Talk:Adolf Hitler

Many citations completely failed verification.

Many citations completely failed verification.

Citation 172 is a clear example of a case where the claim is not backed in anyway by the given citation. The book is available at archive.org https://archive.org/embed/B-001-014-606

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NateDyer (talk • contribs)

@NateDyer: Your statement could be read in a number of ways. What changes are you proposing be made to the statement While many trade union delegates were in Berlin for May Day activities, SA stormtroopers demolished union offices around the country. On 2 May 1933 all trade unions were forced to dissolve and their leaders were arrested. Some were sent to concentration camps....? Should the reference be moved to between "were arrested" and "Some were," with a different citation placed after "concentration camps"...? Should "Some were sent to the concentration camps" be removed? Should both sentences ("While many [...] camps"} be removed?

Also, how is that section not supported by these lines from the third paragraph?

On May 2, the trade-union headquarters throughout the country were occupied, union funds confiscated, the unions dissolved and the leaders captured. Many were beaten and lodged in concentration camps.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the word "demolished" to "occupied" to better align with Shirer page 202. That's the only thing I could find that was wrong with that section and its supporting citation. I have a copy of Shirer right here. (Actually I have two copies in case I spill my coffee on one) — Diannaa (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Evans 2005 page 13 says "raided... looted them, carried off the funds" and leaders were "beaten up and tortured in makeshift concentration camps".— Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Suicide Legitimacy

Back in 2009, it was revealed that the skull fragments that the Russian government have kept as proof that Hitler shot himself was from a woman. This has been known for eleven years now, and there is no reliable evidence that Hitler committed suicide in the bunker, other than what has been presented and proven not to be Hitler. I do not feel that something so unverified should be labeled as fact, just because it has been presented as fact for over 70 years. I'll leave a credible source discussing this, and there are many other credible sources concerning the matter. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hitler-s-supposed-skull-really-belongs-to-a-woman-1.837652) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.161.12 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody sensible seriously doubted that Hitler had been shot prior to the skull fragment being widely known. While conspiracy theories of Hitler escaping were encouraged by the Soviets, and did circulate in fringe circles, the more common arguments were over whether he shot himself or was shot by somebody else. (The Soviets were keen on narratives suggesting that he was too cowardly to pull the trigger himself.) If the skull fragment is inauthentic then that only puts us back to the position we were before, where the eyewitness testimony and other evidence was pretty conclusive. The skull fragment was only ever the icing on a cake that didn't need any more icing. Anyway, we have a whole article about this stuff at Death of Adolf Hitler, which already mentions the skull fragment being from a woman, and we don't need to go into it here. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No serious mainline RS historian give any credence to the fantasy fiction of Hitler escaping. But it makes for good History channel programming and books sales. Kierzek (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please let anyone edit

In the Adolf Hitler article it has been reported that there has been creators or editors that have added non-neutral or controversial information. Please remove the security on the article that prevents anyone from editing because the authorized editors have disallowed controversial information to be removed by saying it’s unconstructive. Wikipedia also won’t delete racist comments put on the discussion posts about the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1026:C893:154F:B2F4:22FD:36CA (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. What you describe would not be in the article. It might be on this Talk page. You're here now, so if you have concerns about racist comments, please raise them here now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no, we won't remove the already minimal protection of this often-vandalized article just because a random IP comes along and makes non-specific claims about its editing history or comments on this Talk page, neither of which can be substantiated by reviewing the pages' recent histories. If you have specific objections to the article's contents or suggestions for improving it, this is the place to state them. General Ization ^Talk 03:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The only discussion I can locate in the recent history of this discussion page that could be described (by someone) as having racist implications is this one, already archived by the bot, concerning a statement in the article that claims that Hitler's father was Jewish have been generally dismissed by historians. The discussion was civil and there is no evidence that anyone involved thought it was a "racist" conversation and should be removed. A clear consensus was established to leave the content in the article. Considering that the editor who made the initial argument that the content should be removed was blocked indef for non-constructive editing shortly thereafter, the IP may want to consider not pursuing this issue since it may generate unwanted attention. (I suspect there was more information behind the block than what is apparent from the editor's editing history.) General Ization ^Talk 04:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can post an edit request and if it complies with policies and guidelines, with a reference to a acceptable reliable source provided, it will be given serious consideration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course. I was referring to the IP's request that the protection be lifted on the article, the subject of this section. General Ization ^Talk 05:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

And I was explaining why lifting the protection is not necessary, in my view. Sorry if my comment was not clearer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Some examples might be useful so we can judge the merits of what we are no allowing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There’s no way the editing protection that is in place should be lifted. The article is too prone to controversy and vandalism. And as pointed out, people can freely make edit requests herein. Thus far, the IP has not made any legitimate edit request or specific points and is just making general opinion/forum comments. If that changes, then they will be considered. Kierzek (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination

Hi folks! Can an admin please add 2-3 sentences about Ataturk's influence on Hitler, which should not be underestimated. Please see this Harvard book with several links at the bottom for a starting point: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674368378 Thanks! DivineReality (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That link is NG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, do you have any cites to other standard works which discuss Hitler's take on Ataturk? That this one author wrote this one book is interesting, but is there any general agreement among scholars, historians and biographers that there is a Hitler / Ataturk nexus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Commentary

I frankly think that the Article is terrible. It has false info that can lead students to a bit of a sticky situation. I hope you all are using this Article CORRECTLY, without messing with it. I have several questions not found in this article since I'm studying for a test and younger children probably don't know that wiki articles are editable. Please wiki, don't give others permission to edit. Some of this info is so old that I can correct as many as I want! Thanks for reading this though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8001:4680:9870:FCD2:41C3:FB0A (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Without listing specific problems (if not solutions), your post is useless. Also, the article is currently locked and has been locked for years. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You can ask for changes to be made here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is a Good Article, which means that many editors have scrutinized it. It's highly unlikely that anything major in the article is "false". It's much more likely that you own estimation of what is false and what is true is incorrect. If the "false info" you refer to is what I think it is, you better not base your test answers on what you think is true, because you won't get a good grade. Follow what the article says, and you'll do fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2020

Add the following categories to this page:

Category:20th-century German artists|Painters

Category:German male painters

Category:20th-century painters|German

Please sign your post (4 x ~) and tell us why this should be done. Britmax (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The categories are for professional painters, which AH never was. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

137.90.207.207 (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the information was incorrect and I would like access to change the things you did wrong