Talk:Adolf Hitler

Hitler's ancestry seems relevant to someone who killed millions over racial identity..?

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-tests-reveal-hitler-s-jewish-and-african-roots-1.309938 From Haaretz in Israel. Similar stories appeared in several US and British newspapers.

Why does the main article ignore this story? Since Hitler had millions of people killed over concepts of racial purity, is his own ancestry not relevant (especially since he was known to be sensitive about the subject)? The main story lacks balance in emphasizing old evidence of the relatively low odds that Hitler had Jewish ancestors, while ignoring recent DNA evidence that vastly increases such a possibility.

"In research for the Flemish-language magazine Knack, journalist Jean-Paul Mulders traced Hitler's living relatives in the Fuhrer's native Austria, as well as the United States.

Geneticists identify groups of chromosomes called haplogroups, 'genetic fingerprints' that define populations.

According to Mulders, Hitler's dominant haplogroup, E1b1b, is relatively rare in Western Europe - but strongest in some 25 percent of Greeks and Sicilians, who apparently acquired the genes from Africa: Between 50 percent and 80 percent of North Africans share Hitler's dominant group, which is especially prevalent among in the Berber tribes of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and Somalis.

More surprising still, perhaps, is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlomax69 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past. Claims that Hitler had a recent Jewish ancestor are completely different from claims that he may have had an ancient one. In any case, a haplogroup proves nothing about religion. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Religion is not relevant. Jews were killed because of their "race". Converting, as many did, to Christianity did not save them. Rumiton (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A spectacularly silly remark, which simply shows you have no idea how this research relates to the modelling of race used used by the Nazis. The point is that ancient ancestor cannot be given a religious ethnicity because of a haplogroup, thus making meaningless any genealogy of "Jewishness" pertinent to the mid 20th century. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I will ignore what could be an attempt at provocation and freely admit that I know nothing about haplogroups, but your statement still makes little sense to me. Perhaps the confusion is arising because of the term "religious ethnicity." Would you care to define it? Rumiton (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As per many previous talks Hitler's so called DNA was removed - "newspapers and popular magazines are generally not considered reliable sources for scientific and technical matters" - as per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine.............PS - E1b1b is not rare in Europe.

• See previous talks about its removal below as per WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY and no consensus -
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51#Just write what the sources say
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51#Adolf Hitler's Y DNA haplogroup
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51#Hitler's DNA...Moxy (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

These DNA results don't prove he had Jewish or African ancestry the tabloids just have blown it way out of proportion and you're only taking journalists not scientists word for it.--14Adrian (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wording

Is it correct that "Hitler's racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic annihilation of as many as 17 million civilians". How many people were systematically killed because of their race? Certainly not 17 million. Stalin killed a lot more people at the same time because of their race. That isn't mentioned in his Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Stalin killed a lot more people at the same time because of their race". What evidence do you have of that? Stalin purged political opponents, there were no death camps for people based on race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrann (talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Source #3 in the list should not be accepted at face value, because there is no proof for the actual figures mentioned. There is a strong tendency to include native Ruassian victims that were actually killed either by unknown assassinators or by Stalinist terrorist that "cleansed" the country from "capitalist agents", "fascist agents", "counter-revolutionary individuals" (and there families of course) as well as "bourgois subjects". As the Stalinists were able to manipulate all documents and even forge complete archives, all research based on Soviet sources must not be accepted at face value.

Remark: Russia had been a strong colonial power committing a lot of racial and other crimes as monarchy already, but even more as the country came under a regime of mere and ultimate terror, esp. Leninist/ Stalinist terror of the 1930s and 40s. The last wave of murdering Jewish population in central Europe was committed unter Stalin in 1947/48, "eliminating"/ assassinating the still existing academic and intellectual elite. The accurate numbers of victims of Stalinism is still under discussion because there had been a lot of comprehensive forgery in the Soviet archieves, committed by the regime. In any case, the numbers are extremely high, probably more than 20 million victims in Ukrainia already over the decades of terror. On the other hand, the criminals ruling through Leninism/Stalinism and Post-Stalinism had much more time to commit crimes in Russia and the related regions, because they first were supported, than tolerated by Western Countries, as well as by the Nazi-regime ("Hitler-Stalin-Pact") - and later on, as the Stalinists/ Post-Stalinists had the Atomic Bomb, no one could stop them anyway. 139.139.67.69 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's policies were in large part motivated by his ill-founded conviction of a racial and genetic "supremacy" of the German people, which is mentioned and supported by multiple sources in the entry. The systematic killing of more than six million Jewish people, along with those with disabilities, homosexuals, and so forth, coupled with the killing through warfare, forced labour, or ethnic cleansing of millions of Polish and Russian people also considered "unfit for life" because of their ethnic (or "racial") origin allows for few other explanations than that this was done because of Hitler's and his consorts' racial views. That Stalin may have done worse is immaterial here, since this entry is about Hitler; if you wish to include a similar statement in the Stalin article, you're welcome to do so, as long as you have sources supporting this assertion. Malljaja (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

36 howevers

I trimmed some of the superfluous (and in many cases wrongly-used) instances of this word which I have a particular bugbear with, but have twice been reverted. I propose a cleanup tag on the article to encourage some improvement in the writing here; one or two of these you could argue with but 36 is a record in one article and it is hard to argue this is appropriate, except presumably to the editor who restored the version with the 36 howevers. --John (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In this great However Battle, I tend to side with the pro-however camp. We can't just follow rules rigidly. Language evolves; we also have to take into account flow and rhythm. Just cutting link-terms like 'however' can lead to harsh jumps between sentences or clauses. However, I am open to persuasion, however hard it may be to change ones ways. Paul B (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is a compromise to be had here, there usually is on Wikipedia. But 36? It is hard to argue that all of them are required for this article to work. Can you point to any of my elisions that caused a "harsh jump between sentences or clauses"? --John (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at all the words (howevers) which were removed and must say it was heavy-handed. I can see in some instances were the change was of no importance; but, in several it took out the point of nevertheless and disrupted flow as a word to connect sentences, as well. I am glad you believe a compromise can be obtained. Kierzek (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just left a more wordy response on my own talk page, including one example in which the omission of "however" makes for rather rough reading. As the editor who reverted the recent "however" cull, I'd like to emphasise that I'm by no means particularly married to any of them (the wife wouldn't allow it), and that there surely are ways to recast sentences/add in alternative connectors to bring down that number. I only took issue with the wholesale editing spree, which initially struck me as some kind of mischief. The number of 36 may seem high, but the entry is rather chunky, something I've been working on the last couple of months, so you're not alone in your effort to streamline this article. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical error

There is a sentence in the "Legacy" section that reads as follows: ...the denial of the Holocaust along with the display of Nazi symbols such as swastikas, is prohibited by law in Germany and Austria. It should have a comma before "along." Currently, it suggests that it's all right to deny the Holocaust as long as you don't display a Nazi symbol. I can't make this change myself since the "Edit" button doesn't appear on the page. Hopefully someone literate will correct this error.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC))

I would not read it that way. But, I would agree that it may be read to suggest the two go together; where the prohibition can be both together or separate. I added the comma for that reason. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think adding a comma alone doesn't do it. I've rephrased the sentence to indicate that both Holocaust denial and displaying the Nazi flag are unlawful in Austria and Germany. Feel free to revert or amend in case this new wording obscures the legal situation. Malljaja (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it is better. Kierzek (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler and Pan-Germanism in childhood

Why are people not happy with -

Hitler became obsessed with German nationalism from a young age as a way to rebel against his father, who proudly served the Austrian government. While many Austrians considered themselves "Germans" but still remained loyal to Austria, Hitler expressed his loyalty only to Germany.[25][26][27] Hitler and his friends used the German greeting "Heil", and sang the German anthem "Deutschland Über Alles" instead of the Austrian Imperial anthem.[18][page needed]

It's fine and well cited, why do people keep reverting it back to 'culturally Germans' when they still considered themselves as just Germans back then not as culturally Germans, seems silly to keep reverting it.--14Adrian (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, several editors have reverted your edits. So while one contributor may have been "silly", it's unlikely that all of them are. More to the point, it usually takes a while to get one's head around some of your edits. That's because they all have in common that they tend to convert simple sentences into more complex and occasionally intractable ones. The recent addition of adding "culturally" before "Germans", in my opinion, is a good one. It captures, in one word, Austrian identity well—they were neither "ethnic" Germans (there's no such thing) and many of them were loyal to the Austrian nation, while speaking German and following similar traditions, all of which are hallmarks of a common culture. Finally, this entry is not about Austria, it's about AH—therefore, if people wish to learn more about Austrian identity they can do so on that entry. This entry is already too heavy on extraneous content. Malljaja (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reply contradicts itself you say there is no such thing as ethnic Germans? Erm it's common sense that Austrians are ethnically German...no it's not too heavy because 'culturally' before Germans is silly there is no difference between that and just Germans to be fair and no hardly anyone has 'reverted it back' beside a couple of persons and yes this is about Adolf Hitler but he was born Austrian but back in his day the vast majority of Austrians consider themselves as "Germans" and no they were loyal to Austria, a Austrian nation didn't exist (even see the cited sources on it, German Austria in 1918 as well and then the welcoming of the Anschluss, the Austrian nation is a post-1945 everybody in history knows that. Don't say there is no such thing as ethnic Germans when Hitler himself was an ethnic German, so if there is no such thing as ethnically German people...who were Germans before 1871? The way it is now is perfectly fine I don't see how it's wrong, he was Austrian but like many others in his day and age considered himself German but Hitler expressed loyalty to just the German Empire, he always considered Austria as part of Germany (Greater Germany/Pan-Germanism).--14Adrian (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your writing makes for some tough reading. Consider using grammatical sentences and some punctuation—others will thank you and take you seriously. Suffice it to say Germans are not an ethnic group—people from, say, the Allgäu by and large look and speak differently from, e.g., people in the Havelland. Show me a credible source that says otherwise (i.e., that Germans as a group are all genetically closely related and follow very similar customs and beliefs), and I'm inclined to lend you my ear. Otherwise, I'd assume that you're just making things up. I have no quibbles with your assertion that Austrian people felt like Germans while being loyal to Austria. However, your edits tend to muddle this issue and are only tangential to the main topic of this entry. Malljaja (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

{{History of Austria}}

One thing that I have a problem with is when you emphasize words with italics or quotation marks. Quotation marks should only be used for direct quotes and not to indicate to the reader what you think is important. You also seem to be using italics to present a certain point of view and in effect are telling the reader what to think. It is not our place to tell the reader what to think; out articles have to present the facts that we have located using reliable sources, and present them using a neutral point of view. We leave it to the reader to decide what to think.

A recent edit which I changed: your wording was: "While many Austrians still considered themselves Germans, they remained loyal to Austria." The words "still" and "remained" imply that Austria was part of Germany in the past (ie, prior to the Anschluss). This is in fact not true: the Austrian Empire existed from 1804 to 1867, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1867 till the end of WWI. The First Austrian Republic existed from 1919 to 1934. Here is a template that contains links to the various articles on this wiki that attest to the existence of Austria as far back as 1156. A third problem is your grammar and punctuation, which are lacking in some ways. Material added must be in grammatically complete sentences, must be gramatically correct, and must be correctly punctuated. Your recent edit: "While many Austrians considered themselves "Germans", they still remained loyal to Austria, Hitler expressed his loyalty only to Germany." This sentence is grammatically incorrect; it has the word Germans in quotation marks for emphasis; it implies through the word "still" that Austria did not exist at the time. The new source you have added is not suitable for our purposes, as it describes what the people of Austria have been thinking and feeling from 1956 to the present day. I am once again re-working the sentence to reflect the known facts and to make it neutral in point of view. --Dianna (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Austria was part of Germany before the Anschluss just not the nation-sate Germany, in fact up until 1866 Austria was part of Germany it was inside the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation until 1806 which the Habsburgs who were Austrian pretty much dominated and then the German Confederation and until Prussia defeated Austria well it was seen as not just part but the leader of Germany and if it wasn't for a political war with Prussia it would be Austria now who controlled all the German lands as "Greater Germany" the Austrian Empire was part of the German Confederation but not the German Empire, in 1918 "German Austria" wanted to join Germany this pretty much shows that Austrians certainly still felt and considered themselves Germans but the Treaty Of Versailles forbid the union between the German Republic (then in 1919) and German Austria and thus remained separate, and Germans are an ethnic group ethnic Germans not rocket science...so tell me if Austria had won Prussia in 1866 in the "German war" would you then be saying Prussians all of a sudden are not German? Up until 1945 there was no Austrian nation, no Austrian national identity but the people considered themselves part of the German nation and thrived a Greater Germany and the national identity of "Austrian not German" is just a post-1945 occurance.--14Adrian (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The ethnic German entry is in dire need of updating and repair. It is very poorly sourced, and mostly discusses German ethnicity has seen from the rear mirror—i.e., how Germans historically were an ethnic group. They no longer are. It's like saying that Americans or Chinese are an ethnic group. Like any large group they are a composite of different ethnicities, and they have been for a long time. Ergo Germany and Austria at the time in question (i.e., at the early 20th Century) were ethnically highly diverse groups, with strong cultural affiliations. That's all that needs to be said in this entry. I've reverted your recent edit accordingly. Malljaja (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity doesn't all of a sudden just stop, do you genuinely have something wrong with you? Austrians will forever be ethnic Germans just not Germans by nationality.

Do you understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity?

Chinese are an ethnic group.

Americans is normally just nationality...but native Americans are ethnic group again.

Reverted for what, all the sources cited verify the text put in.--14Adrian (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean when you say "do you genuinely have something wrong with you"; it sounds like a personal attack to me. Please do not make personal attacks, per WP:NPA. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

He is claiming one thing yet Wikipedia even contradicts the user Malljaja.--14Adrian (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The person can't answer me when claiming Austrians aren't Germans ethnically yet I asked "If Austria won Prussia in the German war in 1866 would you then be saying Prussians aren't Germans?" and I got no reply, the edit is not to heavy to say considered themselves Germans because around Hitler's time Austrians did describe themselves as Germans and this can be cited things are different post-1945 now of course but back then Pan-Germanism was high and although Austria (at his birth) was not part of Germany he still was an ethnic German I don't see why this should be changed to "culturally" when the Austrians back then considered themselves actually Germans not just as culturally Germans.--14Adrian (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase what I say on my user page, WP is both the worst and best encyclopaedia. It's written by people who know their stuff and know how to use sources, and it's also written by people who do not think things through and who wouldn't know a reliable, credible sources if it bit them in the rear. To apply the term ethnic to a group as large and culturally and genetically diverse as Germans is poppycock. There are ethnic groups of German origin (e.g., the Pennsylvania Dutch and Transylvania Saxons) who are traceable by dint of their traditions, including close relatedness due to very limited intermarriage with other groups. This, however, is not the case for Germany as a whole, which is a mosaic of different ethnicities. Berlin's population, at one point, was up to 20% French thanks to an influx of Huguenot refugees, and prior to WWII it also had a large Jewish population. The cultural and genetic legacy of all of these groups have shaped the language and genetic makeup of the region. Günter Grass is as German as bread, beer, and bratwurst, yet his mother was Polish, and Thomas Mann, yet another quintessential German had a Brazilian mother. I could go on, but suffice it to say, you would be hard pressed to find any country in Europe that consists of a single ethnic group. If people believe they are ethnically French, English, or German, they're very probably kidding themselves. Malljaja (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

14Adrian, I have to agree with the revisions made by Malljaja and Diannaa, as to the wording (and grammar) of these few sentences in question; in this section. The changing of the words (which started on 2 October) and length of the circling debate at this point is akin to beating a dead horse (WP:DEADHORSE). Further, as you are a new editor, I would point out that you do not have consensus (WP:Consensus) for further changes at this point. The fact is that Hitler's attitude was that of a minority (at the time) in Austria; his romantic notions and stated loyalty to Germany were also a way of getting back at his staunch Austrian civil servant father. Kierzek (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all these people you saying have ethnic Brazilians mothers and so forth well their are not German ethnically then just born in Germany so have German nationality...do you actually understand what an ethnic group is? *sighs*

Secondly, it was not at all a minority that people in Austria wanted to join Germany now stop with this rubbish because before Hitler was even in power the name of Austria in 1918 was German Austria and the vast majority of people wanted to be part of Germany and in parts 99% of them voted but the Treaty Of Versailles forbid the union and most Austrians did identify themselves as part of the German nation and as Austrian-Germans they are no different from say Prussian-Germans Hessian-Germans Bavarian-Germans they are all "German" ethnically, what don't you get about that? The Anschluss was hugely welcomed so stop listening to such rubbish, if history had turned out differently the Austrians would have been running Greater Germany now an inheriting the country Germany as the nation state unfortunately Prussia did instead, get your facts right. Do you have something wrong with stating that Austrians are ethnic Germans or something, does it boil you that the truth hurts? Check what the word Austria even means...I rest my case!--14Adrian (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The essential issue here is that wikipedia articles need to reflect what reliable sources say. Argumentation without reliable sources is pointless. Understand this before continuing. (Hohum ^@) 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hohum, I was adding cited sources into the references about everything I said hence why it's not getting reverted back now because back then it's true that Austrians were seen as Germans, a separate identity only occurred after WW2, and people further up are referring to "German" as a nationality and I don't think quite understand what an ethnicity is....--14Adrian (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dianna do you accept you was in the wrong and not going to revert back then now? Without getting personal just know your stuff before saying it wasn't part etc, the Holy Roman Empire was seen as "Germany" and the Austrians literally dominated that and up until 1866 Austria was part of Germany, I think it's fine how it is placed now if need be I have a source you could put after the Germans bit if need be (if anyone wants to challenge how the Pan-Germanism paragraph is put now).--14Adrian (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you write here makes much sense in English, but by all means feel free to write it out in German, and it may be clearer to editors.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this sort of vague generalization worth keeping?

Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great.[47] Wilhelm Röpke concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful."[48][49]Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In 1197 pages of Fest's book, Luther is mentioned twice en passant, and not as an ideological infuence. Luther had a profound effect on German culture, antisemitism, but to treat him as a direct influence on Hitler, who had a Catholic upbringing, seems excessive. I know there was a controversy over this once, but one must distinguish between cultural milieu, and direct influence. Hitler's rhetoric certainly uses the voelkisch idiom of Luther's translation of the Bible to great effect. Unless sources say so, I doubt whether an Austrian in the intensely anti-semitic milieu of Vienna, needed to brush up on a specific text like 'On the Jews and their Lies' in order to hate Jews. Most of the antisemites I have encountered became so without any reading converting them.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. Like most people with deep-seated prejudices, Hitler very likely exhibited strong confirmation bias, and ML was probably one of many influences on his antisemitic views. So ML's special mention here probably overstates his influence on AH. Malljaja (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I may be jumping the gun, but the passage is vague, generic, and not helpful since it singles out a couple of tidbits that may have influenced Hitler, when we know (the subject of Viennese anitsemitism is thoroughly studied, complex and cannot be reduced to one or two suggestions as to what he may have read) that dozens of intricately interconnected clubs, traditions, political positions, religious and secular associations militated over this issue, at the time Hitler took up living in Vienna. For example the 'heil' of the Nazis was taken directly from von Schoenerer's movement, as the Ostara we cite as an esoteric mag. actually comes from von Schoenerer's practice of having groups celebrate an Ostara holiday back in the 1880s, etc. For the convenience of editors who may prefer the earlier version, I will plunk it here.

Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great. Wilhelm Röpke concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful." Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the change. Luther is still mentioned and there is no need to overstate it. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Painting

The included painting, "Courtyard of the Old Residency", does not seem to be typical of his art. It has unsually austere colours compared to almost any of his other paintings, and in that respect may give a skewed impression. If anyone wants to check this, there are some youtube videos which give an oversight of his artistic works. JMK (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation to Hamann

Someone—I think it was Nishidani—added some new material with citations to Hamann, including "Hamann 2010 pp. 347-359,350." We are going to need more information on this book, as it is not presently in the bibliography. We also need more details on the cited work Hamann, Hitler's Vienna. Perhaps they are the same book? Could we get full details such as full name of the book and isbn? Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This would be the template for the edition I used. Compare it with the one in the bibliography. The title is different, but they are the same work, with the diff that the 2010 has an intro by Hans Mommsen.

Citation

 | last = Hamann
 | first = Brigitte
 | authorlink = Brigitte Hamann
 | title = Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man
 | publisher = Tauris Parke Paperbacks
 | location = London, New York
 | year = 2010
 | origyear = 1999
 | others = Trans. Thomas Thornton
 | isbn = 978-1-848-85277--8 
 | ref = harv

It's the same book as the 1999 volume. I'm sorry that my edits appear to have disrupted the copywriters' guild review. Happening on the page, I saw a dozen things which could be fixed in a jiffy (good book sources for poor website citations: many page number requests quickly satisfiable; several minor fixes to inadequate, false, or misleading comments, etc.,) and did so for some hours, thinking this would help your important copyedit and review of the page to clear up outstanding problems of presentation. I thought of templating Hamann 2010, then saw the old edition was already there, and didn't think it wise to exchange the new edition for the old, something which might have destabilized citations (with perhaps different page numbers) from the earlier edition. I won't edit it anymore, until, if you do decide to reset that copy editing template, you have all finished your review. My general principle in coming to any article on a deeply studied topic is that all references should be to the highest quality academic RS available, and I substitute anything I see as vagrant googling results with books that cite the same information. I thought this would assist the clean up you are all engaged in. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see a big conflict between the copy-editing efforts and the cleaning up/expansion of citations — granted, it can be a little annoying to smooth out text after the addition of new info, but it's not a major deal in my opinion (unless it triggers a lengthy debate about the veracity of claims and sources). The recent efforts by both of you and that of some additional contributors have really improved this entry greatly in a relatively short period of time. I really would like to see this synergy continue. Thanks for what you've done so far. Malljaja (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I will resume the copy edit part of the process once things settle down a bit again.

The problem with different editions is that material will very likely appear on different pages. So it is necessary to cite each book as a different source. This may of course mean a specific book is listed more than once, but it allows better verifiability. You were correct not to remove the previous edition as a source. I will go ahead and add the newer edition to the bibliography. --Dianna (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Migrating references

I am thinking of moving all the citations out of the text and into a separate section at the bottom of the page. Please see Ted Bundy for an example of an article that has been converted to this style. If there are no objections or concerns, I will complete the change in the next few days. See WP:LDR for more information. --Dianna (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dianaa. This is a very good suggestion, as it would make editing of the entry much easier on the eyes. I know that it's a lot of work though, but perhaps you've come up with a less arduous work flow. Many thanks Malljaja (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Its okay with me. Kierzek (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler had Asperger Syndrome according to an autism expert

Could this go in the entry?

Michael Fitzgerald, an expert in autism spectrum disorders, concludes that Hitler suffered from, and met all the criteria of Asperger syndrome as documented by Hans Asperger. As evidence of possible Asperger's, Fitzgerald cites Hitler's poor sleep patterns, food fads, dislike of physical contact, inability to forge genuine friendships, and an emptiness in his human relations. His conversations in the Men’s Home in Vienna were really harangues and invited no reciprocity, for which he seemingly lacked capacity. In Munich, Hitler was distant, self-contained, withdrawn and without friends. His comrades noted that he had no humanitarian feelings, that he was single-minded and inflexible. He was obsessive and rarely made good or interesting company, except in the eyes of those who shared his obsessions or those in awe of, or dependent on him.

As far as hobbies or pastimes were concerned, Hitler spent a great deal of time examining architectural plans with Albert Speer, an activity that remained a major focus of his life throughout. His other major interest was in the music of Richard Wagner. His greatest interest, clearly, was in control of and power over people.

Fitzgerald further states that Hitler was an ideologue with unshakable convictions, and had a bed compulsion, which demands that the bed be made in a particular way with the quilt folded according to a prescribed pattern, and that a man must make the bed before he could go to sleep. He did not use language for the purpose of interaction with others, but only for the purpose of dominating others. He endlessly engaged in long-winded and pedantic speeches, with "illogical arguments full of crude comparisons and cheap allusions." He was unable to carry on a normal conversation or discussion with people. Even if only one other person was present, he had to do all the talking. His manner of speech soon lost any conversational qualities it might have had and took on all the characteristics of a lecture that easily developed into a tirade. He simply forgot his companions and behaved as though he were addressing a multitude, repeating the same stories over and over again in exactly the same form, almost as though he had memorised them. After the First World War, "his awkward mannerisms" were noted. At that time, he wore his gangster hat and trenchcoat over his dinner jacket, toting a pistol and carrying as usual his dog whip, he cut a bizarre figure in the salons of Munich’s upper-crust. But his very eccentricity of dress and exaggerated mannerism saw him lionized by condescending hosts and fellow guests. In his early days, he wore the Bavarian costume. His clothes were not clean; with his mouth full of brown, rotted teeth and his long fingernails, he presented a rather grotesque figure. His gait was a very lady-like walk; dainty little steps. Every few steps he ****** his right shoulder nervously, his left leg snapping up as he did so. He also had a tic in his face that caused the corner of his lips to curl upwards. People found his look "staring and dead." 58.170.59.250 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is far too long to go into an article that is already 4000 words too long, and is likely copy-pasted from a copyright source. The article already mentions a possibility of Aspergers'. --Dianna (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I also feel this is too detailed. It is also too speculative and apparently based on only one source and would thus give undue weight to a single analysis by this individual. Malljaja (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

hitler as a war veteran

please cite your source