Talk:Adolf Hitler

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2021

This article introduces Hitler as a 'German' politician, whereas he was in fact Austrian. He worked within the German political system, but was of Austrian nationality. 2A02:C7F:9CFB:B300:A1AF:406D:667F:6130 (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

He held German citizenship form about 1933.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

He is known for leading Germany as a German, which is the WP convention (citizenship at time of becoming notable rather than citizenship at birth). The situation is complicated by him always looking on himself as ethnically German and by Austro-Hungary no longer existing, so 'Austrian' would also not be strictly accurate. Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This article used to call him an "Austrian born German politician". All the change away from this basically correct description seems to have achieved is to cause arguments like this one. Britmax (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Since at least summer 2016 it has said simply 'German', but para 2 used to say 'Born into a German-speaking Austrian family and raised near Linz'. I have no strong feelings either way beyond being as clear as possible. Pincrete (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly brought up; there's several instances in the recent archives (#57, 59, 61). I think we should re-add it. "an Austrian-born German politician" (in the opening sentence) — Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hold on, Jonsey95, please don't be too quick to close the door.
  I agree that restoring "Austrian-born German politician" would be useful to the reader.
  Hitler was perhaps, along with Bismarck, the most significant German politician in history, but factors such as the relative lateness of the founding of the German state, its relationship and the Prussian competition with Austria(-Hungary), Hitler's Austrian birth, his rejection of the Austrian military and volunteering for the Bavarian Army, his being made a German citizen (basically by sleight of hand), the Anschluss and so on make it imperative that we be clear about his relationships to the two countries, and "Austrian-born German politician" would be a step in the right direction. It doesn't undermine his importance as a German politician, but makes it clear that his origins were elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  He was also probably the most significant Austrian in history. As far as significant German politicians go, let's not forget Kaiser Karl, who really did found a 1,000-year empire ... GPinkerton (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Metternich. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Politician?

No doubt this has been debated previously although I couldn’t track down exactly this point in the archive: are we really satisfied with the first sentence describing him as “... an Austrian-born German politician and leader of the Nazi Party.” It sounds so...normal. Just another politician. Are we going for the banality of evil here? Surely, the word politician should (at least) be replaced with the word “dictator”? DeCausa (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

We mention "dictator" in the third sentence, so would the entire first 3 sentences have to be re-worked? Do you have a suggestion for wording?— Diannaa (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I see DeCausa's point, and, frankly, it has bothered me in the past as well, although I suppose I've gotten used to it. Would this be a suitable re-write (with all current links and notes):

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician who was dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party (officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party or NSDAP), becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and the Führer in 1934.[a] During his dictatorship, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland on 1 September 1939. He was closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust, the genocide of about 6 million Jews and millions of other victims.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That wording works for me.— Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think BMK's wording is much better. I only have a quibble about "Nazi Germany" which was never the name of the place. What is wrong with "dictator of Germany"? (I guess this issue has been fought over before; if so I don't intend to reignite it.) Zero^talk 02:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally, the consensus has been to use "Nazi Germany", since it's the WP:COMMONAME, and indeed the name of our article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with BMK as to the sentence rewording and he is correct on the consensus name as to the country during that era. Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree on both points. The BMK wording gives a more appropriate tone. DeCausa (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Zero0000's 'quibble' about 'Nazi Germany' - which is the commonname of the regime, not the country. This chap was not the Ruler of Tsarist Russia - despite Tsarist Russia being a common way to refer to the regime/historical period. Apart from being a bit dubious factually, stylistically, why use 'Nazi' in two consecutive sentences? Why not say "dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party". I concur with everyone else about BMK's addition of dictator to the opening sentence other than this. Pincrete (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with both Zero0000 and Pincrete. It's absolutely true that "Nazi Germany" was never the formal name of the German polity that came after the Weimar Republic (which was also never its formal name, but is universally used), but it is used consistently throughout the encyclopedia and in multiple reliable sources as the common name, which is what we go by, per WP:COMMONNAME. However, in the interest of consensus, I can live with dropping "Nazi" from "Nazi Germany". Diannaa, DeCausa, Kierzek, can you also live with that change, in the interest of getting the new construction in place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you (BMK) say on Nazi Germany but don’t have a problem with the alternative. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It isn't clear how it can be shown that "Nazi Germany" is the common name, since plain "Germany" is extremely widespread in relation to the Nazi period. Regarding this particular use, "dictator of Germany" beats "dictator of Nazi Germany" by a factor of 9 at Google Scholar. In Google Books the difference is similar or greater, see this. I don't like this way of making wording choices, but this evidence (such as it is) does not support "dictator of Nazi Germany" being the common name for that role. In historical writing, "Nazi Germany" is a convenient shorthand for "Germany during the Nazi period" and I have no serious objection to that practice. I would drop the "Nazi" from the first sentence but I don't feel strongly about it. Zero^talk 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with all of Zero's comment. There is a judgement to be made - in each context - as to whether the 'shorthand' ends up inadvertently implying a job-title (as in this instance imo), or some other anomaly such as a geographical place (he was born in Nazi Germany?). This is true of other shorthand forms of regimes, Greek Dictatorship, Communist Russia, Socialist Cuba etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is "everything-in-the-first-sentence-ism" again. And what, exactly, is a dictator? The first paragraph is a potted progression now, please leave it as it is. Britmax (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s anything to do with that. It’s about the tone of the opening sentence matching the article. DeCausa (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Besides, this is the new lead sentence: Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician who was dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In all fairness, that cannot be described as "everything-in-the-first-sentence-ism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "dictator of Nazi Germany … " is crass in the extreme to me, and as Zero points out, whilst "Nazi Germany" may be the shorthhand/commonname for the Third Reich, or for "Germany during the period when the Nazis ruled", "dictator of Nazi Germany … " is simply many times less common than "dictator of/leader of/ Fuhrer of Germany … ". I cannot recall having ever heard 'dictator of Nazi Germany ' or 'job description of Nazi Germany' being used in UK written English.

Ancient Rome is the common name either for the Roman Empire, or for the city of Rome in the Empire period, but no one would describe Nero as "Emperopr of Ancient Rome", it lacks both the conciseness of "Roman Emperor" and the precision of a fuller description, neither fish nor fowl imo. Although commonname is widely applied as a policy on WP, we usually err slightly in the direction of formality and precision in opening sentences of articles. This lady is "Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms", which is a compromise between the conciseness "British/English Queen" and the other extreme - her long convoluted title including the full, formal description of the names of the countries over which she 'rules'. I am going to make a suggestion of 'piping' "Nazi Germany" . If people object strongly, I will have to live with it, but find the present wording neither precise nor concise and actually NOT the commonname for AH's role/job title. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tbh, you’re overthinking this. But, for my part, don’t have a problem with your compromise. DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. Zero^talk 11:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I object to piping Nazi Germany. We need to state flat out and early that these people were Nazis.— Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

”... who was leader of the Nazi Party[a] and dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then the Führer in 1934.[b] During his dictatorship, he initiated World War II]...” ?DeCausa (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously it would need to be re-worded some. — Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In what way? I’m proposing a re-wording. DeCausa (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: We need to state flat out and early that these people were Nazis. Why, if we aren't going to say anything about who/what a Nazi was? The very next sentence says that AH rose to power as leader of the Nazi party and gives the provenance of the word as a shorthand-form of the party's name. I suspect that anyone with the reading level needed to negotiate the lead has already heard the word 'Nazi', even if they only know it from films or as an insult - many, especially the young, won't realise however the more formal meaning and origin of the word. The Nazi Germany article anyway treats 'Nazi Germany' as a synonym of 3rd Reich, so it's about the regime/state, not specifically about what Nazis or Nazism was. I begin to even wonder whether inserting 'dictator' into the first sentence is worth this effort, we already say dictatorship in line 3.Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My original query was one of tone, not specifically about the need for inserting the word dictator - although that is one way of dealing with it. The original sentence was out of kilter with this article - with a change of nationality/party it could be used from anyone from Abraham Lincoln to Boris Johnson. It’s blandness didn’t appropriately match this article in my view. DeCausa (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise with the reaction, and it is a fairly common one. However I wonder whether it isn't inevitable that the text seems a bit bland given the (deserved) notoriety of the subject and whether 'understating' a notch or two is necessarily a bad thing. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Anything that we could publish would have to "understate" the evil that was Hitler, which is difficult to express without rhetorical overkill, but we don't have to take it so far as to make him appear, in the lede sentence, to be a businesss-as-usual politician. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

In the final sentence of the "Defeat and death" section of the page, it states: "According to Kershaw, the corpses of Braun and Hitler were fully burned when the Red Army found them in 1945, and only a lower jaw with dental work could be identified as Hitler's remains." It should be added that while the USSR claimed this lower jaw to be Hitler's, later inspection from outside sources discovered it to be belonging to a young woman, therefore not Hitler's. 2601:40C:200:19E0:4090:7141:D1F4:90F8 (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 17:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Further the IP is incorrect on the facts, it was the skull fragment not the lower jaw that was determined not to be Hitler’s. Kierzek (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2021 (2)

Adolf had 2 children recently confirmed by american historians 2A02:C7F:8AC6:7900:256D:5F1A:78DA:7337 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide a top-line source backing this up.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

Hello, I was reading up on Henry Tandey when i noticed his run in with hitler so i wanted to see if they went into more detail on hitlers wikipedia page. sadly i did not see this and would like to implement this run in into the world war 1 section of hitlers wiki page

-Kindly, Kip Kip225628 (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That's the kind of detail you're more likely to find in a full-length biography (although, honestly, I've read five of those and don't recall hearing about Tandey) not in an encyclopedia article, which can only cover the highlights of Hitler's life. The article is already very long and I do not recommend that you add to it for this purpose, it's likely to be reverted as not significant enough to include. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Austrian-born

This is contrary to the MOS:ETHNICITY. I suggest removing this from the lead section. Aoito (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "ethnicity' in the lede sentence, there are two nationalities, "Austrian" and "German", because Hitler was born in Austria and was initially a citizen there, and had his historical impact in Germany, where he became a permanent resident and, eventually, a citizen. It is also where he became notable. While "German" can be use to describe an ethnicity, it is not used so here, and there is no such ethnicity as "Austrian". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

After all, he became noticeable as a German. MOS:CONTEXTBIO: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable", "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". No need to focus on his place of birth in the lead section. This rule also works in the article about Sergey Brin (Google co-founder), who was born in Russia but became noticeable in America. Aoito (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

" Austrian-born German politician" in the Summary already covers this very clearly and Beyond My Ken's answer is not only accurate, it is more than sufficient as written. REJECT proposal to change. --Obenritter (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 and PackMecEng, can you sum up the results of the discussion, or express your opinion? I dispute the recent change from Beyond My Ken. Aoito (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Must agree with BMK above. What he states is not only accurate, but has been long discussed before and this description was reached by consensus. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No opinion. Only here because I was pinged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Kierzek, is this not against the MOS:CONTEXTBIO? "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Aoito (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Kierzek (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with the subject's notability. Therefore, this ("Austrian-born") was not previously mentioned in the lead section. This recent consensus has been reached without considering the manual of style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. Aoito (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

In actuality, it was a very significant factor in shaping Hitler's life. In any case, it was previously there, then was removed. It has been restored by consensus, which your opinion does not change. Note that the MoS is not mandatory, it is only a guideline. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK - "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." MOS:CONTEXTBIO - "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Please provide a link to the discussion in which you reached consensus. I want to read it. Aoito (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's my recommendation that no further responses should be made to this thread, since the OP does not seem to be interested in the expressed opinions of the other editors who have replied to their query. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hitler sidebar

Would you create a template sidebar for Adolf Hitler? --2001:4452:4AE:8A00:31C8:9235:C1E2:5AB (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's an extremely large task. In the meantime, see Category:Adolf_Hitler and Template:Adolf Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Remove "Austrian-born" from the leading section.

• MOS:CONTEXTBIO: "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."
• Hitler was born and lived for some time in Austria, but gained fame in Germany. Examples in other articles: Ted Cruz (born in Canada, but gained fame in the US), Henry Kissinger (born in Germany, but gained fame in the US), Sergey Brin (born in Russia, but gained fame in the US).
• WP:MOS: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions [listed in the article] may apply", ""If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence".
• In a recent discussion in which a consensus was reached, the MOS was ignored. Aoito (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done The change was made by consensus. Please show that there is a consensus to revert it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• What is more important - the opinion of several people in the discussion or the generally accepted guideline? Here's a big discussion (2015) that refused to add "Austrian-born" to the lead section. Because people in the know said it was against the MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Aoito (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Consensus can change. Please show that there is a consensus for your preferred version. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead section

@Beyond My Ken and Mechanical Keyboarder: I saw your recent edits and reverts und would like to give my opinion on the matter.

1. It should be "who was dictator of Germany", not "the dictator". It wasn't ever a title or position, it just describes his ruling style. I suppose "the dictator" would grammatically be possible too, though.
2. "chancellor" shouldn't be capitalised in this case per MOS:JOBTITLES.
3. "becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then as Führer" is just wrong. It should be "the Führer".
4. "replaced the position of President" needs to have a capital P in President per MOS:JOBTITLES: "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description" --Yhdwww (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

1. Please change "who was the dictator of Germany" to "who was dictator of Germany" in the first sentence.
2. Please change "becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then as Führer" to "becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then the Führer" in the second sentence.
3. Please change "replaced the position of president" to "replaced the position of President" in the second explanatory footnote (b).

Please also see the section above for details. Thank you. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Done More or less. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"the" dictator?

I'm sorry that I have to bring this up again, but @Mechanical Keyboarder:, you just put a "the" back into the lead, changing "was dictator of Germany" to "was the dictator of Germany". As a reason you gave MOS:JOBTITLES. I've looked at the MOS and can't find any rule saying it should be the dictator. I don't think it should be "the dictator" in this instance, so please explain your change. Thank you. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Has Germany had any others?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely this isn't a job title, partly because it isn't a defined job. It describes a vague function, much as 'leader' or 'ruler' might, as such it can either take or not take 'the', but omission marginally avoids the suggestion that this is a title IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "the" is probably optional here. Now I'm just wondering what Mechanical Keyboarder saw in MOS:JOBTITLES that applied to this. --Yhdwww (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 February 2021

I want to add a citation. Is that ok? Citationeditor2000 (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

What citation?Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

This is a good article, but i feel like this article needs one more picture. My editing habit for Wikipedia is adding pictures, so maybe other users can understand the article better. My username is Joshua's Number9, and i have reached 300 edits right now. I am close to getting 500 edits to become an extended-confirmed user. And again, I would politely like to add a picture. Thank you!

Please show us the picture you wish to add, and sign your posts (using 4 x ~) so we know who you are. Britmax (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adolf_Hitler_in_Yugoslavia_crop2.JPG

Where would you like to add it? also, could you explain what it would add to the article? It appears to be just a portrait-style photo. There’s already two portrait-style photos (in the Infobox and under the Dictatorship subsection) and the one you propose is poorer quality/grainier than either of those. By the way, you need to sign your posts by typing four tildes (a tilde is one of these: ~ ) at the end of your post. DeCausa (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This photo is not a good choice, as it is rather blurry. Also, there's a problem with copyright - the source image at the USHMM does not provide any copyright information or detailed source information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a grainy photo that adds nothing to those already in the article. It is unlikely to be used. Please remember to add 4x~ to your reply to sign and datestamp it. Britmax (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[

I agree, the photo would not be a good addition to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic?

Wasn't he also anti-Catholic as well?