Talk:Adolf Hitler

Death declaration

@Kierzek: I attempted to add the category People declared dead in absentia, which you reverted on the basis that "there's no question or issue that he was dead. Confirmed by the dental remains found, examined and tested; in addition to evidence at the scene and testimony under oath." I was not attempting to deny any of that.

Our apparent disagreement is over how the category itself should be understood. I think it means, as stated on the category page, that the person was declared dead through a presumption of death, rather than a more immediate certification, officiated in the presence of a corpse. In other words, while there were many good arguments that Hitler was dead that were made in the immediate years after 1945, this was not officially recognized until 1956. By then, the 10 years of Germany's 'disappearance law' had passed. As no forensic evidence was present at the 1956 declaration proceedings, the body can be considered in absentia.

And yes, the dental remains were identified by Hitler's dental staff in 1945, but these were not present in 1956. It was further logically established that he was dead by eyewitness testimony, supported by Michael Musmanno's seminal argument that the body had been burned to ashes, and the FBI/CIA's lending no credence to fringe leads alleging his survival. Hitler was definitely dead, but the evidence was under Soviet lock and key. Only in the late 1960s were photographs of the bridges and jawbone fragment published that could be properly peer-reviewed by scientists, recently reconfirmed by Charlier et al.; but this evidence wasn't needed to declare Hitler dead in 1956, because he hadn't resurfaced for over a decade. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Presumption of death article says "A presumption of death occurs when a person is thought dead by an individual despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death, such as the finding of remains". That isn't the case here. I tend to agree with what Kierzek implied in his edit reason, that putting AH into the category creates an unnecessary doubt. How was AH formally (legally) declared dead anyway? Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The technicality here is that the Soviets had those remains in their protected archives. It wasn't directly available. See above comment. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Merrrrr ! I don't see how the category is useful or applies. How many people's remains in war are a great deal less intact/examined than AH's? Pincrete (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Pincrete. The category does not belong here. There’s no doubt that he was dead then just as there’s no doubt he is dead now. Going by the definition of the Presumption of death article, it is to be used when there is doubt about someone’s death. No there clearly is “direct proof” he was dead in 1945. There was sufficient evidence already presented before the late 60s that he was dead, even by the West. It has since been confirmed and re-confirmed. Therefore, you wanting to add that category directly plays into the hands of “conspiracy theorist” and disinformation as to the facts as put forth by eyewitnesses, physical evidence, reliable source historians and reliable source researchers and publications. It does not belong here. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Specific example of "remains in war ... a great deal less intact/examined than AH's" that were actually used to declare someone dead? UpdateNerd (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The tens of thousands of people who are killed dramatically or whose bodies are destroyed before 'legal process;' occurs during war for whom the only proof is the eye-witness account of comrades/fellow villagers/neighbours. Orderly certifying of death based on examination of an intact corpse is a long way from being universal in wars. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

For any of those people who have Wikipedia articles, the category would seem to be appropriate, although weakly so because it reads "It is not definitely known whether the people in this category are actually dead." I guess because there's less than 100 articles in the category, it should be reserved for disappearances, but maybe a different category will exist one day for less ambiguous examples, where the remains were simply not available such as in wartime. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• If the Soviets had his body then it wasn't in absentia anyway, unless there is some compelling reason to doubt their account and analysis (and AFAIK that has never been the case.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I was going to agree with that but our article does say There is no evidence that any actual bodily remains of Hitler or Braun – with the exception of the dental bridges – were found by the Soviets, which could be identified as their remains cited to Joachimsthaler, Fest and Kershaw. Is a dental bridge actually remains of a body? I’m no dental expert but Bridge (dentistry) suggests it’s the man-made part of the dental work, not a part of the teeth and therefore not “remains”. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  A bridge is not detachable; it is a permanent placement typically attached to other teeth via one or more crowns. — Diannaa (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, so does “bridge” mean man-made bit + tooth? DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  No corpse, but quite a number of witnesses to the bodies before they were incinerated. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The upper bridge was almost entirely made of gold, with one real gold-capped tooth. The lower dental remains comprise a jawbone fragment broken off at the alveolar process (about where the tooth roots end), with some real teeth and attached bridges. That's the all the positively-identified remains the Soviets ever produced, although they claimed otherwise. The Death of Adolf Hitler article has photos. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry been gone, dealing with real life matters. "The only thing to remain of Hitler was a gold bridge with porcelain facets from his upper jaw and the lower jawbone with some teeth and two bridges." Joachimsthaler, 1999, p. 225. They were positively identified, as has been stated. Many people's remains are identified by dental records, even today. As UpdateNerd states there are photos of the dental remains in the old Soviet propaganda book from 1968, The Death of Adolf Hitler; about the only aspect the Soviets got right and did not twist to meet political needs of the time. As I wrote once in the past: "When dealing with the Soviet Union one can never discount the political factor that is intertwined with their actions and their writing. The totality of the evidence and statements of credible witnesses does not support anything more than the 'remains' being more than the jaw fragments and bridge fragments after the cremation in the Reich Chancellery gardens behind the emergency exit of the Bunker." Still, that is sufficient evidence. Kierzek (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  To restate my assent above, I acknowledge the existence of the evidence of Hitler's death. In my opinion, anyone declared dead without their remains right there in the room is technically declared dead in absentia. This is not necessarily the point of view currently used by our category, which reads more like a missing persons category, i.e. "It is not definitely known whether the people in this category are actually dead." The separate missing persons category is simply for outliers who were not legally declared dead, you know, for convenience.

  Just to note, however: Hitler's death actually was declared as an "assumption of death", with the apparent goal being to determine what to do with his (stolen) possessions. The ruling was based on the (according to Joachimsthaler, false) premise that the 42 witnesses interviewed in West Germany's investigation never saw his body. So, legally, I think the category could apply here, but I think the category summary page needs work to avoid misleading people. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I wonder if there would be any objection to adding the category based on my previous comment (concerning the details of West Germany's declaration) and having amended the category description to emphasize that it's all about legal convenience, not the unknown mortality status of missing persons. Pincrete's reasoning is the strongest case against this I believe, having cited the Presumption of death article which defines its subject as being "when a person is thought dead by an individual despite the absence of direct proof of the person's death, such as the finding of remains (e.g., a corpse or skeleton)". This, however, is just Wikipedia's description, and West Germany indeed declared it an "assumption of death". It's a historical fact that this occurred, although of course there was no scholarly question over Hitler's mortality. With the subtle category description rewording, it's far clearer that it's simply about a type of legal proceeding. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  What would be the advantage of inclusion? Is this in any sense a defining feature? Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Good question. It's (obviously) more relevant to the death itself than the person's overall biography. However, the category is called "People declared dead in absentia" so it's obvious for biography articles, not articles focusing on the death. I think it draws attention to the fact that his death was at least a large topic of discussion and debate, and used as propaganda by the Soviet Union. If you just read the lead of the Hitler article, it sounds like the story ends with his suicide and that his death had no larger impact. The category helps draw attention to the facts of the decades-long conversation around the death itself. Even if the facts themselves are not in question, there's certainly a lot of detailed history that has been of interest in confirming that one of the greatest-of-all-time tyrants in fact died in 1945. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You’re just adding vagueness, unnecessary speculation and conjecture. Further, I still object based on my reasons stated above. This article and the conspiracy article make the points as to years of disinformation, rumors, and conjecture as to the facts. They do it much better than adding some vague category. Nothing has changed. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed a [statement] in the category that casted doubt on whether the people thus categorized are actually dead. Clicking through a few at random, it seems there are many biographies here of people who are definitely dead and their means of death are well understood in spite of the lack of a body. (For example, Charles_W._Whittlesey.) From this and the plain meaning of the language, it seems clear to me that Hitler belongs in the category for the reasons UpdateNerd articulated. We ought not shape Wikipedia to avoid mention of innocuous facts that unreasonable people might seize upon to further their conspiratorial thinking -- they're going to do that regardless. --causa sui (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That does not change my reasons stated for objection. Kierzek (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like your objections are that adding this biography to that category would suggest that the date and cause of Hitler's death is -- contrary to fact -- ambiguous or uncertain, or that it is a possible subject of debate or disagreement between mainstream historians. Do I have that right, in a nutshell? --causa sui (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is the category in question still suggests a "presumption" of death, but there is in fact none. Even the German Federal Court Judge stated this in the 1950s (even when all the evidence was not known). Certainly, it is clearly known today. There were many witnesses who saw the corpse of Hitler, then burned it and there were remains of the body, i.e., jaw fragments and bridge fragments; so, as I said, my objection has not changed, even if the wording has been tweaked to try and make it fit better. And as Pincrete states below, it adds nothing of real substance. Kierzek (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kierzek: While assuming your good faith I think your objection circumvents how categories are applied, which is whether or not they fit based on their description, not whether or not you like how it affects an article's presentation. The category is for people legally declared dead, which is now clearly stated on the summary page and Death of Adolf Hitler#Aftermath now extensively shows was the case. The category isn't for missing persons or any other people whose living status is ambiguous. It's for deaths that needed the legal system to step in where hard evidence was not available at the time, in this case instead relying on eyewitness testimony—no remains, no photographs. Subsequent science providing proofs of his death is irrelevant, because these were not available in 1956 when the death declaration was made. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

My objections are factually sound and written for consideration when trying to reach a consensus (which, at this point has not been achieved); that is how Wikipedia is suppose to work. UpdateNerd, you erroneously state above (as to me) and below, the opinion that I (and Pincrete) would write something based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is never the case. Kierzek (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That may be my assertion, as even perceived objectivity is subjective. You could make the equivalent argument about my viewpoint, but we would seem to be slipping into contradiction rather than argument. I respect differing viewpoints and the fact that consensus supersedes most other guidelines. However, I prefer to argue on the basis of those guidelines, especially when there's no overwhelming majority and other editors may be informed by such discourse. No one has dismantled the view that categories should help readers find articles, not (exclusively) the other way around. No one has refuted the fact that this category is not superseded or trivialized by another. Further, it cannot be overemphasized that the category is about a legal proceeding, not whether it contributes to unrelated conspiracy theories about the subject, none of which I know mention the death certificate. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It has never been about, whether "categories should help readers find articles"", that is a non-issue. I am glad that you agree with me that consensus is the verdict we are all striving to reach here. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You altered the text of the category, but why? Surely the whole purpose of the category is where there is not 'normal' evidence of death - such as a corpse, or in this instance, witnesses to their having been corpses - which is a common wartime scenario - that there are only witnesses to a death having occurred, not actual 'intact' remains. What understanding does this category add, and how is it in any way 'defining'.Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this may be the root of the disagreement. It seems to me that we agree that the category is for biographies where a person has been declared dead without direct observation of the body of the dead person. What I suspect we disagree about is whether the absence of a body at the time of the legal declaration of death implies anything in particular about whether historians, or readers of a biography, should have doubts that the bio subject is actually dead, or whether the consensus of mainstream historians about time and manner of death is weak or controversial. I don't believe that has any such implication at all.

As I mentioned, clicking through some of the biographies already in the category demonstrated this to me, but I also think this article itself is an excellent example of exactly why that is not so. Adolf Hitler died on 1945-04-30 from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Witnesses to his death carried his dead body out of the room where he shot himself and burned it. By the time the legal declaration of his death was made, what remained of his body was not available to those making the declaration, which makes the declaration of his death legally in absentia. None of these historical facts are in conflict with the others.

As it happens, I'm still not happy with the lead to that category, since the link to presumption of death suggests there is more doubt among mainstream, reliable sources than can actually be substantiated for many of the biographies there. Presumption of death and legal declaration of death in absentia are not the same thing. So I'm speculating about whether developing the category lead and correcting that would help resolve this dispute here. --causa sui (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

the absence of a body at the time of the legal declaration of death in the context of the fall of Berlin and collapse of Germany, what was the legal declaration of his death anyway? Also what percentage of those dying in war are declared dead solely on the basis of witnesses or or evidence other than a physically-present 'intact' corpse? I still don't see how adding this category adds anything at all to knowing about AH. There are hundreds of categories which AH could be (and often has been) added to at some point. Plus, as I understand it, the Soviets had identifiable portions of his remains shortly after his death - his body, such as it was, was not absent. Pincrete (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but UpdateNerd cited [this https://archive.org/details/lastdaysofhitler0000joac_o3a8/page/11/mode/2up] elsewhere in this discussion thread. I can't escape the feeling that you still consider this to be a dispute about the time and manner of his death, which, I repeat, was exactly as we describe it in this article already. UpdateNerd's citation explains some of the reasons why, so we can add that to the pile of authoritative sources that concur with what we have in the article now.

In general, I don't usually think of categorizing articles as something we do to add information to them, but rather to help find articles with similar attributes. Since I don't see anything wrong with this bio being in the category, because category membership doesn't (or shouldn't?) imply anything contrary to fact about the time and manner of his death, it just doesn't seem like a big deal. --causa sui (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree as I just pointed out in a reply to Kierzek. This is not about how it makes his death "appear", even though the category doesn't make a judgment on someone being dead or not—just whether the declaration was made through legal proceedings, without photographs or hard evidence in the room. Categories simply do or do not fit based on their description. The idea that it doesn't "add" something is an irrelevant attempt to editorialize, also known as POV. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has argued that any disagreement is about how the death 'appears' - though not feeding fantastic theories is an additional reason to avoid lack of clarity. Do reliable sources describe the death as being certified in absentia? AFAIK none do. Was the dead body witnessed by several people prior to its incineration? I believe yes, which is normally more than sufficient 'proof' in times of war. Were there some identifiable remains (albeit charred perhaps) found by the Red Army? I believe so, though I'm not sure what formal 'certification of death' occurred anyway in the context of a disintegrating regime. What is the remaining argument for inclusion in any 'in absentia' categorisation? Witnesses saw the dead body before incineration and some identifiable remains were found after incineration. What have I missed?

If we were to include every person killed in WWII, for whom an MD did not inspect an 'intact' corpse, there would be 1000s of extra names in the category and it would cease to fulfil any purpose.Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Per Joachimsthaler (linked by causa sui just above, p. 9) some witnesses at Nuremberg only mentioned seeing the body after it had been rolled up in a blanket and couldn't be identified, hence the 1950s proceedings. Joachimsthaler points out that the 1956 ruling did not take into account the fact that some eyewitnesses saw the body before it was rolled up, but that doesn't negate that the ruling occurred on the basis of assumption of death. The judge also said there could not be "the slightest doubt" that Hitler was in fact dead, so the argument that this muddles facts or contributes to conspiracy theories is without merit.

The declaration was made in Allied West Germany, far from the dental remains in the Soviet archive, which weren't even photographically released until 1968. Although the dental assistants had provided Western historians with the knowledge that these remains had been found in 1945, that wasn't physical evidence but only additional testimony that needed to be considered in order for the legal process to take place. The category reflects the legal proceeding which took place in 1956, not what is known by Wikipedia users in 2022 with all available knowledge. Pincrete, you previously made the argument that soldiers in war wouldn't have this category applied, but can you cite an example? UpdateNerd (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the category and what are the criteria for inclusion? The arguments put forward for inclusion seem very synthy, we put two and two together and make five. I've never said other than at times of war, procedures for verifying death (and cause of) are necessarily less 'formal' than in established peace-time societies. You surely aren't arguing that Hitler was not declared dead until the 1950s? How many witnesses does one need to have actually heard the gunshot and to have seen the (mutilated) corpse? What reason is there to doubt any of them? Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the above paragraph at all. Sure, he was "declared" dead, as in the Stars & Stripes newspaper and by scholars, but legally, no, this didn't happen anywhere until 1956. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologise, I hadn't read the sources given properly. In a sense this all hinges on whether the recognition of death occurred immediately at the end of WWII, when pretty much everyone recognised the death, or the 'technical' certification in the 1950s by a court. I still don't see what adding the category would add (there are other 'inapt' AH categories - such as AH used to be in 20th Century criminals, alongside Al Capone and an assorted random collection of notable gangsters, rapists and fraudsters - on account of his imprisonment in the 1920s, rather than his WWII deeds) and it is reasonable to ask whether the category is a defining feature of AH, as well as whether it is technically true - which in this case it may be. Pincrete (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. This is a unique case. For comparison, there's Amelia Earhart, who is categorized under both Missing aviators and People declared dead in absentia. Hitler belongs to the latter category, but obviously isn't a missing person. (That's what the copyedits to the in absentia category have helped to clear up; the two categories overlap, with Hitler qualifying for one but not the other.) As far as whether this is a "defining" feature, I'll reiterate: categories help people find articles that fit the categorization and aren't meant to subjectively editorialize articles. (The criminal cat. would be eclipsed by those for genocide, politicide, treason, etc. There aren't any categories on this article which would trivialize the in absentia one alongside it.) UpdateNerd (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The category criteria states "People in this category have been legally declared dead in the absence of a body, as a presumption of death" - there is really no way of escaping the defining character as the 'need for a presumption'. AH was declared dead at the end of WWII, when his remains and witnesses confirmed the death. Why the 1950s hearings were legally necessary seems a bit technical, but they certainly weren't primarily to establish that he was dead, nor was there ever any need for a 'presumption'. Categories exist to establish meaningful connections between articles and the primary meaningful connection in this instance is the need for a 'presumption', because more concrete proofs are missing, that just isn't the case here. The "criminal" category was an example of a non-defining characteristic, not everyone who has been to prison is meaningfully a criminal and AH has little in common with a random selection of gangsters, rapists and fraudsters. Pincrete (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That's all well and fine as your opinion. As I discussed with Kierzek above, we can argue all we want, but it really comes down to consensus. We'll see how it plays out. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to give up on this topic after everyone has generously contributed their time and stated their viewpoints. I defer to the argument that this isn't a defining feature of this biography article. However, I think it's relevant to the Death article, and the category has plenty of articles titled with "Death of " or "Disappearance of" in their titles, sorted by last name. So I'll try that categorization instead and see what objections arise, if any. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

to help

okay Dionaaaa (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the welcome note on your talk page before you make further edits. The quality of your current input suggests that it will be a while before you are in a position to ask for enhanced editing privileges, although you may, as told above, ask here for others to make changes for you. Britmax (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC}

Education

As a relatively uneducated fellow, with the tremendous gift of the gab, one wonders who his mentors were. Information on this could be added to the article. The blind followers are known.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WinOrVodka (talk • contribs) 04:14, April 25, 2022 (UTC)

We do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Biography

It remains suspicious and puzxling that an outright failure at University was sufficient to make him write a two volume biography in 1925 and 1926 titled Mein Kampf, unless it was written elsewhere by someone else. Who would not want to put his (their) name as the true author(s)? Some half-brained somebodies from somewhere! WinOrVodka (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It does why? Do wp:rs make the claim he did not author them? Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The Haavara Agreement

The Haavara Agreement "transfer agreement" was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933. The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany. It was a major factor in making possible the migration of approximately 60,000 German Jews to Palestine in 1933–1939. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.224.173 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Gravely immoral back again?

We previously had a lengthy discussion around the replacement of the term "evil" with the watered-down term "gravely immoral" in the closing sentences of the intro. We had concluded that this was extraordinarily poor wording and changed it. I have noticed it is back again. What is going on here? Cheating on your spouse is gravely immoral. Murdering millions of people is *evil.* This word-choice doesn't come across as "neutral" or "objective" - it sounds suspiciously like a reluctance to cast Hitler in a negative light, hidden behind equivocations around site rules. 73.60.215.239 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The most recent discussion is Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 63#Evil replaced by Gravely immoral? where the consensus was that "almost universally regarded as evil" was impossible to source, so "gravely immoral" was put into the lead. The word "evil" appears repeatedly in the Legacy section though.— Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I don’t think that’s right. The outcome of that discussion was that Kershaw’s quote that Hitler was "the embodiment of modern political evil" replaced “gravely immoral”. That was the stable text for about a year and then. “gravely immoral” reappeared just over a month ago, without discussion, in this edit. I don’t think that edit was an improvement - as previously discussed “garvely immoral” is not the right phrase - and that edit should be reverted. I’ve gone ahead and reverted it, taking out “gravely immoral”. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Good catch DeCausa, I missed that. — Diannaa (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I missed it too, DeCausa, good catch. But then I am not on here as much lately, due to other real life matters. Kierzek (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; good move. Mathglot (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I totally disagree with this edit. "Gravely immoral" has a more serious objective gravity to it. "Evil" sounds much more childish, and lacking seriousness. Comic book villains are "evil". People have called Alister Crowley "evil". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.3.243 (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Defeat and death - grammar tag

A grammar tag was placed on this GA rated article in this section. The edit summary states - "see article talk page". However, there is no new addition of explanation for the tag added to the talk page. So, before removal, it would be helpful to know specifically why it has been placed on the article, as to this section to see if something needs to be tended to, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

As written, in one long sentence, it made no sense: "While news of Hitler's death spread quickly, he was not issued a death certificate until 1956, owing to the difficulties of legally ascertaining his death largely upon eyewitness testimony, resulting in it being filed as an assumption of death" After the first clause, it requires the passive tense, i.e. "While news of Hitler's death spread quickly, no death certificate was issued until 1956." The rest of the material from Joachimsthaler's Preface can probably be summarised in one or two sentences. For example: "The delay arose because of the difficulty in legally establishing his death through eyewitness testimony, and as a result it was officially recorded as 'an assumption of death'." The 1956 newspaper report from the Süddeutsche Zeitung reads

Registration Office certifies Hitler’s death.
Berlin (SZ)—As of Friday 28 December 1956 Hitler is legally dead. His name is now entered under No 29,050 in the ‘Register of Declared Dead’, which Records Office I in Berlin-Dahlem maintains for the Federal Republic and West Berlin. According to the still valid registration law of 1937, Hitler is entered in the records as ‘Fuhrer and Reichs Chancellor’. His demise is entered as an ‘assumption of death’ permanently since none of the more than 40 witnesses interrogated ever saw his body [this is not true]. The declaration by the Federal Court of Berchtesgaden dated 25 October 1956 has been legally binding since 3 December.

Perhaps partially quoting this newspaper report might be the best approach. I don't have any strong feelings. Mathsci (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I have re-written the content and removed the tag. There's no need to add too much detail on the death in this article, as we have a separate detailed article at Death of Adolf Hitler. — Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Mathsci, thanks for the explanation and Diannaa, the c/e looks good. Cheers to you, Kierzek (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

How did Adolf Hitler managed to get rid of all Jews in Germany

What strategies did he used to get the support from other Germans 102.252.68.23 (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this The Holocaust. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

As he didn't get them all, the answer is "he didn't". Britmax (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

In the citizenship entry in the infobox, I was gonna wikilink "stateless" to Wikipedia page "statelessness" Victor obini (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop this madness

The IPA transcription is wrong. The vowel of the first syllable is LONG, which is phonemic in German. This is evident from both the audio recording and the spelling (the rules of German orthography dictate that /adolf/ must be written *Addolf). It should be trivial to find a dictionary reference too, e.g. Duden. The syllabification is also hilariously wrong (the first syllable would be open either way). Now even other Wikipedias are copying this atrocity. How can one trust anything here when such basic and obvious details are all wrong and not allowed to be corrected? 95.37.241.249 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a good suggestion. If you could please post here what you think the IPA transcription should be, that would be helpful. — Diannaa (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"About"

"the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of about six million Jews and millions of other victims" sounds a little informal. "the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of approximately six million Jews and millions of other victims" ("about" -> "approximately"), or similar, might sound more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:305:1E39:E916:BC9D:F707:EBDD (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

So?

@Joaquin89uy: Hitler having dealing with Jews prior to WW1 does speak to the origins of his anti-semitism dating post WW1. This is explained in the bit following your template. Kleuske (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Historian Evans states that "historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany's defeat in World War I, as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe"."

Thats the explanation? With all due respect, it is poor, vague, and/or irrelevant. - Joaquin89uy (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Article indicated by "Attention"

What needs "attention" in the article? Adamdaley (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Add "Hitler is considered by historians to be one of the most evil historical figures of all time". --2A01:36D:1200:4F8:D15F:707:91A9:4BE9 (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)