would not be a valid argument of any kind. See Reductio ad Hitlerum. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Nirvana2013, After thinking about this for awhile I absolutely support moving the Article to "Hitler and vegetarianism". However, I still have three problems. 1. Some of the Users on here feel that we should not call Hitler a vegetarian, even though the overwhelming historical evidence says he is, simply because it may offend some vegetarians: this is just ludicrous (see above moustache analogy by other User, and Hitler was a socialist does that mean all socialists are Nazis???) and even if it does offend vegetarians or others, that is no reason to change it. We can't white wash history because it might offend people. 2. I object to moving the article to a name that puts more weight on the extreme minority (of historical sources) that questions the validity of his vegetarianism. and 3. The Article itself puts way too much Weight on the aforementioned minority of sources. I inferred from your original comment (although it may not have been what you intended to imply) that you want a Title that puts more weight on the minority of sources that say he wasn't a vegetarian, instead of less (which it should be under WP:Weight). As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for everyone supporting a move here, but certainly I am not offended that Hitler was or was not a vegetarian. I must say I find his attitude towards animals (and humans in general) misguided (0.5 million horses killed in Operation Barbarossa alone), but this is no reason to suppress an article or truth. I am just trying to create some balance here and a NPOV as the sources are in disagreement. There does seem to be some unexplained issues on the article if Hitler was vegetarian. Why was Hitler vegetarian? If it was for health, why did he complain of suffering from flatulence and various other ailments on his diet? If it was for a love of animals, why was there a disconnect with his actions (e.g. Operation Barbarossa, banning of vegetarian societies etc)? Sometimes a vegetarian biographer is handy in exposing some of these inconsistencies, as they understand the general vegetarian mindset. I doubt Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister) can be thought of as a reliable source. It seems everyone (omnivore or vegetarian) has a POV on this controversial topic. Yours in peace, Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Wait, all of a sudden we're saying Herr Doctor Goebbels is an unreliable source?????, lol, just kidding. I'm trying to find a quote by Hitler from back when I studied back at University it was something to the effect of "I would never harm one of God's beautiful creatures" in reference to not hunting animals. Herr Hitler was a complex man and the Nazi regime was complex. Hitler did some good things, most were beyond horrible, but he did do some good things. And Herr Hitler the man, did have some qualities that were not evil (some of his qualities were morally neutral, like his vegetarianism, and some were even good) and we should not just remove these qualities (or the good things the Nazis and Hitler did for Germany) from History just because we object to the bad things and are offended by them and him to the core of our being. But, my only point of view and position in this discussion is from a purely Wikipedia Policy point of view in regards to WP:Weight as stated in my previous comments. As Always, With Thanks King of Nothing (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Glaucus' argument that similar articles would be (actually is) named Hitler's religious beliefs not Hitler's Christianity, and Hitler's weapons, not Hitler's automatic pistols. LK (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: this poorly sourced article is nothing else than a POV-Fork and should never have been created to start with. As if knowing whether Hitler was vegetarian or not is of any importance with respect to his "achievements". Anyway most of the prominent biographs of Hitler,i.e. Kershaw, Fest, Maser, and so on..., (none of them is even cited in this "article") do not deal much with Hitler's vegetarism. They do however not put in question this fact. Contrary to Robert Payne who seems to question Hitler's vegetarism. The problem is that Payne has published 110 books in 40 years, i.e. more than two per year), on all kinds of topics while a man like Kershaw has spent his whole life to study Hitle and nazism. And that Payne must be the only "historian" who writes that Hitler would have travelled to London in 1911 (which makes me have doubts about Payne's reliability; and I could express the same kind of doubts about others sources used here as many of them do not seem to be historians, but rather pro-vegetarism activists). Hitler's vegetarism should not have made more that the short section that can be found in the main article as it has no historical interest and only accessory biographical interest. Changing the name of this article into "Adolf Hitler's diet" would definetly make it even more POV-fork than it currently is. I could however agree to "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" (although I do not like titles as "X and Y") since it is a well established fact that Hitler's diet was mainly - if not totaly - vegetarian and that he never missed an opportunity to promote vegetarianism towards his interlocutors (and there are enough records of that fact). Lebob (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Given that no other WW2 leader (Roosevelt, Churchill etc), no other vegetarian (Gandhi, Einstein, Tolstoy etc) and no other person on Wikipedia (Julius Caesar, Jesus etc) have their own article specifically devoted to their personal dietary choice, then I too would be equally happy to see this "POV-Fork" article deleted. It makes me wonder whether the motivation behind creating this article was just because Hitler is perceived to be "evil" and vegetarianism (at least by vegetarians) to be "good." I fail to see how "changing the name of this article into 'Adolf Hitler's diet' would make it even more POV-fork than it currently is." Is that even possible? Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The article would be "even more POV fork" simply because the title would hide any relation between Hitler and vegetarianism. --Lebob (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I hear what you say. A change of title however would mean the article is not filed under either Category:Vegetarianism or Category:Semi-vegetarianism (both of which are POV). Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This is getting sillier and sillier. The point of a category is to link readers to articles that are related to a particular topic, which this one is. Your are merely demonstrating Lebob's point that you belong to a POV that wants to "bury" this topic by hiding it from readers who may be interested in issues related to vegetarianism. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Paul B (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view...Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. Wikipedia:Categorization Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's entirely neutral. The article is about vegetarianism, therfore it belongs in the category. There is nothing controversial about this at all. Your whole approach is defined by POV, not by the desire to improve the encyclopedia by making content visible to people with a particular interest in a topic. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
How is it neutral if some sources claim he was not vegetarian? You have a different understanding of neutrality to me. Nirvana2013 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The sources that claim he was not vegetarian have not been written by historians and are are based on interpretation or gossip. The only exception is Payne but one could really wonder whether Payne is an historian. He has written a certain number of biographies, but one can have doubts about the reliability of what he writtes about Hitler (e.g. Hitler travelling to London in 1911). As a matter of fact, most of the direct sources, i.e. people who shared Hitler's dayly life emphazise the fact he was vegetarian and actively promoted vegetarianism in his discussions while the mainstream and reference historians consider he was vegetarian. I really do not see how one could not categorise Hitler as vegetarian. --Lebob (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not really relevant to the issue at hand. If you think the article should be deleted then AfD it and test those arguments—this is not the discussion for it. As for the categories, they group articles by topics, and the subject matter of the article is vegetarianism, ergo the category is entirely appropriate. As an aside the counter-claims of Hitler not being vegetarian are pretty weak in the article: Dione Lucas recalls that he wasn't vegetarian pre-WW2; however, this is not exactly pertinent if Hitler converted 1941–1942, since someone does not have to be vegetarian their whole life to be identified as such (see Einstein, who only converted in the final year of his life). The section depends on comments by his cook, dietician and physician slipping him animal supplements without his knowledge, which strongly suggest he was omitting meat from his diet. If you ask me, the neutrality of the article is compromised by having a section called "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" when at no point in the section is any evidence presented of Hitler choosing to eat meat during the period after his conversion, when he self-identifies in early 1942. I think given the relative weakness of the counter-claims the current title as it stands is acceptable, but if some readers perceive a bias then when we have the entirely acceptable Hitler and vegetarianism. However, it seems there is an agenda at work here to completely remove the connection between Hitler and vegetarianism which i don't agree with. Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The category is not a POV because it is not endorsing any claims, only grouping, as Betty says, the article by topic. Even if there was strong evidence that Hitler was never a vegetarian, it would still belong in that category, because vegetarianism is the subject of the article. Paul B (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was asked to have a look here. Fitting, I guess, to write about this on Armistice day, given the Treaty of Versailles and its messy outcomes, very broadly put, seem to have doomed Germany to having someone like him come along. Even more unlucky it wound up being him, some might say. So far as I am aware, the meaningful secondary and primary sources on this topic overwhelmingly echo that from sometime in the early 1930s until he killed himself in 1945, Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, so far as that label meant "Ovo-lacto vegetarianism" in the mid twentieth century (what that may mean in the early twenty-first century has little or no bearing here). He does seem to have gotten there in steps and fits, as happened in other areas of his life. His vegetarianism has long been held to have brought on an annoying flatulence, for which he sometimes took sundry remedies. As a humble aside, Hitler was also a non-smoker, said he didn't like make up on women, liked riding in fast cars, enjoyed watching Disney movies, had a thing for linseed oil, could be very charming in close gatherings and as a politician was often deeply charismatic in public, moreover quite beloved among women and children. He was also, knowingly, with forethought and through very clever means, the leader behind industrial-scale genocide and warfare that brought on the deaths of tens of millions, Germans and Austrians among those, going by the many sources. Taken altogether I don't believe it's at all untowards to say, both non-smoking vegetarians and meat-eating smokers have done utter evil in this world, which I think readers might helpfully ponder for themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Except, in reality, vegetarian diets increase flatulence not reduce it. This story of Hitler as a vegetarian has the look and feel of an apocryphal folk tale intended to turn Hitler into a spiritual figure. The fact that he banned vegetarian societies and did nothing to promote vegetarianism among his own people speaks louder than the propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you must have misread what I wrote above: It's likely Hitler's vegetarianism indeed gave him flatulence ("His vegetarianism has long been held to have brought on an annoying flatulence, for which he sometimes took sundry remedies."). Gwen Gale (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Gwen, my point is that the sources don't say his vegetarianism was responsible for the flatulence—quite the opposite actually. For example, British physician D. Doyle (2005) says Hitler had the flatulence problem "from childhood" and he was "not a vegetarian in his younger days."[2] Hitler's doctor was treating his gas problem, a health issue he had since he was a child and before he ever allegedly became a vegetarian. So we know that vegetarianism was not responsible for his gas. Therefore, it is quite strange that one would allegedly turn to a diet that is known to produce more flatulence. As you well know, historian Robert Payne attributes this "vegetarianism" to myth-making on the part of the Nazis. Regardless, we have historian of science Robert N. Proctor who notes that Hitler occasionally ate meat and was a "vegetarian of sorts" later in life. I'm curious, what makes you think his lifelong problem with flatulence had anything to do with his vegetarian diet? It doesn't, therefore it doesn't make any logical sense for him to have realistically become a vegetarian when it is well known that such a diet makes flatulence worse. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
From the very source you cited above: "He became a vegan, as well as tee-total, after the suicide of a much-loved niece..." Truth be told, my understanding is that he was a vegetarian, not a vegan. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It's problematic because Doyle's observation of Hitler's "vegan" diet relies on David Irving's book The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor (1983).[www.fpp.co.uk/books/Morell/Morell.pdf] Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Viridias, your arguements are pure OR (and rather irrational OR at that). You somehow don't think it's "logical" to turn to vegetarianism if you have a flatulence problem. Well most people who become vegetarians do so for reasons that override such concerns or are completely irrelevant to them. Then you say "I'm curious, what makes you think his lifelong problem with flatulence had anything to do with his vegetarian diet?" What an amazing example of double-think, since you've just argued that it does ("a diet that is known to produce more flatulence"). You appear to have great difficultly maintaining some degree of coherence and consistency in your assertions. You start off with the uninformed assertion on the basis of your pure intuition that the "story of Hitler as a vegetarian has the look and feel of an apocryphal folk tale". When you discover it is no such thing, you, characteristically, cannot backtrack or admit any kind of error, so have to resort to aggressive insistence at the expense of the evidence, double-think and invented "logic" which has no logic at all. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You're mistaken on every single point, which I will directly address in order: 1) "OR" cannot occur in a discussion on a talk page, it is a term specifically reserved for a type of editing when a user adds content to an article that isn't based on reliable sources. 2) Hitler did not turn to vegetarianism because of flatulence. That's either an error you made or an error Gwen made. According to the sources, Hitler allegedly turned to vegetarianism after his niece committed suicide. The same sources also note that Hitler's stomach problems began as a child, and if he did become a vegetarian (or a "vegetarian of sorts" as Proctor describes his diet), it wasn't until 1931. Please correct your errors. 3) I have summarized the sources, which you would have known if you were familiar with this topic. I believe it was Theodor Morell who wrote in his 1941 diary, "Trouble is, it's getting very difficult to make suggestions what with his being a vegetarian, because carbohydrates lead to a build-up of gases." And it was Payne's opinion that the story of Hitler as a vegetarian has the look and feel of an apocryphal folk tale, not my own. Feel free to apologize at any time. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's quite straightforward I didn't say Hitler went vegetarian over his niece (though many sources do say this, I'm quite neutral on that) and even more straitghtforwardly, I didn't say, nor would I ever say, Hitler went vegetarian owing to flatulence (moreover I'm unaware of any source that says this, something so odd). Meanwhile, you cite Theo Morel, who (quack that he was), acknowledges Adolph Hitler was indeed a vegetarian. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not in dispute. The dispute (as far as I can tell from the above) is concerned with naming conventions. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the old "never concede, instead change the subject" tactic. Feel free to stop misrepresenting the facts at any time. Of course OR can occur on a talk page, and regularly does. It's just not disallowed on a talk page. Big Difference. You are too lazy to even bother to check what was actually said about Hitler and flatulence, so you misrepresent and distort to cover your increasing self-contradictions. No-one as far as I know ever said that. Certainly I did not. Certainly Gwen did not. She's already explained that you misread her comment. You said it has the look and feel of a folk tale. You did not attribute your "folk tale" comment to Payne, and in any case he didn't say that. Of course Payne is completely unreliable in any case, for reasons that have already been discussed at length. I know you wont apologise, because you are congenitally incapable of it, so I wont even bother to ask. But do look in the mirror. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any source that says Hitler took "sundry remedies" for flatulence brought on by his vegetarianism. This story of Hitler as a vegetarian has the look and feel of an apocryphal folk tale intended to turn Hitler into a spiritual figure, according to Payne's opinion represented in the article, an opinion that the proposers are using to bolster their argument for a move. You're engaging in the fallacy of rotten apples by claiming Payne is an unreliable source about Hitler's diet simply because he made an error about a separate incident that has nothing to do with his observations about Hitler's diet. We already have other sources indicating Hitler ate sausages, ham, and caviar between 1931-1945. If you wanted to refute Payne, all you would have to do is show that Hitler didn't drink beer or wine, eat sausages or caviar or keep a mistress. You can't do that, so you are reduced to attacking his credibility on a different subject, which is essentially distracting us from the issue at hand. Historian Robert N. Proctor supports the notion that Hitler ate meat, so Payne isn't alone in questioning the perception of Hitler's "vegetarianism" over the reality of his fondness for eating meat. Payne's claim that "Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany" is also followed up on by Proctor:

Hitler's vegetarianism was remarked on prior even to 1933, however, when the Führer-to-be's personal asceticism was held up as the model Nazi lifestyle. Foreigners eventually took note, recording also some apparent backsliding. Otto D. Tolischus in 1937 in the New York Times pointed out that the Führer was a vegetarian who "does not drink or smoke" but who also "occassionally relishes a slice of ham" along with delicacies such as caviar and chocolates. Postwar observers have often—and understandably—used this to question whether Hitler was in fact a vegetarian.[3]

[...]

Hitler was indeed, for the most part, a vegetarian—though he did occassionally allow himself a dish of meat. Gestapo chief Rudolf Diels after the war wrote that HItler would sometimes eat Bavarian liver dumplings (Leberknödel), but only when they were prepared by his photographer friend, Heinrich Hoffmann. The New York Times mentioned ham and caviar, but HItler was also said to have enjoyed squab[4]...Hitler is said to have been unable to tolerate the idea of animals' being killed for human consumption, but at least one author has countered that this was an image deliberately crafted to popularize the German leader as kind and gentle. Animal-rights historians Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax have noted that both claims may be true.[5]

It therefore appears that Payne's claims remain intact and the notion that there is a legitimate dispute over Hitler's vegetarianism is repeated by a respected historian of science. This is essentially what is driving the editors who are asking for a change of article name and it appears to be a complaint backed by evidence, not unreliable fringe sources as you maintain. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's commonly believed that Hitler was a vegetarian, and this article is about that belief. The article's title should reflect that directly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
True. It is also commonly believed that "Hitler was probably not entirely consistent in his vegetarianism, and there has been much debate about the reasons for it."[6] Perhaps another title would allow for this perspective? I've been thinking that it would make more sense to broaden, not narrow the topic, by merging this article into Animal welfare in Nazi Germany as a subtopic pertaining to vegetarianism and the Nazi Party as a whole. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
That would be good except that Herr Hitler didn't advocate for or force vegetarianism on others. Vegetarianism was not a part of the Nazi platform or part of public policy in Nazi Germany. Hitler did not drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or cigars, or eat meat; but, even his inner circle (and the vast majority of Germans) did all of those things (Even Herr Goering was a drug addict). A more appropriate avenue would be to, as the User below suggests, simply delete this article altogether and include some of the material in the Adolf Hitler Article or simply rename the article as "Hitler and Vegetarianism" and balance the content per WP:WEIGHT as the vast majority of historical sources say that Herr Hitler was, in fact, a vegetarian. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Your response indicates that you may not have visited the link above.[7] Vegetarian meals were sometimes mandated for the ruling party and Hitler planned on mandating vegetarianism for all Germans once an effective means of food production was in place. The vegetarianism in question is more relevant in the context of animal welfare in Nazi Germany. More current sources report that while Hitler was most probably a vegetarian after 1931, his "vegetarianism" is disputed due to his meat intake during that same time. (Proctor, Sax, etc.) There is absolutely no weight issue here at all. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Again your talking about the extreme minority of historical sources (in regard to your source), which must be balanced, per WP:Weight. And Yes, this whole thread is about WP:Weight (in my opinion), that is the issue. The whole discussion is about whether or not we rename the article in a manner that indicates he was a vegetarian (as "Hitler's vegetarianism") or a neutral way (like, Hitler and Vegetarianism) or in a way that makes it seem like the sources are split on whether he is a vegetarian (which I am against since the historical sources overwhelming say that he was a vegetarian). This is the whole discussion. I'm not here to engage on any side issue, the only thing I'm here to do is participate in the discussion as to whether we should rename the article. (I'm absolutely not saying that the sources that cast doubt on his vegetarianism should be removed from the Article.) Anything regarding Nazi policy, Hitler, or actions of Hitler or the S.S. (especially there non-public actions) should be backed up by multiple reliable sources (as there is loads of contradictory information out there and it tends to get propagated by authors who rely on less than dubious sources (re. Kiplings books on the Nazis, lol)). As to whether Herr Himmler may or may not have tried to get some of the S.S. to eat veggie or as to whether Herr Hitler got Herren Goebbels and Hess to be veggie may be interesting and maybe should be added to Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. But they are but two of the many people in the inner circle (of which almost all ate meat, drank, and smoked). I would not add the bit in your reference about the possible future policies (or planned mandates) regarding vegetarianism (unless you can find other multiple, unrelated, and reliable sources to confirm it as a matter of fact and not as speculation or argument (as Boria Sax does in your reference)). But, I'm okay with pretty much anything, moving the info into the Hitler Article, renaming the article "Hitler and Vegetarianism", or your suggestion, or just deleting the Article. The only thing I object to is renaming the Article in a way that makes it seem like there isn't consensus (or at least overwhelming agreement) among the vast majority of historical sources that he was a vegetarian. As Always, With Thanks King of Nothing (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Fairly OT, but the next time someone writes "Herr Hitler", I'll start calling him Adolf. --87.79.178.85 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm German, I say "Herr" instead of "Mister", especially in reference to other Germans. P.S., don't call me Adolf, lol King of Nothing (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete this article altogether. At the most Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism could have been mentioned in the main article. It was stupid to write a whole new, POV article on this subject. You will not find anything like that in any respected encyclopedia. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Question: Is there anyone involved in this discussion that opposes a move to the frequently suggested alternative title, Hitler and vegetarianism? If no-one does then we have a title acceptable to everyone and we can just wrap this discussion up. Betty Logan (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, I support it. King of Nothing (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed, but I still prefer the current title, as it describes what the article is about - Hitler's vegetarianism. "Hitler and vegetarianism" is really another topic. It would include not just his personal diet, but his wider opinions, policies etc. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As a matter of fact, I do not like titles like "X and Y" that make a link between a person and a concept as they are often an open door for WP:OR. Furthermore I share Paul B's comment above on the fact that Hitler and vegetarianism" would be another topic. However I will not oppose to this change if there is a consensus for it. --Lebob (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • would be another topic -- Exactly! A better topic, which could finally include meaningful meta-analysis of the phenomenon (i.e. that Hitler's vegetarianism is very frequently brought up in discussions not even remotely involving Hitler but instead topics like factory farming). All based on reliable sources, of course. A section of well-sourced meta-discussion is desperately missing from the current article -- and from its current scope. --87.79.176.62 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The proposed change is already being used an excuse to expand the scope of this article into a WP:COATRACK article, and yes, that article would be an invitation to OR and POV pushing. There would have to be serious consensus for changing the scope of the article, and that cannot be inferred from this RfC, which is on a different question altogether. Sorry, I see this as a way to sneak in a major change to the article under the pretext of simply changing the name. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nice try, but obviously it's the current title and scope which make this article a COATRACK against vegetarianism. Nice try though. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
To the IP: It's not a "coatrack" or any kind of attack on vegetarians. Rather, it's the opposite - since it is full of dubious claims that he was not one. As for Dominus Vobisdu claim that a change of title would make it a "coatrack", I am at a loss for words, since he is presumably referring to my comments below. I think Dominus needs to actually read WP:COATRACK. Expanding the scope of an article is not in any sense coatracking. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support / comment as I'd say the title as it currently stands carries the understanding/assumption that Hitler was a vegetarian. But, as already demonstrated, that's disputed. The "Hitler and vegetarianism" suggestion sounds suitably neutral. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Move instead to Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism, as suggested by several above (and also opposed by at least one, but contrary to their objection the article is already about Hitler's attitudes not just about his personal practice). This appears to be NPOV and also an accurate and recognisable description of the topic. Agree the current title is POV, but the suggested new title Adolf Hitler's diet is a significant change of scope and does not do the current article justice. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reply to Viriditas[edit]

As I said above, you respond by simply producing Walls of Text filled with misdirection that function to bludgeon editors into silence. Your comments systematically misrepresent sources and also misrepresent what other editors have said to create fake "answers". I find this approach to dealing with any topic morally and intellectually repugnant, as it stops proper debate and proper evaluation of sources. Even your first sentence has no relevance to anything ("I am not aware of any source that says Hitler took "sundry remedies" for flatulence brought on by his vegetarianism") Yes, he took remedies for flatulence. Whether it was specifically brought on by his vegetarianism is arguable, but wholly irrelevant. This is Agument by misdirection.

Payne is unreliable in this matter beause he is a potboiler biographer, not an expert, but also because this - and other books of his - are known to contain egregious errors. That is one of the ways we determine reliability. Payne is simply talking crap when he says that Hitler's vegetarianism was a fiction invented by Goebbels. If Hitler tucked into Steak and Kidney pies every night, he might have an argument, but the fact that his diet was vegetarian is a reality commented upon by numerous witnesses, so it obviously is not made up by Goebbels is it? You know that to be true. It is also true that he lived a frugal lifestyle; did not smoke; did not drink, except the odd glass rarely. He seemingly didn't much care for sex either, by all the evidence we have of his relationship to Eva. So, yes, he was frugal. Lots of mass killers have been puritanical in their lives. There's nothing inherently "good" about not enjoying life. Indeed one can argue there is a short step between puritanism and fanaticism, but that's another topic. Incidentally, it's not a "fallacy" that a rotten apple spoils others. It's a fact. However, it's true that one mistake does not invalidate a source. Even highly reliable sources contain slip ups. The point is that Payne is generally sloppy about facts, preferring a good story. And, of course, not a single other biographer agrees with him. You can find others saying that Hitler was not veggie all the time at various periods, but not a single one says anything so wild as Payne: that the whole thing was a fairy tale made up by Goebbels (or by Hitler himself, or by anyone). WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG put Payne way way "out there", by any reasonable standard.

As for the liver dumplings, squab etc, it has already been pointed out repeatedly that this information comes either from unreliable original sources (gossip articles), or refers to a transitional period when Hitler generally avoided meat, but was not rigid in doing so. It is clear that he became more "fixated" on vegetarianism as he got older. It is also clear he promoted it and that he asserted that it was the future for the western diet. That was about as accurate as most of his other insights into the future, but it is an undisputed fact, however you or anyone wriggles. Paul B (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Hitler did not take "sundry remedies" for flatulence brought on by his vegetarianism as Gwen suggested above at 22:18, 12 November 2012. I hope that clears up your confusion. Robert N. Proctor, an historian of science, is not an unreliable source for information about Hitler's diet, so you're mistaken. Feel free to question the sources he uses in another venue, preferably in your own published work, because your criticism of his sources isn't supported. Payne is welcome to his own opinion, and we can represent his opinion using reliable sources. We're not in a position to disqualify all of Payne's opinions because of a separate error, nor to throw out Proctor because you don't like the primary sources he uses. Viriditas (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring this article[edit]

I think this article needs to be restructured. The way it is split "Hitler as a vegetarian/Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" introduces POV and original research. It seems to me some sources are being taken out of context to make a case that they don't really back up. Case in point: Letter writer Carol Jochnowitz wrote: "On page 89 of The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964), Dione Lucas, recalling her pre-World War II stint as a hotel chef in Hamburg, Germany, states: 'I do not mean to spoil your appetites for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though.'". Two problems here—we shouldn't be sourcing letter writers to newspapers, and secondly, it refers to a period of Hitler's life before he was actively self-identifying as a vegetarian. It doesn't really prove anything, since it doesn't pertain to the period of his life when he was supposedly vegetarian. Given the RS issues I would prefer to this quote and source pulled.

Secondly, the section depends on quotes by his physician, dietician and cook and presents their comments/actions as proof of Hitler's non-vegatarianism. Again, this is drawing unfounded conclusions: if they are slipping him animal by-products you can argue that Hitler isn't vegetarian on a technicality, but at the same time these are quotes from the people who would be the most informed about his diet and they strongly suggest that he had chosen to omit meat from his diet, otherwise there is no logic to their actions. They simply don't belong in a section called "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism", they just provide a factual basis to the claims for and against.

I suggest scrapping the current structure, and replacing it with a chronological structure: start with his diet in the pre-vegetarian period of his life, move on to the factual stuff and the contemporary claims of his vegetarian period, and then move on to the modern day analysis of those claims. As it stands, we have a huge section that just isn't neutral, because it misrepresents sources and twists facts, and these shouldn't have any spin put on them. The facts can speak for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think your last sentence is slightly problematic because the facts are not known with absolute certainty. We can only report on what scholars and their sources have said. If there are contradictions, we have to recognise that in the text. I do think we should have a section on the "questioning", but in the context that in the post-war period (and perhaps earlier) some vegetarians were keen to dissociate themselves and their beliefs from Hitler. I don't know whether there ever was a stong association between the two in many people's minds, but it clearly is an emotional issue for some, as this talk page demonstrates. It might also be relevant to address changing definitions of vegetarianism, which seems to be relevant to the section in which his use of medication containing animal products is used as "evidence" against his vegetarianism (even though it's not even clear whether he knew the content of the medication). Paul B (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It's irrelevant whether we think that he was a vegetarian or not, and applying a dictionary definition ourselves would be OR. The only thing that counts is what the best reliable sources have to say. Exploring the changing definitions of vegetarianism is far, far beyond the scope of this article, and is toally irrelevant to the subject. As for the post-war reaction or public opinion on the matter, we require SOLID sources to say anything about that. That means real academic sources, only, as described in WP:HISTRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"Exploring the changing definitions of vegetarianism is far, far beyond the scope of this article, and is toally irrelevant to the subject." No, it is not, as I have explained below. The changing definitions are part of the debate about what it means to say whether or not he "was". I'm surprised you cannot see the point. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: You have my support. The letter/cookbook material is not reliably sourced by any stretch of the imagination and con be omited entirely. The opinions of his physician, dietician and cook do not carry any weight UNLESS they have been seriously mentioned by more serious reliable sources. They certainly don't trump or "balance" his own self-identification, the recollections of people who knew him better, or the conclusions drawn by more serious and qualified sources. And yes, evidence that others adulterated his food is no grounds for claiming that he was not a vegetarian. The chronological presentention you propose would be a vast improvement on the article. Great job! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I generally agree with Betty, and fully support the restructuring, but I think the bad sources should not simply be excluded altogether, but included in a section on the "Ryan Berry approach", as it were, otherwise they will be repeatedly reinserted. There are numerous websites out there that reiterate Berry's claims. Paul B (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
That is completely at odds with our policies and guidelines, and is tantamount to OR. Bad sources are of course to be completely excluded, as is any material based on them, unless they are seriously discussed in real serious sources, and even then can be used to illustrate and support what the reliable sources have to say. It is completely and utterly irrelavent what "numerous websites" have to say, unless they have a demonstrated reputation for serious scholarly competence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand you. It is not OR to report on someone's views. What matters is whether the views are notable. Even highly unreliable sources can be used to report on fringe ideas, theorists, etc, if those ideas are notable. As for OR on the general topic of vegetarian opinion, that would depend on what sourcing exists for the undeniable fact that vegetarian activists have tried to dissociate themselves from Hitler. There are several discussions of this fact in newspapers and other sources. BTW, the "numerous websites" were mentioned to point out that this is a notable view. I was not suggesting that the websites should be quoted, though some may useable. I also thought it was strategically sensible to refer to the claims in context to avoid their being repeatedly added as facts by people who have read the websites. Paul B (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't actually intending omitting the Berry book (since it probably still meets basic RS criteria even if it is a sloppy source), but I think generally the first hand accounts from people who knew Hitler should take precedence over any revisionism, which is why I suggested the chronological approach. I've tagged all the sources I have real problems with so you can see what I intende to pull from the article, but I would prefer to see a distinction between facts (in this case knowledge that is known to be true, or at least isn't contested), contemporary first hand accounts and revisionist accounts. Betty Logan (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, if the title is changed to "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism", a section on post-war arguments about attitudes to the relation between Hitler and vegetarianism would be entirely on topic. It's not difficult to find sources, say, on the relation of all this to the Reductio ad Hitlerum [8] or see Rod Preece's Sins of the Flesh: A History of Ethical Vegetarian Thought pp295-6 for a discussion of post-war vegetarian responses to Hitler's adviocacy. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please! A section discussing the "meme" would make the article truly interesting and useful. I'm all for it. --87.79.176.62 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Betty, that material appears to have slipped in under the radar when an IP added it back in 2009.[9] It looks like it should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Heinz Linge and Margot Woelk[edit]

Heinz Linge, Hitler's personal valet:

"Two vegetarian courses, (both including the obligatory apple) were provided for him to choose from. Hitler had long eschewed meat, but if strangers came to lunch, his food was carefully arranged in such a way that the absence of meat was not obvious at first glance.

Because Hitler was such a late riser, it might be that the midday meal, usually attended by a dozen guests, would not be served until 2.30pm, by which time many of those invited would have satisfied their appetites by eating elsewhere. Hitler's meals were prepared lukewarm after an operation on his vocal cords - following a gas attack during World War I - left his voice sensitive.

His diet consisted principally of potatoes and vegetables, a stew without meat, and fruit. Hitler would occasionally have beer with his meal, and wine on official occasions when a toast was to be made. He was strict about his vegetarianism and non-smoking, but was not opposed to alcohol.

However, he found drunkenness repulsive and gave up beer in 1943 when he began to put on fat around the hips. He believed the German people would not want to see a corpulent Chancellor. Dinner was a much smaller affair, with only a few guests present, beginning at around eight.

Again, of course, it was vegetarian, with Hitler believing the 'most disastrous stage in human development was the day when man first ate cooked meat'. He was convinced that it was this 'unnatural' way of living that 'cut short' human life span to 60 or 70 years.

By Hitler's calculations, all animals whose nutrition was natural lived eight to ten times as long as their period of development to full maturity.

He was convinced we would all live to be 150-180 if we became vegetarian. Such a view exasperated his physicians, who constantly tried to persuade him to change his diet, keep regular hours, sleep normally and take exercise."

Margot Woelk, Hitler's food taster:

"It was all vegetarian, the most delicious fresh things, from asparagus to peppers and peas, served with rice and salads. It was all arranged on one plate, just as it was served to him. There was no meat and I do not remember any fish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.91.82 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I take 95-year old Margot Woelk's recent personal testimony seriously. Unlike Hitler's loyal propaganda minister and his personal valet, she rejected the Nazi party and disliked Hitler calling him a "repugnant man." She reports that all food she forcibly tasted for Hitler over 2.5 years during WWII was vegetarian. See this article by Spiegel Online. Taking Woelk's testimony as true this leaves the question of when did Hitler become vegetarian (as there are reports that he ate meat before the war) and why? - personal health, love for animals or both. For example, the huge amount of domesticated and wild animals killed directly or indirectly during his military campaigns (0.5 million horses killed in Operation Barbarossa alone) brings into question his compassion for animals.[10] Perhaps someone out there should do a peer reviewed PhD on the subject! Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Rynn Berry[edit]

Who is this guy and why is he so important for an inclusion in this article? He seems to have zero credibility when it comes to historic work about Adolf Hitler (or historic work at all). So why is his opinion added here? Especially since he seems to ignore the pile of evidence that he Hitler was indeed a vegetarian. StoneProphet (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You could argue the same about Bee Wilson too, who doesn't seem to be a published authority on Hitler. The modern day analysis section should only include viewpoints by published authorities on Hitler IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In his main article, which is GA, it is stated as a fact that Hitler was vegetarian, so i changed the article here to reflect that. Rynn Berry is not a reliable source ( not a historan, not an acknowledged author or anything), so I took him out, his opinion just dont matters. I also took Robert Perry out, as his "biography" of Hitler seems to be so be totally flawed and more a work of fiction than a serious biography. The other book with the same name ("The mind of Adolf Hitler") by Langer I left inside. At the end the evidence and the sources show that Hitler was indeed a vegetarian - at least during the war - so I changed the article accordingly to reflect this fact. I dont know about that Bee Wilson women, but at least she has a WP article and she seems to have /some/ credibility in the history section. I also merged anything from the main AH article into this article. StoneProphet (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Google search for Rynn Berry (in response to "Who is this guy and why is he so important...?" MaynardClark (talk)

Bee Wilson[edit]

When does an obscure British food writer that was born in 1974 become a source for or against Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism? I think it should be removed, it is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.38 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral alterations to the structure of the article[edit]

An editor has twice altered the structure of the article without discussing the changes here first. The structure of the article was discussed above in Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism#Restructuring this article and an agreement was reached. This currently represents a consensus, so if any editors wish to propose a new organization for the article, then by all means raise the issue, but please don't make unilateral alterations without reaching an agreement with other editors first. Betty Logan (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Not cited[edit]

"Towards the end of his life Adolf Hitler followed a vegetarian diet. It is not clear when he adopted it."

So towards the end of his life he adopted a certain diet, but, we're not clear when he adopted it. That does not even make sense. We need more sources Orasis (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. There's no record of exactly when he had his last ham sandwich, nor would we expect there to be. As for citation, the article is well cited. The lede section does not require ctation if it summarises cited content. See WP:LEDE. Paul B (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Further edits have persisted adding "citation needed" tags to the lede: [11]. Since the purpose of the lede is to summarise content in the body of the article (which should be sourced), WP:CITELEAD does not require editors to add redundant citations i.e. if the claim or fact is already sourced in the article the citation does not need to be provided again in the lead. The first two sections of the article detail transcripts (in which Hitler proclaims himself to be vegetarian), diary entries and witness testimony from people very well acquainted with his diet confirming that he was almost certianly vegetarian from 1942 onwards. Sources detailing his diet prior to the war are a bit more inconsistent, indicating he may or may not have been vegetarian earlier in his life. Instead of repeatedly tagging the lead it would be helpful if the editor would at least explain their rationale for doing so; if they feel the sentence does not adequately summarise the sourced content in the article then would they please explain exactky what their problem is with it. Please note if a problem does indeed exist with the sentence, it is not that it is uncited it is that it does not neutrally and accurately summarize the claims our article makes. Tags only alert editors to a potential problem, but if we do not understand what the problem is we cannot address it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The IP provided a rationale of sorts on my talk page [12]. Is there a "not" missing from this sentence? "WP:CITELEAD does require editors to add redundant citations". Paul B (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've corrected my post and added my "not". I am still not sure what point the IP is making there, but is he arguing that we are incorrect in stating Hitler became vegetarian at the end of his life, just because we have sources stating he was vegetarian at the end of his life? That is a valid point actually, if that indeed is the point being made. The sources for the war period are consistent, while the ones prior to the war are not, so it is conceivable he was vegetarian throughout his life. I will make this clear in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent POV edits[edit]

Tatlock123 has recently been editing the article pushing an edit that represents Hitler as not a vegetarian. Most of the quotes revolve about Hitler's penchant for things like stuffed squab and liver dumplings, taken completely taken out of context. For example Dione Lucas worked at a restaurant he patronized prior to the war, while Ilsa Hess's comments and those of the New York Times date to 1937. In short, there are many documented incidents of Hitler consuming meat prior to the war, and none after 1942. The incident relating to Eva Braun ordering turtle soup for supper is interesting (and probably deserves to be in the article) but ultimately proves nothing i.e. we should not draw our own conclusions.

A lot of the material added has some merit, but it is not appropriate to construct a case for or against Hitler's vegetarianism. The article is divided into contemporary records, personal testimony and retrospective analysis to retain a sense of objectivity. These are the changes I made to the content with explanations:

  1. [13] and [14] – Dione Lucas is already covered in the article, while Ravioli is a dish that has many permutations and isn't necessarily meat based. The remaining quotes are tangential to the issue of Hitler's diet.
  2. [15] – The New York Times commentary was relocated to the appropriate section
  3. [16] – Frau Hess's comments (from 1937) were moved to the "personal testimony" section.
  4. [17] – The commentary about Eva Braun ordering a "turtle soup" supper taken from interrogation notes were moved to the "contemporary records" section, and the OR conclusions were removed. They do not confirm one way or the other if Hitler partook of the supper.
  5. [18] – Modern day analysis of Hitler's diet was fully integated into the "analysis" section.

Unfortunately, after making these edits Tatlock made more POV edits that are not actually supported by the sources within the article. Can I please remind editors of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and remind them to observe WP:Original research and WP:NPOV. If you feel that the article misrepresents the sources then please raise the issue here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The ravioli story is from Inside the Third Reich. Speer is referring to events in 1933, just after Hitler came to power. He does not say whether or not it was a vegetarian ravioli. It may not have been in 1933, but Hitler is known to have enjoyed vegetarian ravioli (several sources have a veggie ravioli as his last meal, as depicted in the film Downfall). "Turtle soup" was very rarely made from turtle. It was a term for a type of soup, which was usually "mock turtle", of which there were various recipes, including vegetarian ones. The ham, liver dumpliings, etc, have been dealt with elsewhere. The stuff about vegetarian societies and confiscating eggs etc is just totally irrelevant, as is the content of medication. Paul B (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems that "tutrle soup" (whether real or mock) was Eva's favourite dish. She had it for supper nearly every night. It has nothing to do with Hitler himself [19]. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou for your input Paul, you always bring clarity to these disputes/debates. The factoid about Turtle soup being Eva's favorite dish is certainly illuminating and I will incorporate that into the article, although I wonder if there is much point retaining the turtle soup segment since it obviously pertains to Eva Braun and not Hitler? As for the ravioli it seems to be largely irrelevant i.e. the incident took place in 1933 before Hitler was completely vegetarian, it didn't necessarily contain meat, and most likely didn't. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


Tatlock123 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

Turtle soup may have been Eva Braun's favourite dish, but one dish often said to be loved by Hitler was Bavarian sausage. I'm not sure why, if Eva Braun was ordering turtle soup, sandwiches and sausages in 1944, we are only going to focus on the turtle soup and completely ignore the sausages. The sandwiches may have contained something vegetarian, the turtle soup may have been for Eva Braun alone, but we need to acknowledge that sausages were a known Hitler favourite, therefore it is relevant that Eva Braun was ordering turtle soup and sausages. On what possible basis can one write 'I wonder if there is much point retaining the turtle soup segment since it obviously pertains to Eva Braun and not Hitler?'

The word 'obviously' would need to be explained there so that the reader can understand why it is 'obvious' that the sausages Eva Braun ordered regularly in 1944 for supper were not for Hitler?

'@Betty Logan:' writes "You have my support. The letter/cookbook material is not reliably sourced by any stretch of the imagination and con be omited entirely."

It is very reliably sourced in fact. It is written on page 89 of the Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964). The author of that book, Dione Lucas, had two TV shows on United States TV, published six books, Lucas helped to introduce the omelette to the American palate. She was the first woman trained as a Cordon Bleu chef, she opened a Cordon Bleu school in New York (the first) and can be seen as a predecessor and influence to Julia Child. She owned and managed various restaurants in New York, including the very successful Egg Basket near Bloomingdales. She wasn't just a random nutter writing letters to editors.

In the 1930s she was employed as a chef in Hamburg. It was in that capacity that she prepared food for Hitler, and reports his favourite being the game bird squab.

StoneProphet writes "Rynn Berry is not a reliable source ( not a historan, not an acknowledged author or anything), so I took him out, his opinion just dont matters..."

Again, I have to correct you. Rynn Berry was a prolific published author. He taught comparative literature at Baruch College in Manhattan (a school within the City University of New York), and later culinary history at New School for Social Research in New York City. Additional to the works below, Rynn also wrote entries on vegetarianism and related issues for the Oxford Encyclopedia of American Food and Drink and The Oxford Companion to Food and Drink in America. Rynn Berry's books have been translated into many languages and were reedited numerous times.

The Vegetarians, Autumn Press, 1979. ISBN 0-394-73633-8

The New Vegetarians (updated edition of his previous book, with William Shurtleff interview instead of Marty Feldman's), Chestnut Ridge, New York, Townhouse Press, 1988 ISBN 0-940653-17-6; Pythagorean Publishers, 1993. ISBN 0-9626169-0-7

Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes: Lives and Lore from Buddha to the Beatles, Pythagorean Publishers, 1993; Eighth Printing (Revised: 2003). ISBN 0-9626169-1-5

Food for the Gods: Vegetarianism & the World's Religions, Pythagorean Publishers, 1998. ISBN 0-9626169-2-3 Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover (with an introduction by Martin Rowe) Pythagorean Publishers, 2004. ISBN 0-9626169-6-6

"Veganism," article in The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 604–605. Becoming Raw: The Essential Guide to Raw Vegan Diets (with Brenda Davis & Vesanto Melina), Book Publishing Company, 2010. ISBN 1-57067-238-5

The Vegan Guide to New York City (with Chris A. Suzuki & Barry Litsky), Ethical Living, 2013 (20th edition). ISBN 0-9788132-8-6[54]

So one may say "Rynn Berry is not a reliable source ( not a historan, not an acknowledged author or anything)", but in so doing, one need also question one's own reliability as a source.

I have ignored the sections on vivisection and the Nazi leadership's tender concern for animals, but the Nazi laws were based almost entirely on The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, an Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This act, when it was introduced in Britain, placed some largely cosmetic restrictions on vivisection. Anti-vivisectionists were enraged, viewing the Act as nothing more than an attempt to provide legal cover for vivisection.

The piece in your Wiki page as it stood earlier today, completely disregarded the connection between Nazi 'animal rights' & Jewish persecution. The Nazis could do vivisection on human beings after all, but used animals as needed when gypsy or Jewish subjects proved too sick. E.g. Joseph Mengele at Auschwitz. A former Auschwitz prisoner doctor said:

'He was capable of being so kind to the children, to have them become fond of him, to bring them sugar, to think of small details in their daily lives, and to do things we would genuinely admire ... And then, next to that, ... the crematoria smoke, and these children, tomorrow or in a half-hour, he is going to send them there. Well, that is where the anomaly lay.'

When the human subjects were too sick (as in Mengele's epilepsy experiments) the doctor instantly switched to rabbits. Hitler proved equally disattached when it came to testing cyanide on his beloved dog Blondi. Should we be surprised that he'd give in to weakness for Bavarian sausage?

The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In "The Dark Face of Science," author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly:

"The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of or complementary to, experiments on animals. "In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenvald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme." Beneath is a link to Nazi human vivisection experiments and the camps where they took place.

http://www.websteruniv.edu/~woolflm/deathcamps.html

Lastly Paul B writes 'The stuff about vegetarian societies and confiscating eggs etc is just totally irrelevant, as is the content of medication.'

As the tone of this Wiki entry appears to be that Hitler was an animal lover, the implication being that this is connected to his 'vegetarianism', why, during the Reich, vegetarians being forbidden to organize new groups or to start publications, or if already up & running, being suspended or prohibited from using the term "vegetarian movement" is 'just totally irrelevant' would also need further explanation in my opinion. Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlock123 (talkcontribs) 02:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Tatlock, you actually added some decent material, but it is not editors to adopt a stance on whether Hitler was or was not vegetarian. There are numerous sources pre-dating 1937 that say Hitler ate meat and the article reflects that accurately. We already cover Dione Lucas in the article, and her position as a chef at a restaurant favored by Hitler before the war is consistent with that. The same with the New York Times article of the same year. You yourself added the content about Frau Hess, in which Hitler effectively gave up all meat except for liver dumplings in 1937 and you also added several other compelling sources to that effect too, so I find it curious you are adopting a stance contrary to what your own sources say. There is compelling evidence Hitler was not vegetarian prior to 1937 (and the article reflects this). There is compelling evidence (added by you) that Hitler stopped eating all meat except liver dumplings in 1937, and the article reflects this. From 1942 there is no record or witness testimony that he willingly ate meat (the only times he deviated from this were due to trickery by his chef and doctor), and plenty of evidence (such as that of his food taster) suggesting the opposite, and the article accurately reflects this. The incident in 1944 with Eva Braun ordering a supper of turtle soup, sausages and sandwiches is interesting, but far from conclusive for three reasons: i) Braun ordered the supper; ii) turtle soup was her favorite dish, suggesting it was for her; iii) crucially, it is not clear if Hitler shared the supper. Most of what you added has actually been retained in the article, but just reorganized into the correct chronology. So yes, there is plenty of evidence Hitler ate meat up to 1937, but plenty of evidence that he didn't after 1942 and that is really the crux of the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

31.52.39.135 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

I hear what you are saying. But are you hearing me?

"Of Hitler’s daily routine in 1944: After midnight [Eva] would direct that there should be another light snack of turtle soup, sandwiches, and sausages." (Eberle, Henrik and Uhl, Matthias, ed. (2005). The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin, New York: Public Affairs p.136)

"The incident in 1944 with Eva Braun ordering a supper of turtle soup, sausages and sandwiches..." you say.

"Incident" is an interesting word for what is called in the text a 'daily routine'. 'Incident' suggests it took place just the once, whereas 'daily routine' suggests this was a regular occurence?

Also, if one eats nothing but fruit, vegetables & the odd liver dumpling, one is not a vegetarian by any known deffinition of that word.

Now maybe they were cucumber sandwiches, maybe Hitler did not eat the soup, or maybe there were no turtles in it, & maybe he derived vicarious pleasure from watching Eva devour the sausages. Maybe Hitler ate not one liver dumpling after September 3rd 1939, but that is a lot of 'maybes' upon which to pitch one's tent.

I hope this clarifies my position on this. Tatlock123 (talk) 13.25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes and the maybes are all coming from you. They may have been vegetarian sausages for all we know. There is no reference to meat in any of this, with the possible exception of "turtle". That's an assumption on your part, just like the assumption about the term "ravioli". What you are doing is to try to, as it were, "catch out" Hitler by extrapolating speculatively from a primary source. That's not really the proper way to write up a topic on Wikipedia. We should look at what experts say about the issue: scholars who have looked at all the evidence and weighed it up. Berry is certainly no expert on Hitler, or history, and clearly has a conflict of interest. Paul B (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


I am not the one making assumptions here, nor the one with an agenda. I only want a fair and balanced presentation of the evidence. With your deletions, you appear not to want that. 31.52.39.135 (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

Your additions are transparently agenda driven. You want to disassociate Hitler from vegetarianism and animal rights. History is more paradoxical than "bad people must do everything I think is bad". Paul B (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The article is "balanced". Every single source you added directly related to Hitler's meat consumption (i.e. those that specifically addressed Hitler's diet) was incorporated into the article, except for the Dione Lucas one simply for the fact she is already covered. You were the one that added Frau Hess's comments that Hiter stopped eating meat except for liver dumplings in 1937. You were the one who added several other sources saying Hitler's diet excluded meat except for liver dumplings, so how exactly is the representation of these sources in the article unbalanced? Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the article seems to conclude that prior to WWII Hitler was not fully veggie, but during WWII he was. This is an impossible conclusion based on present evidence. Why? Because there is a wide open possibility he ate liver dumplings and sausages during WWII. Not a certainty, but a very real possibility. That is as far as either position can take it. Without further evidence, that is as far as we can go. Tatlock123 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

Tatlock. Please add the signature after the message - at the end. Plus you don't need to type your username by hand. It automatically appears (as long as you are logged in). If you write it it just gets tacked on at the end. Regarding your points, we go with what the evidence says. Historians who specialise in the topic have concluded thast Hitler became completely vegetarian. Can we prove this beyond doubt? Of course not. He might have scoffed pork pies in secret while sitting in the toilet. But we have no evidence to support that. It's just imagination. What evidence we do have is consistent that he was vegetarian. Saying "it's possble" he might have done something that all the sources say he didn't, when there's no evidence and no reason to believe it's at all likely, is of no value. Also, please remember that we have to conform to WP:OR and WP:RS. You tend to add statements that are not sourced at all, or sourced very unclearly. Nothing in the many paragraphs below about vivisection is sourced. Clearly you are getting this from somewhere, but where? For example, who says anti-vivisectionists were "outraged" by the legislation?
p.s. did you know that vegetarian sausages were invented by none other than Konrad Adenauer? How ironic is that? Paul B (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


The stuff was all sourced in its initial format, the one you removed from the page. In redoing it I couldn't be bothered to add the sources again. The fact is though, that when it comes to vivisection, the Nazis not only duplicated a weak law which gave them opportunity not to stop vivisection, but to choose who to give vivisection licences to. They also, over and above any other nation on earth, expanded their vivisection program to include breeds of animal that other nations (apart from their ally, the Japanese) did not use, namely Jewish and Romany human beings. Tatlock123 (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I checked in the original fortmat, and though there were scatered citations, it was impossible to tell how they sourced specific statements, nor what the satus of the source was. There were very few. The Japanese did not "vivisect" Romany and Jewish human beings. In any case, the argument that this is somehow an expansion of vivisection is silly. All countries experiment in some ways on human beings - it's just that the Nazis did it with no ethical limits. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that the Japanese didn't use vivisection on Jewish and Romany human beings. They, of course would have done had they been available to them, as they were to the German Nazis. The Japanese did practice human vivisection extensively during WWII though.

You ask, "For example, who says anti-vivisectionists were "outraged" by the legislation?"

“many animal welfare advocates on both sides of the Atlantic lamented the weaknesses of the Cruelty to Animals Act,”

(American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) ‘Our History’ http://aavs.org/about/history/)


“The Act left [Frances Power] Cobbe disillusioned. She wrote that ‘Justice and Mercy seemed to have gone from the earth’. She became an all-out opponent of vivisection, and her Society followed, changing its name in 1897 to the National Anti-Vivisection Society…”

(http://journals.physoc.org/site/misc/History/Info_Sheets/Info_Sheet_Royal_Commission_and_Act_1876.pdf)

“Cobbe wrote an animal autobiography Confessions of a Lost Dog (1867) with the intention to promote animal shelters, but she is best known for the formation of the anti-vivisectionist Victoria Street Society (1875) with George Hogan and Richard Hutton (editor of the Spectator) in the wake of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.”

(Nickianne Moody, “Where Cook Has Treated, Cat Should Be Caressed!”: Mr Punch and Feline Form. Liverpool John Moores University p.4)


“In a pocket-sized tract, Cruelty to Animals: Suggestions, Acts of Parliament, Prosecution, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals cautions readers that the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act was so complex that “its provisions can hardly be applied by the police; much less by individuals” (qtd. in Ritvo 160). The Act was indeed complicated. In decades to come, anti-vivisection societies would comb carefully through Home Office returns in search of actionable discrepancies, and reactions to the increasingly widespread experimental research practice would occasionally burst onto the public scene. Anti-vivisectionists would also change their tactics, discovering less paper-bound ways to hold experimental science to account. Women like Louisa Lind-af-Hageby, a Swedish anti-vivisectionist and student at the London School of Medicine for Women, achieved medical expertise in order to challenge vivisection on its own scientific terms. Witnessing the sufferings of a terrier, used repeatedly in vivisection experiments at a University College physiology laboratory during her training in 1903, Lind-af-Hageby published her findings in The Shambles of Science with fellow medical student, Liese Schartau. The legal and political fall-outs from that publication are many and complex. Most prominently, the publication spurred the donation of a drinking fountain, known as the Old Brown Dog, to Battersea Council, which readily erected it on 15 September 1906 in local recreation grounds. Its inscription proved the source of serious clashes between medical students, labor unionists, suffragettes, and anti-vivisections, the most tumultuous of which became known as the Old Brown Dog riots of 1907…”

(http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=susan-hamilton-on-the-cruelty-to-animals-act-15-august-1876)

“Questions posed as the Act took shape and came into effect proved tenacious, occasioning extensive debate and indicating differences that were not to be eased, at least for anti-vivisectionists, for decades to come…”

(http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=susan-hamilton-on-the-cruelty-to-animals-act-15-august-1876)

“This led to the infamous, but well named, Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which reached the statute book on 15 August 1876…The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 legalised vivisection, as well as providing total secrecy to the vivisectors and to the laboratories, with no public accountability. The Home Office awarded licences to vivisectors in secret, the locations of laboratories were secret. No access was allowed, for any reason - whether Member of Parliament, media, public, or local authority - all were barred. And so, the numbers of animals used as well as the number of licences awarded rose year on year for a century, protected by successive governments and a silent scientific community. However, opposition to vivisection also increased, and the Victoria Street Society grew in strength and influence and after a few years changed its name to the National Anti-Vivisection Society (6 October 1897).”

(http://www.navs.org.uk/about_us/24/0/299/)

If you read that last paragraph again, it explains why actual anti vivisectionists were so against the 1876 act, and even though their efforts had been in progress for well nigh 50 years, the Nazis, who were not anti vivisection even one iota, chose to adopt it in its entirety. It had absolutely everything they needed.

"The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 legalised vivisection, as well as providing total secrecy to the vivisectors and to the laboratories, with no public accountability. The Home Office awarded licences to vivisectors in secret, the locations of laboratories were secret. No access was allowed, for any reason - whether Member of Parliament, media, public, or local authority - all were barred. And so, the numbers of animals used as well as the number of licences awarded rose year on year for a century, protected by successive governments and a silent scientific community."

This Nazi law would prove extremely useful when they added human beings to animals on the vivisection table. You will understand, I hope, one's irritation at any insinuation that the Nazis adopted this Vivisectionists Charter, (rather than a progressive set of anti vivisection laws) because of the tender sensibilities of Adolf Hitler? Tatlock123 (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatlock123 (talkcontribs) 16:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Vegetarian organisations[edit]

Tatlock has added a large section on various issues - vegetarian organisations etc. I deleted it because, frankly, it was a barely readable hodge-podge of material, though it had some potentially good content. When the title of this article was changed from "Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism" to "Adolf Hitler and Vegetarianism", the way was opened for a broader discussion of Hitler's attitude to vegetarianism, which might include his views on vegetarianism in Germany and vegetarian groups. It's usually said that the banning of vegetarian groups was simply part of a blanket ban on any organisation that could be used as a cover for anti-Nazi activity. But obviously this could be included in a separate section, with that point included. The real issue is whether we want to have such material in this article. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


31.52.39.135 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

Paul Barlow writes "Tatlock has added a large section on various issues - vegetarian organisations etc. I deleted it because, frankly, it was a barely readable hodge-podge of material"

I will repost it here. I do not believe I mention 'vegetarian organisations etc' in it even once. You write "Tatlock has added a large section on various issues"

Actually just one issue: 'vivisection'.

The 'large section' is needed to counterbalance this: 'His regime also passed many laws against animal cruelty, many of which are still in existence in modern day Germany'

The section you so kindly and helpfully deleted read as follows:

"The Nazi laws were based almost entirely on The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, an Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This act, when it was introduced in Britain, placed some largely cosmetic restrictions on vivisection. Anti-vivisectionists were enraged, viewing the Act as nothing more than an attempt to provide legal cover for vivisection.

The Nazi laws were based almost entirely on The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. The Act was criticized by the National Anti-Vivisection Society — itself founded in December 1875 — as "infamous but well-named," in that it made no provision for public accountability of licensing decisions.

There is a strong connection between Nazi 'animal rights' & Jewish persecution. The British model was useful, as again, there was no provision for public accountability of licensing decisions. Firstly, the Nazis used their limited new law to persecute Jewish scientists, granting licences to institutions they deemed worthy (i.e. free of Jewish scientists), secondly they used it to close down kosher butchers.

"Moreover, Hitler never promoted vegetarianism as a public policy for either health or moral reasons. His lack of policies and public support for vegetarianism is significant in a leader who rigorously enforced other health policies, such as anti-smoking and anti-pollution legislation, and pregnancy and birthing measures for women.

The rumour that the Nazis passed an anti-vivisection law is also filled with contradictions. No such law was passed, although the Nazis reported that such a law existed. The Nazis allegedly passed an anti-vivisection bill in 1933. "Lancet," the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis' law in 1934 and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis' law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1876, which restricted some animal research, but by no means eliminated it. An enormous amount of research on animals continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors." (Dr. Kalechofsky 1996)

The Nazis could do vivisection on human beings after all, but used animals as needed when gypsy or Jewish subjects proved too sick. E.g. Joseph Mengele at Auschwitz.

A former Auschwitz prisoner doctor said:

'He was capable of being so kind to the children, to have them become fond of him, to bring them sugar, to think of small details in their daily lives, and to do things we would genuinely admire ... And then, next to that, ... the crematoria smoke, and these children, tomorrow or in a half-hour, he is going to send them there. Well, that is where the anomaly lay.'

When the human subjects were too sick (as in Mengele's epilepsy experiments) the doctor instantly switched to rabbits. Hitler proved equally disattached when it came to testing cyanide on his beloved dog Blondi.

The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In "The Dark Face of Science," author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly:

"The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of or complementary to, experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme."

Beneath is a link to Nazi human vivisection experiments and the camps where they took place.

http://www.websteruniv.edu/~woolflm/deathcamps.html


So let's stick to the facts. To Paul Barlow, the above may be "a barely readable hodge-podge of material", but I assume at least a basic level of itelligence among Wiki readers.

Please don't be silly. OK, so the veggie organisations stuff was in your previous edit. Much of this has nothing whatever to do with vegetrarianism. What has "persecution of Jewish scientists" or "human vivisection experiments" got to do with the topic? If you are looking to have intelligent readership, you need intelligent content. Even experiments on animals are irrelevant. All countries performed experiments on animals. it's a completely separate issue from vegetarianism. "There is a strong connection between Nazi 'animal rights' & Jewish persecution." That's just a complete non sequitur. If there were a connection, then all countries that allowed animal experiements would logicaly also allow experiments on Jews. It's a classic "slippery slope" fallacy. See also Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


Tatlock123 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Talock123

"If there were a conncetion, then all countries that allowed animal experiements would logicaly also allow experiments on Jews. It's a classic "slippery slope" fallacy."

It would be if all countries that allowed animal experiments also planned to wipe out European Jews. But that was the Nazis special difference wasn't it?

Someone can still support vivisection and be a vegetarian i.e. they are not mutually exclusive. As for vegetarian associations, the Nazis didn't outlaw vegetarian associations per se, they outlawed most associations indiscriminately to undermine any organized opposition to their power. Besides, Hitler's stance on animal rights, vivisection and vegetarian associations is largely incidental to this article which is why we don't expand on that aspect, so I support Paul Barlow's revert in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tatlock123 (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Tatlock123

It seems to be getting better. I still have a problem with this sentence :

"His regime also passed many laws against animal cruelty, many of which are still in existence in modern day Germany."

The problem with it is that it gives an ambiguous picture of what these laws actually achieved in practice. Without the context, the sentence above suggests that because Hitler was an animal lover, he passed laws to protect them. The main problem British anti vivisectionist had with the law upon which they were based, the British 'Cruelty to Animals Act 1876' was that it made no provision for public accountability of licensing decisions.

In 1933, when the Nazis passed a Bill identicle to the British model, it may have been precisely because of this lack of public accountability of licencing. The controversy had been inflammatory for over fifty years by 1933, so it is suspicious that animal lovers would make their legal model a law which was actively detested by anti vivisectionists, and well known to be so. This meant, in practice, that the Nazi law of 1933 was not a ban on animal cruelty, or vivisection, but simply gave the Government an option of who they would grant a licence to. This, in 1933, gave them free legal reign to close down laboratories and institutions which employed Jewish scientists, but reward others with licences to continue vivisection as if there were no law. It also gave them an opportunity to shut down Kosher butchers and slaughter houses. This is, in fact, exactly what happened.

"Lancet," the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis' law in 1934 and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis' law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1876, which restricted some animal research, but by no means eliminated it. An enormous amount of research on animals continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors.

As the Nazi philosophy was that the animal kingdom was a hierarchy, with Aryans at the top, pigs and other mammals near the top, and Jews quite low down beneath large mammals of other species. Therefore, vivisection on Jews became de rigeur by the 1940s, making a mockery of any 'laws' to protect animals the Nazis claimed to have passed, as under Nazism, Jews were held to be one of the 'lower animals'.

Therefore, this sentence "His regime also passed many laws against animal cruelty, many of which are still in existence in modern day Germany" seems to scholars either naive and simplistic, or in some way wilfully ignorant. Such a sentence really needs a counter balance, or at least some contextualizing analysis.

Also, I found this if you are interested, The wife of Rudolf Hess, Ilse, in her memoirs, states that Hitler’s vegetarianism began in 1931, as a reaction to the death of his niece, Angela Maria "Geli" Raubal, in that year. Prior to 1931, Frau Hess says that she often made Hitler Munich Weisswurst (white sausage) and Leber Knoedel (liver dumpligs) but that after 1931, Hitler swore off all meat except Leber Knoedel (liver dumplings). (James P. O’Donnell, The Bunker, Da Capo Press 2001 p228)

Again, I think most of this is tangential, but I agree you have a legitimate point that the article intimates that the animal welfare reforms came about due to his interest in vegetarianism. We have a whole other article that deals with this topic so all of this is best left to that, and this article should exclusively ficus on Hitler's dietary record. There is a obviously a strong connection between the two topics so I am simply going to remove the sentence and just place the link in a "see also" section. Betty Logan (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014[edit]

Hitler is in no way recognised by the vegetarian society as being vegetarian. I think they would know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourLogicalFallacy (talkcontribs) 18:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not an edit request. As for the vegetarian society, they are not historians, and clearly like most vegetarians (including myself) would rather that Hitler wasn't included in our number. The historical record however proves otherwise, and Wikipedia does not mislead its readers in order to make contributors feel comfortable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014[edit]

I can believe what ever the hell I like that doesn't make me that. I can say I am an elephant or I believe in world domination but if my actions show the opposite of this then in reality I am not this. Hitler wasn't a vegetarian, he eat meat occasionally. This instantly means he wasn't a vegetarian. He might of idealised ideas surrounding vegetarianism and wanted to be one but he didn't follow through and so wasn't one. Not really. All his actions show a megalomaniac personality with a delusion to change things in the future. Nothing he did has any roots in vegetarianism. He wasn't a vegetarian. The premise of being vegetarian means not killing animals, not eating them, and not supporting the killing of animals. None of these criteria's where meet by him. He wasn't vegetarian.

Towards the end of his life Adolf Hitler has been said to claim to follow a vegetarian diet, however the supporting evidence is weak, especially the source of Goebbels as the Minister of 'Propaganda'. And all the evidence seems to show that he didn't remove all meat from his diet, and killed people & animals through out the second world war, he even left people to starve to death. He directly gassed people to death and burned people alive too. These are all things that vegetarians would be against. A means to an end is not something vegetarians support either because that in tale means suffering, which is far from ideal.

There is no evidence via his actions that during the second world war he had some kind of empathetic break through of compassion where he started to form a new ethical way of thinking and changed his moral character which would then be reflected in his actions. This means if he were actually vegetarian for ethical reasoning that with all the power he had, he would decide to stop the war and find a peaceful solution, where he outlawed the killing of animals and vowed to never kill a human or animals life again, which is the main ethical premise behind going vegetarian and so to imply for a second that he was a vegetarian for the last 3 years of his life is not supported by the fact he didn't decide to outlaw the killing of animals or people.

Anyone who says Hitler was vegetarian gives no supporting evidence par he didn't eat as much meat as other people and statements not actually made by Hitler himself, IE: magazine quotes. People say many things out of context, this isn't evidence. Evidence is hard proof: historical records of him writing policies to outlaw the killing of animals, photos or paintings of what he generally eat, eye witness reports, records showing him giving long speeches on the subject of vegetarianism, NOT off the cuff statements in a talk one time, which are out of context and could mean anything. He wasn't a vegetarian in any sense and he didn't show evidence of caring about animals or people, his actions in the last 3 years of the second world war negate any claims to be one of any influence when it came to vegetarian issues, as in he wasn't a spokesman for vegetarians. He may have said something about vivisection in the past as many meat eaters believe in some kind of animal welfare, that in no right made him vegetarian.

Hitler's actions in the last 3 years of the war do NOT support a person who is opening up to the idea of a non-violent way of life or finding a way to create the least amount of suffering, another characteristic most vegetarians have, he didn't even stand for the very basic premises of not killing animals or people, which is what classes a person as vegetarian, even if he had some kind of delusion of doing it properly in the future, most rational people would rather focus on diplomatic solutions over using force to keep some kind of utopia working, in other words opening people up to being more compassionate. And the very fact he was limiting meat and not completely against any kind of animal cruelty shows he was on some kind of diet, not going down the path of vegetarianism at that time. As far as history shows he wasn't acting like a vegetarian at least in the sense of ethical issues surrounding vegetarianism. He was acting like a megalomaniac, with delusions of changing in the future.

I requested that there should be a section with criticism and showing evidence that shows Hitler didn't act anything like a vegetarian while he was alive, even if this was his idea for the future, that isn't who he was while he was alive. What he said he was is irrelevant to his actions and even eating less meat than others or supporting animal welfare doesn't make someone vegetarian. That is clutching at straws. Supported concepts most meat eaters support which is anti-vivisection in the sense of don't torture animals doesn't make him vegetarian. Although I don't quite understand how people think killing animals isn't a form of torture, but Hitler wasn't vegetarian. At least not based on his actions... his words may show he liked vegetarian concepts, but obviously based on his actions didn't truly grasp or get them, and did everything in the wrong way, what ever his intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourLogicalFallacy (talkcontribs) 19:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources - and the evidence from historians (the best source, obviously) is that during Hitler's final years he adhered to a vegetarian diet. Your personal opinion as to whether Hitler's behaviour was compatible with vegetarianism is of no relevance to this article. And no, we don't need a 'criticism' section for an article on Hitler. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid Andy is right. --John (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)