Talk:Adolf Hitler

Sexuality and one testicle

I just stumbled to this wikipedia article. I do believe this is discussed to death during the years, but is it really necessarry to put speculation about his sexuality to this article? It looks like the writer wants to degrade him. It is afterall - speculation. Article should be neutral. There is even an article named "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler" which is full of pure speculation! If speculation is sourced, it seems to be OK to wikipedia.. I understand wikipedia reflects the cultural beliefs of its writers, but it should also fight against it for the grand goal of cold and scientific neutrality. As I said, this is probably discussed and decided to be like this, but I just wanted to say what I have to say. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. 88.114.227.91 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Article claims that Hitler must have suffered from syphilis since no photos of his torso exist to prove otherwise. By the same argument we can conclude that Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Mother Theresa all come from the planet Zog, and that the Zoggians have destroyed all the photographic evidence. There must be one ball since no photos exist showing two! Long live Prikipedia, Green Peace and Titus Oates! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.136.142 (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Crap. Mao Tse Tung is known to have had only one testicle; no other dictator, including Hitler, has ever bee shown to have had fewer than the normal complement of, er, two. Rodhullandemu 01:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

The images used here (especially the first one) depict a proud Hitler, not even being in need to look into the camera. This must be a well-condidered and selected image taken by Goebbels propagande machinery. I wonder, if there are no non-propaganda images that may even unmask Hitler as a fatuitous politician instead of glorifying him. 78.53.37.1 (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since images of him were carefully controlled, it is unlikely that we'll find many high quality ones of the type you are asking for. Also, what you are asking for is POV in itself. Wikipedia should reflect the sources available, not our personal opinions. However, it may be preferable to note in image captions when the images are from propaganda sources, or in the main body of the article. (Hohum ^@) 19:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The main images for almost all politicians pages on this site are the official ones. Why should Hitler be any different? Any deviation herein would be propaganda.

--I, Englishman^{Wouldst thou speak? • Handiwork} 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

decorated veteran

simple propaganda, isn't it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.212.111 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be if he wasn't one. But he was. Britmax (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request. Documentary film to be added to appropriate section of article

Please can consideration be given to including, in the list of films, Hitler, a Career?

Hitler, a Career, is a 1977 documentary film by Joachim Fest and Christian Herrendoerfer. The film was made with the aim of presenting the origins and history of Nazi Germany to a young generation of Germans. I believe the film to be a balanced and clear account of Hitler's rise to Power and hope that, if consideration could be given to including it in an appropriate section, persons interested in the period would find it very useful.

Thank you.

(p.s. I don't know whether I can just edit the article or have to suggest the amendment, in this manner?).

Richard Roberts Richard71-UK (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hitlers last name inheritance...

Please include the inheritance of his last name "Hitler" from his uncle ????? before the time frame of 1913-1918 if it would be historically appropriate to insert the changing ancestor of Hiters

http://history1900s.about.com/od/hitleradolf/a/hitlerancestry.htm

http://www.reformation.org/hitler.html

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/born.htm

PLASMA A.I (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Article length

This issue was discussed briefly a month ago but not brought up again. The wiki source of this article now exceeds 240K. Just the "readable prose" as defined in Wikipedia:Article size is now longer than 160K by my estimate -- half again as long as the 100K length that is usually considered a rule of thumb for "almost certainly split this article".

I agree wholeheartedly that very important articles like this one may warrant an exception to the article length guidelines, and I am not insisting on a strict 100K limit, but it seems worth discussing a little more before deciding that the article should not be shortened. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may point out, it would help to reduce the size by linking the Holocaust (since this is a biographical profile not a full expose' on the topic), instead of the "in your face" block that leads to redundant material about the Holocaust, which already consumes space in numerous articles through-out Wikipedia, and is a subject matter that is fully covered by it's own article and by numerous other WWII articles. 74.243.182.87 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I cant find it in this huge archive, but there was a talk in the past (few years ago i remember well) that dividing up the article a bit ...We could do the same now.... make a sub- article and moving most of Early years (before WWI) to its own article...same with most of the over sized sections ...if i recall correctly from the past discussion this is what was done at the time with Beer Hall Putsch and Mein Kampf section...perhaps its time to do the same for other sections like Rearmament and new alliances - Austria and Czechoslovakia and Start of World War II as i am sure we could move most over to there own articles and write a good lead as is done for Adolf Hitler#Beer Hall Putsch and Adolf Hitler#Mein Kampf.. anyways just my 2 cents. Moxy (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are probably sections that should be moved to separate articles, but I respectfully disagree with Moxy...I think Hitler's early years should remain a part of the main article, because it contributes to the biographical nature of the article. If somebody want's to learn about Hitler, they don't want to have to look at multiple articles just to hear the full story of his birth, life, and death. I do think that Beer Hall Putsch, Mein Kampf, portions of the Holocaust material, and some of the sections that Moxy mentioned that are more about general history than they are about Hitler (Rearmament and new alliances' - Austria and Czechoslovakia and Start of World War II) should be removed from this article with perhaps a brief summary and a link to the main articles on the subjects. Dgwingert (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i was a bit unclear..i think hes early life should be bigger/contain more stuff so much so it should be its own article ...as should hes WWI service...I think this 2 things have always been pushed aside because of the size of the article.... As for the rest once the Third Reich is established... i think this time period is clearly a suitable candidate to have many articles on the different stages of his rule. A great example of this is Alexander the Great a guy that only lived 32 year and ruled for only 13 year... when he becomes king things get realy detailed because of the main articles to read...i think this is great...Moxy (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

whatever it is somethign has to go, and this debate ran dead a month ago. So unless someone objects soon consensus cant wait forever and it can/should be divided.Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

... so sayeth the barely literate (read his post above) moron who just came back from making the article even longer by squeezing nonsense into it, with telling edit summaries such as "hitlers a jew (+african)". I would revert him but I'm only an IP. Ah, the fun and games one can have here.--82.113.121.55 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

World War One

There is repetition in the first paragraph which needs fixed. The claim that a British Lance Corporal is equivalent to a US Army PFC is inaccurate A British Lance Corporal is an experienced soldier who would have commanded men and a PFC is just a moderately experienced private with no command authority. The Gefreiter wiki page does not say it is equivalent either. 92.41.196.87 (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's DNA

This article says that Hitlers most dominant haplogroup is E1b1b and his second most dominant haplogroup is common in Ashkenazi Jews:[1] This should be added to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider that to be anti-Nazi propaganda. The same thing is done to Hitler's sexuality. Furthermore, Hitler's assertion that the Jews are a race, not a religion, is always refuted. This new "evidence" suggests that he was correct, undermining the legitimacy of the claim. In other words, they are prepared to adopt some of Hitler's beliefs just to prove some of Hitler's other beliefs wrong. It's madness. Besides that, we can't post this until it is verified elsewhere, and counter-evidence is sought after.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

By who? is there any non-western source to say so???Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its an Israeli newspaper that published it, and its not propaganda: "More surprising still, perhaps, is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So you consider the Jewish media to be an accurate source of information on Hitler?

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Some is, some isn't. See WP:RS. Obviously one would not expect sympathetic coverage in any Jewish or Israeli publication, but accuracy is not determined by ethnicity. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you trust what Hitler said about the Jews? No, of course, so why do you trust what the Jews say about Hitler?

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish logic. that is clear logical fallacy. Because one is POV the other is by definition POV?Lihaas (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Because we can find individuals untrustwothy, ignorant ot whatever, but not an entire ethnicity comprising millions of such individuals. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper in question was Jewish, and may be intrinsically biased. As such, it should not be cited here.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You cant exclude on the basis of maybe bias. Brits, Poles, Russians and Americans all have reason to biassed against him, so do we exclude all commentary from anyone of these nationalities? Paul B (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We should exclude commentary in any form on a biographic page, unless it is being quoted in that context. I could say Mariah Carey has a tendency towards fellatio (one of my more recent reverts), but it wouldn't be added, true or not (and can you see my signature, I've received a message that it has disappeared (?)).

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by 'commentary' as such, but we don't just tell life stories. We also discuss relevant ideas and opinions about their significance. Ms Carey's sexual preferences may be relevant to her biography if reliably sourced. The relevant policies are WP:UNDUE (relevance), WP:V and WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In posting this particular information, we would be adding irrelevant commentary. That is to say, we would be pointing out what we perceive to be a degree of irony in Hitler's ideology. The selection of impertinent information of such a nature would be bias on our part.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 22:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any 'impertinence', however that may be defined. But there's nothing more to say here. Paul B (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article seems reasonable. It's just evidence that modern ways of modelling ancestry do not correlate to the categories of race that Hitler understood. There's nothing 'mad' about 'adopting some of Hitler's beliefs just to prove some of Hitler's other beliefs wrong. We do that all the time in arguments: 'drugs cause crime, therefore the penalties should be more severe.'; 'you are right that drugs cause crime, but that's exactly why they should be legalised.' etc. Disagreement depends on a degree of common belief. However the point is that haplogroups are not races. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the Jewish media part (bias if ever I saw it), what relevance has this to the article? Which other biographic pages contain a section devoted to ethnic background? Adding this would be political commentary.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Article already has a Genetics section [2], the information about his Jewish background should be added there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no information about his "Jewish background". The information is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews. That does not necessarily mean he had Jewish ancestry. It may tell us something about the non-Jewish ancestors of Ashkenazis. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"The information is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." Pedantic, boring, nitpicky correction: The claim is that a haplogroup found in Hitler's DNA also happens to be found in "18 to 20 percent of Ashkenazi Jews" and that it is the second most frequently occurring haplogroup in them. According to these reports that same haplogroup is found in more than 80 percent of Berbers and Somalis and 25 percent of Greeks and Sicilians (plus, one might add, an unknown number of other ethnic groups). No sane person would deduce from this a "Jewish background" of Hitler's, but then this is Wikipedia and sanity is not a requirement to edit.--82.113.106.31 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right Mr 82.113..., but I was quoting the source word-for-word: "More surprising still, perhaps, is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." This may well be confused, why is why I'd be wary of quoting newspaper reports of the findings of geneticists. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The oldest source (before this game of Chinese Whispers started) is the account on Knack.be, and I quote what it says in the sub-section "What, How, Why" below. You may also want to look at Wikipedia's article on E1b1b. Cheers, --82.113.106.31 (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is not indicative of Jewish ancestry, why are we discussing adding it in such a context? The information is not remarkable except for its Jewish connotations, and if that was not the case then it wouldn't have been proposed for addition at all. I stand by my statement when I said that this would be political commentary.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's commentary about the paradoxes implied by the concept of race and identity in the light of modern science. But for what it's worth, I don't think it's worth including. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Commentary nonetheless; Wikipedia is not the place.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is full of commentary. In a general sense it is the place. In this case, I think not, since the info is intriguing, but barely of relevance. The whole stubby genetics section should go. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I defer to you, as you are an expert on the matter.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article:[3] "Belgian researchers say they have proof that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler had Jewish and African roots" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalists are not geneticists. This seems a poor source. Paul B (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one, this time from a British newspaper: [4]; is this valid, I, Englishman? Now that that's over with, I must say that I agree with him. Where is the relevancy in his supposed ancestral roots? A wee bit of irony, perhaps? What's the point? Besides, if I am not mistaken, the article on Hitler already states that an alleged grandfather of his was a Jew. Forteana (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All these sources are quoting the same results. A mistake made four times is still a mistake. As PaulB has already said, it is not indicative of ancestry, hence it shall not be added to the ancestry section. Let us accept this before an edit war is sparked.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 11:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. The info. discussed is poorly sourced and not conclusive by any means. It doesn't meet WP:VERIFY. Kierzek (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. So what? Most people on earth are genetically related to each other. Slow news summer in Britain? Mootros (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. Poorly sourced, not indicative of anything. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 00:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As some have pointed out, there's no definitive evidence of anything - only one DNA test that apparently showed Hitler (or his relatives, who presumably don't share his exact DNA) had genes that a whole batch of ethnic groups have. Are we going to list all the groups? No. And for a meticulously-researched family tree of Hitler, see this. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Who, What, Why

Interesting that this was dragged in here by User:Supreme Deliciousness, a fixture on Wikipedia's ANI Noticeboard, where he often shows up to back up editors engaged in edit-warring to promote anti-Israel viewpoints. That old standby -- Hitler as part-Jew -- is a staple among conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and just plain nutters obsessed with race, who would relish nothing more than the "cosmic irony" of Europe's Jews having been murdered by "one of their own". One wonders why he sources the "news" to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper. It is a favorite ploy of a certain element to highlight Israeli or Jewish sources, when available, to buttress a point and to be able to say, "Look! They themselves are saying it." In fact, the "story" was broken by Belgium's Knack.be more than a week earlier (Link), and picked up a week later by semi-respectable papers such as Britain's Daily Mail (Link).

If one were to take the reported findings at face value, then Hitler had Berber North African ancestry much more than Jewish ancestry. "Haplogroep E1b1b komt het frequentst voor bij de Berbers en daarnaast ook in Somalië (> 80%). Opvallender nog is dat de haplogroep van Hitler de tweede vaakst voorkomende haplogroep is bij de Asjkenazische Joden." [My translation: Haplogroup E1b1b is found most frequently among the Berber people and slightly less often in Somalia (prevalence more than 80%). Even more stunning is the fact that Hitler's haplogroup is the second most prevalent group among Ashkenazi Jews.] The Daily Mail, if it is to be believed (always a chancy proposition) writes that E1b1b "accounts for approximately 18 to 20 per cent of Ashkenazi and 8.6 per cent to 30 per cent of Sephardic Y-chromosomes", which would be a much lower prevalence than among Berbers or Somalis. (And please note, according to the Knack.be article Eb1b1b is found in 25% of Greeks and Sicilians.)

Population genetics is a complex subject. Raw data can only be evaluated by experts -- real scientists. The supposed "findings" would have to be replicated and confirmed by scientists, in a peer-reviewed paper. How likely is that to happen? Well, according to the Daily Mail, DNA was obtained from "American Alexander Stuart-Houston, 61, a grand-nephew of Hitler. He was trailed for seven days before he dropped a used [napkin] which Mulders said led him to the cousin in Austria."

In other words, the "researchers" used highly unethical methods (that would never be used by real scientists) to obtain their supposed data. These "findings" will never be replicated by self-respecting researchers. The story will subside into obscurity and become another addition to the steadily growing staple of conspiracist lore, popping up in the usual places like rense.com.

The nutters pushing this "breaking news" today will be found next week defending the Khazar converts theory, according to which Ashkenazi Jews have no connection with the Middle East but are descendants of a Turkic people that converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Just another day on the Wikipedia, the world's foremost crank magnet.--82.113.106.28 (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right that all sorts of theories - especially the Khazar one - can be tied to this, since the data is so poor. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not what I was saying at all. My point was, the nutters are perfectly capable of arguing one week that Hitler had Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry based on a purported North African / Mediterranean component in his DNA, and the next week to claim that the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews could not have lived in ancient Israel because they are the descendants of a Turkic people in the Northern Caucasus. The two notions are mutually exclusive, and the only common denominator is the diseased mind in which they are held.

By the way, these "studies" keep cropping up, sometimes with the opposite conclusion. The Dutch Wikipedia's article on Adolf Hitler says that a Y chromosome study proves that Alois Hitler (Adolf's father) had the same male ancestor as the paternal-line relatives named Hüttler still living in Austria's Waldviertel region today. It's all unfit to go in the article.--82.113.106.29 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I've no idea why think what I said was not essentially, if in rather less detail (!), saying much the same as you say here. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources that I have seen on this story use the words "Suggest" and "May have...". Until there is confirmation, I would say that Hitler remains what he is, not what one test suggests.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way its sources by WP:RS not some POV source.

at any rate, say waht you must ynet is certainly NOT engaged in an anti-israeli/jewish conspriacy Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Factoid

Should definitely not appear in the lead. Mootros (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I heartily agree with you. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of commentaries from the blogosphere: Dienekes, Gene Expression. I hope everyone here realizes that it is highly unlikely that the "sequencing of autosomal DNA" suggested in the second of these two blogs will ever be carried out (ethics, funding, to name but two reasons). In the interim, we know no more than we knew before, namely that Hitler came from inbred Austrian hillbilly stock and was in no way special compared to the rest of the people from his area.--82.113.121.55 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

DNA of the Hitler-family

Under "Ancestry", consider adding that DNA-tests of the Hitler family indicates Jewish - and African - roots.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html

[Excerpt:]

Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.

A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

Haplogroup E1b1b1, which accounts for approximately 18 to 20 per cent of Ashkenazi and 8.6 per cent to 30 per cent of Sephardic Y-chromosomes, appears to be one of the major founding lineages of the Jewish population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.46.118 (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed this. The findings are not indicative of anything.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 14:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant non-sense; does not need to go in this article. Mootros (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I see references to a discussion of these findings by User:I, Englishman, could you point me to a link? This story was reported in major newspapers, ie. the telegraph, and I saw no mention of it being "irrelevant nonsense", the report appeared to be taken seriously by the newspaper writers. I think there are privacy issues with sampling Hitler's Y-chromosome DNA, especially the method done without consent of a relative possibly. However it has been done now, and is part of scientific history and should be added to the article. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is right above your comment, under the heading "Hitler's DNA". To summarise:

Journalists are not geneticists.

The findings are not indicative of anything.

It has no place on the article.

I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The journalists sent the DNA to geneticists to do a scientific analysis. Please re-read the articles as your point "Journalists are not geneticists" is misleading and makes it seem that the journalists are experimenting with genetics, when in fact, as geneticists have studied this DNA and determined the results. These investigative journalists are reporting on the findings of the geneticists. I see a lot of bias in your statements, "the findings are not indicative of anything" and "it has no place in the article". Why you think the findings are not indicactive of anything, when the articles indicate very clearly what the geneticists have reported? Which is the Y-chromosome (paternal ancestry) of the subject of this article. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How very Jewish-African:

Edit request from Twiggynazi, 25 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} on the 24th august 2010, an article in the sun newspaper that a DNA test showed that adolf hitler was part jewish from his fathers side.

Twiggynazi (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Declined 1. See above conversations; there is no consensus to include this at present and 2. The Sun is not considered to be a reliable source for such matters. Rodhullandemu 21:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Next time do a websearch before declining an edit request due to reliable sources. This story was reported by the Telegraph, Time, Bloomberg etc. Here are the story links: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7961211/Hitler-had-Jewish-and-African-roots-DNA-tests-show.html

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/24/new-research-shows-that-hitler-had-jewish-roots/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-24/hitler-dna-tests-show-he-likely-had-jewish-african-roots-daily-mail-says.html

cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already possessed you of our consensus (above). The newspapers are making more of this than can actually be extrapolated form the findings. The findings do not imply that Hitler was of Jewish ancestry, or indeed of any ancestry. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 12:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know where your information is coming from, if the articles mention that Hitler has Jewish and African DNA, why are you criticizing the journalists yet playing an amateur scientist yourself? You are making assumptions on what the scientists know, however it is not your job to do that, and really we only need to report what the mainstream news reports in this case. For all we know the Y-chromosome was sequenced in a more detailed way to show that Hitler has Jewish and African ancestry, and for simplicity the articles only mention the haplogroup E1b1b1. There is no consensus by the way on this issue, see the below discussions. cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't sequenced in a more detailed form, apparently. Otherwise nobody would claim that Hitler had 'Jewish and African' ancestry, because Jews and Ethiopians have utterly different subclades of E1b1b, as different from each other as they are from the exclusively European subclade that is found in fair amounts among Austrians.

Just write what the sources say

A recent study of the genes of 39 relatives of Hitler published in the Belgian magazine Knack found a high prevalence of Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA), which is rarely found in Western Europeans, but commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, in Algeria, Libya and Tunisia as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

This attempt to veto the news reports should not stand. The genetic information is not very complete or certain, but many sources chose to publish it, and that's all we need to know. This is a well established variety of genetic testing.

Though it should be irrelevant: regarding Berbers, Somalis, Jews, and Khazars, I am persuaded by Tacitus that the Jews originated in Ethiopia, prior to their labors in building the ancient Suez Canal and related tasks, and subsequent labor unrest under the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt; a relationship confirmed and extended through diplomatic relations with the famous Queen of Sheba. Thus it does not surprise me that the marker should be in both populations.

Some will say that the Israeli press (or the English press, or the American press, or the Russian press) is biased against Hitler. Boo hoo. Some will say that a method of studying Hitler's genotype was unethical. Boo hoo. Cue the violins. Does Wikipedia censor out the photographs from the Holocaust, the stories of Mengele's little lab investigations? Hitler's going to get what he has coming to him. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, we do not post misinformation and speculation. The tests indicate nothing, hence nothing has been added. It is twice said that journalists are not geneticists and that their proclamations of Jewish ancestry are not in line with the results. Ah yes, "Hitler's going to get what he has coming to him." is exactly the kind of POV we are trying to avoid. Your feelings on Hitler's morality (or lack thereof) are no reason to post this information. As I see it, no genetic information is posted on most biographies of political leaders, thus no precedent exists for it to be done here. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean like the speculation about Alois' ancestry? All history is speculative. Now as for which leaders have genetic information posted about them, no doubt it depends on the leader. I wonder why Knack decided to test Hitler as opposed to, say, Ronald Reagan? But it's up to the sources to decide what to research - Wikipedia just seeks to cover it. (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) Wnt (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If a source says Hitler was a woman, that would not be posted. Neither will this, so long as we cannot agree to do so. Will you people stop defying consensus? You MAY NOT post the information until the discussion is over. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok i dont think this should be here until the whole profile is released...this could represent only 1 perecent of DNA found and thus would be irrelevant...This references our not from medical publications or journals...This type of reference is not the norm in the genetic community.....We need to see the whole profile to have this conclusion as the effects of a Population bottleneck, Genetic drift and founder effect caused this results .. Moxy (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Editor Wnt was observed recently exhorting fellow editors to "just grab up the sources and toss them in the article like you were harvesting potatoes, and the truth will out". Seen from the viewpoint of writing an encyclopedia, such a stance is preposterous. I have to say, though, in the world of WP editor Wnt is right: official WP policy is to put "verifiability before truth". I won't be participating in this debate anymore but will check back in next week to see how this played out.--82.113.106.30 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am one of many to add this information. There is no "consensus" to delete it. There is no argument to delete it aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I understand it is not definitive information; it doesn't matter. It's what's known. The reader who comes to this page curious whether "Hitler was a Jew" or not should see all the top arguments available for or against the position. All you are doing is censoring a page by reversion. I understand --- this works --- but hopefully this humiliation will force Wikipedia to end this abuse. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits from self proclaimed experts... Ok a better understanding of genetics in needed here (Introduction to genetics)... As stated by the news reports this test were done to 39 "believed" related people...So we have 39 people tested.. I have no dough that many many Haplogroups will be found among this many people.. No DNA from Hitler has been identified, but yet this off field results simply conclude that he must have Haplogroups from all 39 related people...This is not how genetics work...10 - 15 of this people could have this Haplogroup , this does not mean that Hitler did..as stated in the references. Just think about it ....if we were to test your cousins and they show lots of Haplogroup Q1a3a..this does not mean you have it to. Before this kind of info is added we must see real evidence in a real medical publication lake -->[5] Moxy (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

NO consensus to add it. Please stop this edit warring. The info. being put forth to add is poorly sourced and not complete. Here you had surmise, at best, on a matter where the physical evidence is not totally clear (and even then can be interpreted differently). It doesn't meet WP:VERIFY. Kierzek (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this relevant and well sourced information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalists are not geneticists?

Why do I keep hearing people say that journalists are not geneticists? Does anyone seriously believe that the journalists performed the genetics analysis themselves? Most likely, they hired a genetics lab to perform the analysis and then reported on the results. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The alleged connotations of Jewish ancestry are idle speculation on the part of the journalists. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 18:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What I find unfortunate is not the opposition to the addition to this content, it's the (some of) poor reasoning for its exclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have something to add to the debate, then add it. I,E ^{• Wouldst thou speak?} 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, this is a piece of research which was reported in numerous newspapers, but has yet to be vetted by the scientific community. As this is a scientific study, the guidelines for sciences should apply. From Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine:

Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They may emphasize the most extreme possible outcomes mentioned in a research project and gloss over caveats and uncertainties, for instance presenting a new experimental medicine as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. Also, newspapers and magazines sometimes publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report details of the methodology that was used, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not the best sources for scientific and medical results, especially in comparison to the academic literature.

Until it is published in a peer reviewed journal, such research should not be included. Quasihuman (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and another one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no policy about using peer reviewed sources. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

These journalists are blowing this out of proportion for propaganda reasons, and is spreading ignorance about haplogroups. A haplogroup does not determine one's ancestry, but one's unbroken lineage. Think of it as a surname. All this means is that Hitler has an unbroken lineage that is Haplogroup E1b1b. He could have 1/64 or 1/128 ancestors that were E1b1b or 1 out of a billion(hypothetically), as long as it was an unbroken lineage of males. Furthermore, the spread of E1b1b sub-clade in Europe (we don't know what sub-clade Hitler is, but most likely, it's the European one) is associated with the ancient Greeks and is mostly concentrated in ancient Greece/Albania as well as Southern Europe, where Greeks colonized it. It's found significantly in Austria, Romania and Wales, places colonized by the ancient Romans. Thus, it's safe to say that Hitler is most likely a descendant of ancient Greeks/Romans, and not Somalis, Berbers or Jews. Though, the Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jew may be likely because of Jews converting to Christianity, but that is impossible to tell. Of course, there's no true way of knowing, and this is a deliberate misinterpretation of facts to spread propaganda and I am surprised the genetic or haplogroup communities haven't spoken out against this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.215.132 (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The information is sourced from several reliable sources, its not up to us to speculate about the DNA tests. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You have it backwards its the journalists who are speculating. Moxy (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Cendres, 26 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the heading "The Holocaust" it says Traudl Junge testified that Hitler knew about "death camps", but her wikipedia page doesn't mention this or any testimony. So I think a citation is needed.

Cendres (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Added a {{citation needed}} tag. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)