Talk:Adolf Hitler

Wrong

I hope whoever referenced Hitler as the "Ultimate PWNDER" will stop changing difference pages that mention Hitler. It's just silly, and makes light of a very serious discussiong. Thank you. 606-2-610

See Also

In the 'see also' section, the first item is 'list of coupled cousins'. That is ridiculous. Of all the many articles relating to Hitler and his deeds, that list is surely not one of the most important; the reader gains nothing by it. Moreover, the nature of his relationship with his cousin is ultimately speculative, as the article on Hitler as well as the article on his cousin state clearly. I cannot edit the article, but surely to God that link should be removed?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.255.61 (talk) 08:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

hitler in office

In office 2 August 1934 – 30 April 1945 as far as i know adolf hitler gained power in 1933 jan 30 not 1934 2 of august. |-|17|\/|ÅÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitman688 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, but it wasn't until August 2, 1934, when Hindenburg died, that he gained actual control of the German state. That's the more crucial date. Parsecboy 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Enabling Act, which was introduced on March 23, 1933, was the main document that gave Hitler any legal control of the German state, therefore giving him actual control of the entire German republic. In response to the Reichstag Fire, Hitler pushed through this law because of the reaction of the fire (used as an Anti-Communist attack). The Enabling Act basically allowed him to sign anything into law without the Reichstag's approval or the Presidents signature, it was a step above the emergency decree's used earlier with Schleicher and von Papen. (citation: Ian Kershaw, Profiles in Power: Hitler) (NicciLyric (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

Religious beliefs

The section on religious beliefs is pretty confusing, especially the last paragraph. I think it needs to be modified as at the moment it seems to suggest that Hitler had a special preference for Islam. The source quoted suggests that Hitler wasn't a fan of any religion and I think it would be better to mention his anti-religious sentiments overall rather than single out Christianity and Judaism as targets of his vilification. Shinigami27 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler did not have "anti-religious sentiments overall". Far from it. It's true that he said positive things about Islam, but also about Japanese religious culture. He said many negative things about Christianity - in private - but I knpow of no evidence that he expressed opposition to religion as such. So, yes, he did single out Christianity and Judaism. --Paul B 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is true. He considered Islam to be more of a religion of war and because of that more suited for the Germans. He considered Christianity to be a Jewish religion and wanted to abolish it in the long run. But of course, he couldn't say so in public, because that would not go well with most of Germany's Christians. — Superman (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

the very first sentence

should reflect what most educated people think when they hear "Hitler", to an English-speaking audience. Not doing this is like not including the word "domestic" in the first sentence of the article on Dog. The fact is, when you say Newton, people think of Physics (even though he did as much alchemy and even religious studies), and when you say Hitler, people think of "evil" (with which his name is synonymous) and mass murder. I propose the first sentence read:

"Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945), whose name today is synonymous with the genocide and mass murder of World War II (see Holocaust), was the leader of the Nazi party in Germany from 1934–1945."

The fact exists that the word Hitler is a part of pop culture, and that needs to be reflected in the first sentence of this article. You're writing for the general reader, for example, if there were eight more or less Hitlers, you should identify clearly why this one is the one they're reading about. It's not so much his political post that matters here, but what we attribute to his work. (For example, I would expect Roentgen's first sentence to state that he discovered x-rays, and Einstein's to mention his synonimity with Genius, which in fact the genius article does). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.56 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective; an encyclopaedia should, first and foremost, tell people what they already [think they] know? In any case, I think your premise is flawed; the Final Solution is not the only, or even the most, notable thing about Adolf Hitler from a NPOV. His leadership of Germany before and during the Second World War are. FiggyBee 11:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course an encyclopedia should start with what people already know (unless for some reason they don't), just like a dictionary lists meanings that people already know. If you look up the word "dog" in a dictionary, it ought to mention the fact that it's domestic. (as if you didn't already know that!!!) Look, let's say you don't know who Houdini is for some reason. It doesn't matter what else he did or what he's most notable for from a NPOV, you NEED to have him identified as a magician, and this should be in the first sentence. I'm not saying it's because Hitler's accomplishment has particularly enormity, but the fact that wrt "mindshare" Stalin doesn't have the evil as much as Hitler does. He's a household word in America, and I think conjures more evil in people's minds than if you say "Devil". That's what he's notable for -- accomplishing evil. Now, the NPOV would be to share the fact that there is such a preponderence of his synonimty with evil. You don't need to say he's evil, but you should say, in the first sentence, his SPECIAL and UNIQUE role in western culture. To do less would be like not mentioning, for NPOV reasons, that jesus of nazareth has a SPECIAL role in mindshare in that many people consider this historical man to be SYNONYMOUS WITH GOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.186.38 (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Houdini is best known as a magician and escapologist, so that's what his lead says. Christ is best known as the founder of the Christian religion, so that's what his lead says. I'm not disputing that the lead should stress what a person is best known for. But I disagree that Hitler is best known, from an educated historical this-is-an-article-about-the-man POV, for being "evil", and I'm not entirely comfortable with you characterising uneducated Americans as "western culture". FiggyBee (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I belive that Hitler is best known as the instigater of WW2, at least within the wider world view. Within certain culters he may be assosiated more with the holocaust, or the blitz, or even not being resposible for the holocaust. So the first line should read sometig like 'who was resposible for setting into actio the evetns that lead to the second world war and a program of mass genocide un-preceidented in history' [[Slatersteven (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I think that FiggyBee is right here. If you look at a lot of biographical articles on Wikipidia, the first sentence generally lists the person's primary occupation and nationality. So-and-so is an American actor...so-and-so is a British entrepreneur, etc. Sometimes it will also include a "best known for" clause that mentions what movie, company, etc. the person is best known for. Wikipedia does not make value judgments about whether a person is good or evil. Furthermore, Wikipedia standards emphasize verifiable information, such as mathematical statistics or someone's legal status (convict, immigrant, etc.) There's no way to verify that someone is evil, and saying that most people think Hitler is evil, or that his name is synonymous with evil is pointless anyway, because you probably already know that if you're reading the English Wikipedia. Even if you were convinced that such speculative information was necessary to the article, it should go somewhere else, such as the Legacy section.UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Flawed Translation from German

The translation to English of the German message on the stone marker outside Hitler`s birth house has a mistake in the last sentence. It translates "Millionen Tote mahnen" to "Remember the Millions Dead", but the german "mahnen" means something like "to remind someone, warning him". It should be changed to "Millions of Dead Warn Us" accordingly to capture the message more closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.115.123 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the Times

In the Times today. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No topic on Wiki should be blocked from edit

This one is no exception. Either the source is the New York Times or local journal somewhere in Uganda or some witness who witnessed the facts, none should be discarded, but rather included with the sources clearly stated; this might even be done by creating many sections-pages for the different sources and letting the reader choose the source he trusts the most. ... of course only the wiki home page linking to the list of categories can be blocked from edit ... in the same spirit: the whole idea of putting on the home page featured articles is fundamentaly wrong.. just a tiny link is enough. [[[Special:Contributions/198.96.34.130|198.96.34.130]] (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)]

It says in the article...

that Hitler "never visited the concentration camps." However a Jewish woman that survived the holocaust claimed that he visited a camp she was in briefly to check on the situation. She claimed that "she would have ran up and killed him immediately, but there was nothing around that she could damage him with." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.159.106 (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvelous sentiment that fails in practice. Far too many edits are vandalism; hence the blocking of this page. If you are concerned and knowledgeable then register a user name and contribute. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Table of contents?

Why is it near the bottom of the article instead of at the top? 69.14.85.112 (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitler as Hero

some people in this world consider Hitler as a her we should add that topic in this article.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because that would be totally POV and unencyclopedic. Zazaban (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have heard about people considering "Hitler a her." A little known fringe theory holds that Hitler was a women. Just kidding, actually this is pretty funny coming from Farazilu who has accused myself and others of following an agenda of hate. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but he probably doesn't see nazism as an agenda of hate. I don't know how he would reason that, but he managed to reason that having pictures of somebody on a website was. Zazaban (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think i don't has to remind you the Wikipedia is not censored and you need to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Wikipedia being not censored does not mean that anything goes. Zazaban (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But in other topic you are practicing absolute other theory? --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am. Removing the images would be favoritism towards muslims. Zazaban (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not request to remove them i requested to move them on a separate article and just give a link in see also section as Wikipedia did with holocaust article --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to work this to death but "Some people in this world consider Hitler as a her" just really cracked me up. Someone who was clearly trying to stir things up by saying something controversial and elevating about one of the worst people in history, and yet it totally came out going the other way. I realize it's just a language barrier or typo, but still. Ha. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• A quick Google search shows many articles about Hitler as a hero. Here are a few: [1]

[2] [3]

• I do think a section could be created about this phenomenon, though not in the way that the original poster may have intended. The section should clearly show that some with anti-Semitic agendas, or seriously misinformed, have this view, and the danger it poses to society if we forget what he actually accomplished. I won't be creating this content myself, as I find the subject distasteful, but I don't think the section idea should be rejected out ofhand. Jeffpw (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Jeffpw. Zazaban, NPOV is the wrong policy to use to justify not including this information. Remember that NPOV requires the presenting of both sides without casting a value judgement towards either side (no matter how clear cut a case is, such as this one), in this case the vast majority of people who despise Hitler, but also the minority of those who think Hitler was a nice guy with great ideas. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree as well, if there's information for Hitler being a hero from reliable sources (WP:RS), it can be included but as other people said, its a minority view and would get a much small coverage as compared to the rest of the article.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was no hero and no additions stating he was one should be added. Ofcourse in his own time and by his own people he was looked upon as a hero and a saviour of Germany and the German people. His popularity in 1930's Germany can hardly be overestimated. 145.7.182.14 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)