Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Untitled

This Article is false...

The very most important reason that you know that Hitler didn't care about animals is because he killed, tortured, and made so many people suffer. Humans are animals, mammals and Hitler did not show any love or emotion to any human except to the ones who were fighting by his side. Oh and he eats pork making him not a vegetarian..

Bree Wilson reference

May I suggest the reference be removed along with it all statements from it? The author clearly doesn't read German on a level that would make the text a reliable source, as indicated by the title of the text. Couldawouldashoulda hearsay through translations or unqualified attempts at one's own translation don't make a reliable source. --OliverH (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the first only ever vegetarian politician who was openly advocating vegetarianism get's attacked by his enemies, full of hate

Someone here wrote, that because his enemies blame him, after death and unable (and illegal) to defend himself, of atrocities, therefore he could have never do anything good, and must hav evil reasons for doing everything in his life...

I could say the same, a man who ordered ration cards for dogs, who stop the torture of animals could not have ordered that which their enemies accused him.

We both can play this card.

And I win because my point can be proven without doubt, there is no discussion about the official published laws protecting animals, stopping vivisection and forcing a better treatment of animals. While you, only have doubted documents, obtained through torture, by the soviets, confession written in English by German officials who didn't speak English, and information proven false and exagerated by the so called Nuremberg trials, which the US Supreme Court considered an insult to law, a joke and a dishonor.

He calmed his Navy Chief of Staff saying he couldn't implement vegetarianism, YET.

Why doesn't this article talked about how the situation of animals changed with the "Liberation"? What happened? I tell you, laboratories were allowed to torture again. With Hitler's laws, mistreatment of animals did end with people in jail, for years, 3 years for killing a pig in unhuman ways.

So, run away from here, you lying cowards! You should be ashamed, all the fake vegetarians and fake nature lovers, grow testicles and accept the facts, free yourself from the war propaganda of the winners (the winner who won because they trully were brutal, merciless and didn't give a damn about animals or humans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.9.203 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use wikipedia discussions for propagating inane conspiracy theories. The comment you most likely wanted to contend to was just as useless, but it would be better if neither instead of both of you "play this card". And for replying to other comments, please do so within the corresponding section instead of starting a new one.Makrom (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Article has been Highjacked and pushes a POV agenda

I agree, this article has been highjacked long ago by people with an agenda, reffing any old talking head, regardless of expertise.

Bree wilson for a start is completely unsuitable, and Robert Payne is heavily criticised for his broad assumptions and complete lack of any credibility as an authority on Hitler. Just google him and see. I half expect to see a quote from 'some drunk guy I met once'.

Also, the MASSIVE refs at the bottom of the page are entirely inappropriate for wikipedia. Refs are supposed to be REFS, that is, a reference that people can go check to read more. NOT a gigantic extension of the article.

The whole article has become a systematic collection of any duffer who backs up the notion that 'Hitler wasn't reallllllllly a veggie', for an obvious and yet very silly, agenda.

Someone sort this out, I have tried but the revert monkeys are in town. 87.114.2.169 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you talk a lot from "agendas", maybe you have your own. Bee Wilson (in the section "'Hitler was reallllllllly a veggie'", as you would say), seems and expert historian, according to his article, and expert in Hitler's diets. Robert Payne is an important and recognised writer and historian, and an expert in the life of Adolf Hitler. Criticized? As everywhere, but if you want to make a critic from his writings, make it in his own article, and using good and reliable sources. I really don't think either that be appropriate compare Payne with "'some drunk guy I met once'."

And the REFs can be used also as notes, according to a lot of articles from this Wikipedia, but in that point, maybe you have a little reason: some of the notes would be better more short (now I am thinking in the "Proctor 1999, p. 136 ...", the "Arluke & Sanders 1996, pp. 144, 150 ..." and the "Rudacille 2001, p. 88 ..." notes). But I don't believe these notes would simply dissapear, only would be more shorts, showing only the essential information. Akhran (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

BUT where has Bee Wilson gotten her opinion on Hitlers vegetarianism from?

This statement of hers; "For a start, his distaste for meat knew no pity of animals."

Flies quite blatantly in the face of the actual facts of Hitler's concern for Animal welfare.

Germany's Animal welfare laws were the strictest laws in the world at that time and were a direct result of Hitler's distaste for the use of animals for testing, kosher slaughtering and general abuse of animals. This is of obvious importance when considering Hitler's beliefs and directly gives a possible insight into his vegetarian diet.

I added a small section on this (Animal welfare in Nazi Germany), to be improved later, so why has this section been removed by you?

Bee wilson is simply attributing what she thinks Hitler must have been like (bad, evil, madman etc.) rather than actually talking from any scholarly insight into his character. She is a poor source. Hugh Trevor-Roper Alan Bullock or Ian Kershaw are proper historian sources.

And yes the refs should be shortened to the basics, then anyone who wants can look them up.87.114.2.169 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delete the section about "Animal welfare" you introduced, I only reverted the big quantity of changes you made, by the causes I have said before. But in any way, that section fits more in an article about the article you linked or in a article as Animal welfare. Animal welfarism or environmentalism has really little to do with "vegetarianism". Most of the activist in these movements eat meat (because animal welfare say that can be acceptable kill an animal for food if any unnecessary suffering is avoided and environmentalism say that is OK if is done in a sustainable manner).

About Bee Wilson, I think she is more expert in Hitler that we are, so I will not question his knowledge. You question that, but I think we aren't experts historians. Maybe his cite included in the article isn't really good and could be rewrited (maintaining the meaning of this affirmation of the sentence), but I don't agree his work isn't a reliable source for this article. Akhran (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the legitimacy of the references are a POV in themselves, but generally if the references come from published works (books/journal articles) then they are acceptable. It's up to the readers to decide their veracity. However I agree that the referencing is being abused. Some of them are miniature essays that are irrelevant to the subject. Notes are supposed to clarify information in the article, not to extend it. For instance the reference which includes a min-essay on Wagner's anti-Semitic theories are irrelevant to Hitler's vegetarianism. They only warrant mention to the extent that some of Hitler's views are linked to them. As for the section on animal welfare, I don't see why that can't be brought into the article, but it should be restricted to legislation and policies that were brought in under Hitler to illuminate his compassion for animals, and it should be brief. After all like an editor pointed out the article isn't about animal welfare in Nazi Germnay, but Hitler's involvement in animal welfare in Germany is relevant to a possible vegetarian lifestyle. Betty Logan (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree in the point that the "min-essay on Wagner's anti-Semitic theories" is too long and includes information not linked to the article, but I disagree that is any link between the Nazi animal welfare policies and the vegetarianism of his leader and that section fits in this article. If he would promoted animal rights and vegetarianism, then a section of this type would be neccesarily, but Nazis (and his leader) promoted only animal welfare, position that points that "is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals for food, in animal research, as clothing, and in entertainment, so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided". An that's not a vegetarian position, referring to food. Referring to "animal research" the Nazi laws that ban vivisection (August 1933) only were running three weeks, after which Nazis permit again vivisection under regulation. So I don't see connection with Hitler vegetarianism. Akhran (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The animal rights section is relevant to the extent that Hitler's vegetariansm is being questioned. There generally is a strong correlation between a person's vegetarian dietary practice and their views on animal rights, so it's relevant in that it may provide motivation for Hitler's private dietary practices. I don't advocate a whole section on it, but I can see a legitimate argument for including a brief overview in regards to Hitler's general views on animal welfare because it provides a context for the pro arguments, and demonstartes consisten behaviour in other areas of his life. If an editor wants to add a brief overview of Hitler's participation in animal welfare to the article I wouldn't have any problem with that. Maybe they can write it up here first so we don't have any edit warring on the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But the the matter is that there isn't an "Animal rights section", is a "Animal welfare section". And "Animal rights" and "Animal welfare" is really a different thing. You say "There generally is a strong correlation between a person's vegetarian dietary practice and their views on animal rights", and that's true, but Nazis didn't have animal rights policies and laws, they have animal welfare policies and laws, and usually for reason different from the reason that makes "ethical vegetarians": to avoid what they called "Jewish science". Akhran (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we actually need an article on such a specialized topic? Why isn't it simply included under "Hitler" or "vegetarianism"? --Maybellyne (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Akhran by his own profile is an animal rights activist and therefore by POV rules should be excluded from editing this article.64.167.16.142 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bee Wilson's opinion

I don't see why this person's opinion should feature so prominently (in a special paragraph, no less), especially considering s/he clearly misinterpreted H.'s words (whether wittingly or not, I don't know). It is not clear (and it should be, considering this is a supposedly encylopedic site) where this person got the impression that H. "knew no pity for animals", but what is certain - to those who have taken care to actually read extensive texts about this topic, including entire dinner-table conversations - is that he did not "boast" about visiting slaughterhouses. He usually closed his graphic descriptions of animal slaughtering - aimed at his blissfully oblivious meat-eating guests - by commenting on their (the guests') "hypocrisy".

Not good table manners, I agree. But it's not the same as "boasting". And it certainly doesn't equal "no pity for animals".

EVERYBODY deserves a fair and intellectually honest treatment. Lies and misinterpretations never amount to any good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.156.41 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Change to the intro

The intro starts off by saying; 'Hitler is said to have practised some form of vegetarianism' Countless of the reliabe sources support that he was a vegetarian, so I think it could be said with certainity that he was indeed a vegetarian, instead of this uncertain and 'guessing' opening to the article, a second thing we need to change is the postfix, the 'some form of vegetarianism', again its a vague, imprecise formulation. I believe the intro of the article should, as according to all the sources, settle straightaway that hitler was a vegetarian. Which form of vegetarianism he practiced seems a bit to pedantic and unimportant for the intro. I think we should elaborate later on in the article, which 'form' of vegetarianism he practiced. So to include these 2 changes, I vote we change the beforementioned sentence from the opening to: "Hiter was a vegetarian" -its simple straight to the point and very accurate. Anyone in favour?Averagejoedev (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the opening sentence is loaded; it's unquestionable he practised vegetarianism, the question is to what extent, so I support your revision. The problem with the lead though is that it's too short to adequately summarise the issues that the article covers, but in the absence of a properly written lead I support removing the bias. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have now changed the lead. I think there are a other problems in this article. For instance; The statement that Hitler he was not an 'Ethical vegetarian' and in fact the entire use of Rynn Berry(a vegetarian activist, with no historical expertise)as a source in the "Questoning Hitler's Vegetarianism" section, needs to be questioned, and possibly removed. I'll open a new talk section to handle this.Averagejoedev (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"It's unquestionable he practised vegetarianism, the question is to what extent." Vegetarians dont eat meat. Not a little meat or every once in a while but no meat at all, hence the term. Hitler ate meat. Whether he ate it rarely or not is irrelevant. He was an omnivore (ate meat and non meat to various extent). This is a little like saying Hitler practiced sexual abstinence but had sex every once in a while. The only people being pedantic here are those writing that hitler was a vegetarian. The intro should be reverted from stating an absolute to at the very least stating that there is dispute on the matter. august 2011

There is no hard definition. Vegetarian societies might like to think there is and have their own unambiguous definitions, but in common usage there are plenty of people who eat meat who identify themselves as vegetarian in some capacity. That's why we have phrases such as "strict vegetarian", or "pesco-vegetarian", "semi-vegetarian" or "flexitarian" which is basically a vegetarian based diet with a meat component. Wikipedia can't adopt a single rigid definition since it would violate WP:NPOV. Even the disputers generally agree that his diet was vegetarian based or geared to a reduced meat-intake, so the dispute is really only over his level of adherence i.e. was Hitler a strict vegetarian or a flexitarian. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Vegetarian societies"? They still have those? The Oxford English dictionary defines vegetarianism as:"a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons." Websters dictionary defines vegetarianism as :"1 n. one who believes in or practices vegetarianism. 2 adj. consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products" Thats a pretty "hard definition." Common usage varies from place to place (ive never heard your line of argument before) and belongs in urban dictionary dot com. You say "Wikipedia can't adopt a single rigid definition since it would violate NPOV" then why does the heading say that hitler was a vegetarian when he wasnt? Diets cant be "vegetarian based", they can be vegetable/fruit based and supplemented with meat. Until the modern era most Europeans, excluding the ruling classes, ate mostly a non meat diet based on one or two basic staples which they supplemented with meat whenever they could rarely afford to buy it (or illegally hunt it on rich peoples preserves). This was because meat was expensive and dangerous to poach. This doens't make them vegetarians and they certainly didnt consider themselves as such. Looking at the citations of the "flexitarians" wiki page it seems to me its something made up a few years ago for no reason whats so ever. If you want to write that Hitler was a "flexitarian" whatever. But from i understand he went on diets because he was was in poor health and that's what his doctors recommended to him. august 2011

Well, the whole article should be delelted as this only concerns a very minor aspect of Hitler's life, unless one considers that his long and boring discussion about vegetarianism are one of his most prominent activities. The way the sources are chosen and presented laos raise questions. For instance, the sentence "In his post-war reminiscence The Enigma of Hitler, Belgian SS General, and friend of Hitler's, Léon Degrelle wrote: "He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed."[13] contains several factual inaccuracies. To start with Degrelle never became SS general, but was Standartenführer, i.e. Colonel. How can one furthermore write that Degrelle was Hitler's friend when he did not meet him more that two times (and maybe only once). Thinking that Degrelle - who is furthermore known to have been a liar all his lige long - could have first hand information on Hitler's eating habits is just as ridiculous as taking Degrelle as source. --Lebob (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable?

This version of the Downfall viral(-ly mutating) parodies clip is somewhat tangentially related to Hitler's vegetarianism (but more directly related for H's love of his dog).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Payne

Copied from user talk pages:
Hi, I noticed your (nirvana2013) alterations to this article. One of the problems of putting Robert Payne's views front-and-center is that Payne's book is universally regarded by historians as complete garbage. A problem with this article is that it gives the view the Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight. All actual specialist historians agree that he was. The "evidence" that he wasn't is an accummulation of gossip articles in cookery magazines and the like which have no real evidentiary value at all, since they are not based any first hand testimony or experience. One of them actually mistakes a joke for a fact (ie that Hitler was a vegetarian but he made an exception for ham - to prove he wasn't Jewish). Paul B (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just following Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article lead was certainly not following NPOV, as it did not include any arguments against him being vegetarian. I disagree that the article "gives the view that Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight." If anything to me the article gives undue weight on him being a vegetarian. The article name is "Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism", not "Adolf Hitler's diet." Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The universal view of specialists on the subject is not too much weight. It is precisely due weight. A good case could be made for excluding Payne altogether on the grounds that his book is totally unreliable. It might be more appropriate to say in the lede that some vegetarian activists such as Rynn Berry have felt the need to deny Hitler's vegetarianism and that it was a topic of debate in the popular press at one time. But the view of actual specialist biographers is unanimous - unless you have evidence to the contrary. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the lead to NPOV by incorporating Ryan Berry and other critics instead of Robert Payne, feel free. Although please note Ryan Berry uses Robert Payne's work as a major source in his book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover. By the way, it does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines excluding Robert Payne (a renowned biographer) because you or historians disagree with him. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that Payne is a "renowned biographer", unless "renowned" just means "well known" (but "renowned" somehow sounds more grand doesn't it?). Imagine applying that to, say, Hitler himself: the "renowned political theorist" (well, he is isn't he? He's famous and he had a theory of politics). Being renowned grants no status whatever. It's much better to be an extremely obscure expert as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Whether I disagree with him does not matter, that's true. But you are strangely conflating that with whether historians disagree with him. That does matter - a very great deal according to Wikipedia's rules. That's exactly how we determine what is and is not a reliable source. Experts in the field decide. See WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hence I did not call him "renowned" in the article, as that would be POV. Lets just say the book is a reliable source then, as per WP:BLPSOURCES i.e. not self-published, not primary, not original research, not libel and not tabloid. You can always add a sentence from a secondary source disagreeing with Robert Payne's assessment that Hitler's asceticism was just propaganda e.g. "Although biographer x believes Payne's view on Hitler's asceticism was incorrect because..." Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES? The article is not a BLP (biography of a living person), unless you think that Adolf is still hiding out somewhere in South America, so the policy you point to is wholly irrelevant. The point I was making is that it is highly arguable whether Payne can be considered a reliable sourrce at all. I think not. You seem to be wilfully ignoring the argument. Paul B (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. But isn't BLP stricter on sources due to the risk of legal action? If it meets BLP, will it not meet BDP? I am not ignoring your argument. Wikipedia guidelines define Robert Payne's biography of Hitler as a reliable source. Wikipedia editors like us should not try to get involved with whether the information we write is true or not but just reflect the sources as they are handed down to us, as per WP:VNT. It may well be true that Hitler was vegetarian. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still at a loss to understand why you are raising BLP here. WP:BDP is for recently dead persons, and in any case I think Hitler's surviving relatives may have more problems with his memory than worrying about whether or not he ate dumplings. I think the best way to deal with this is to raise the matter at WP:RSN. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Letter from Rynn Berry to the Editor, New York Times

Extensive copyvio removed, was a fairly extensive letter. If you have a link you can add that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rynn Berry Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a remotely reliable source. Letters to ther editor are not acceptable sources. Berry is an ideologue to start off with. You will notice that he never mentions any of the major biographers of Hitler at all. That's because they completely contradict him. But he's not honest enough to mention that. So he has to go with such third-rate suff as "A Concise Biography of Hitler", which is just a potboiler compiled by someone with no specialist expertise. Fuchs is the man who wrote the following notorious piece of drivel "The principle (sic) function of this army-like organization [the SA] was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals". Most of this stuff just regurgitates the absurd gossip-sources he used before. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dione Lucas not reliable? It appears anyone who noted Hitler was not strictly vegetarian is an unreliable source in your eyes. Perhaps the issue here is terminology. There are many people today who call themselves vegetarian, and are referred to as vegetarian by media/biographers, but they occasionally eat meat or fish. These people (as defined by the Vegetarian Society) are not truly vegetarian but flexitarian or pescetarian. I would suggest the article is moved to Adolf Hitler's diet to maintain NPOV. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course she isn't reliable. She's writing a cook book containing gossipy stories. There is no evidence she ever even met Hitler (she never says she did). It's just a story to liven up the book for readers of the time. In any case she is a primary source. Reliable sources such as Kershaw got their information directly from Hitler's own cooks. It's Berry who is ignoring sources, not me. He simply blanks-out actual testimony from close associates of Hitler, cooks and kitchen staff, instead, preferring as "true, gossip in magazines written by people who probably never even met him. Doesn't it strike you as odd that no actual major biographers of Hitler are mentioned by Berry, but instead he relies on potboiler books written by non-experts. Why would that be? Paul B (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We are going round in circles. Yes Dione Lucas is a primary source, but Rynn Berry is not. However, if meeting Hitler makes the source more credible then please note that Robert Payne met Adolf Hitler in 1937 (which is more than can be said for his present-day biographers), an incident which Payne describes in his book Eyewitness. If Berry, a vegetarian, cannot be considered NPOV on this article because of his dietary choice, then by the same token Christian biographers should be excluded as reliable sources on the article Jesus. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism → Adolf Hitler's diet – It is disputed that Hitler was vegetarian (see Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism). The current title does not adhere to NPOV, unlike other neutrally titled articles such as the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. The current title is Godwin's New Coatrack against vegetarianism. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  The title isn't coatrack unless the reader is stupid enough to believe that vegetarianism is bad just because Hiliter might have been one, and if the reader is stupid enough to believe that then renaming alone wouden't fix it. The only way to fix that "Coatrack problem" is by saying that Hitler definitely wasn't a vegetarian.

If the article is Coatrack it's because of it's content not the title. The only thing I can see that could be Coatrack agents vegetarianism is the Deborah Rudacille quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 November 2012‎

• The article title places the words "Hitler" and "vegetarianism" right next to each other, parroting an age-old anti-vegetarian staple. This is not my interpretation but plain evident for anyone unless they're blinded by bias. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• This talk page is like jumping into a hornet's nest! Having read through the page and tried to understand the arguments it is clear there are agendas driving many opinions about the content and titling. It is up to us as contributors and editors supposedly not to edit / title an article so it does not represent a POV. There is clearly enough evidence in the controversy about Hitler's diet and alleged vegetarianism to try to make sure that no statement is made such as 'Hitler was a vegetarian' or 'Hitler was not a vegetarian'. There is simply controversy about this. Too many contributors have made statements in the talk pages (without with references) defending one or other of the positions. Hitler may have lived some time of his life as a vegetarian or he may not have. It is not up to editors / contributors to draw conclusions. It is up to us to collaboratively create an article that presents all reasonable and verifiable views and let the reader make their own conclusions. Following this line of reasoning I think that the title is too POV. Hitler's vegetarianism is not undisputed fact and therefore an alternative title should be created. Robynthehode (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is just about his alleged vegetarianism, not his diet in general. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• The topic should be Hitler's diet in general, because an article specifically about Hitler and vegetarianism automatically turns into nothing but a coatrack for anti-vegetarianism. Please don't feign ignorance of the public discourse. You know very well what I'm talking about. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• It wouldn't surprise me to hear that some idiots were saying that vegetarianism was bad because Hitler might have been one, but I've haven't herd of a public discourse about that. Please don't feign ignorance of WP:AGF and the fact that that that not everyone is aware of the same public discourses that you are. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, well, I've stumbled upon it so often that I honestly find it hard to believe that any media-savvy person has never heard of that meme. Consider just this: The second result a Google search for "adolf hitler vegetarian" yields is titled "Vegetarians are Evil - Adolf Hitler Was a Vegetarian".
  But anyway, you don't need to know of the meme to follow my argument. My point is that perception of the title as denigrating toward vegetarianism by association is plausible, and by no means only the reading of "stupid idiots". Maybe some people are more prone to be influenced by suggestion, but there actually is the intrinsic spin of having the words Hitler and vegetarianism right next to each other in big letters at the top of the page. By having this article and especially this title we're not reporting on the discussion so much as demonstrating it by example.
  Let me ask you the same question as BDD below: Would you actually oppose the addition of more general information (i.e. unrelated to vegetarianism) to the article because the article is only about Hitler's vegetarianism? Do you want the scope of the article to be limited to Hitler's vegetarianism? --213.196.214.177 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Emmette's right. Hitler's diet isn't notable on its own; the entire article is about whether Hitler or not was vegetarian, not about other aspects of his diet. It's unfortunate that anyone would think it a legitimate criticism of vegetarianism that Hitler was one, but that's a poor reason for a rename. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• the entire article is about whether Hitler or not was vegetarian -- In other words, the current article is intrinsically POV.
  Hitler's diet isn't notable on its own. -- That doesn't strike you as remarkable when vegetarianism is directly and exclusively an issue of diet?
  Let me ask you this: Would you actually oppose the addition of more general information (i.e. unrelated to vegetarianism) to the article because the article is only about Hitler's vegetarianism, or would you support a move at that point? Asking because I'm confident that the article could easily be expanded with more general info on Hitler's diet. Should I look for sources and add a section to the article? Or do we want this article to be solely about Hitler's vegetarianism even though we could have a more useful, more comprehensive and more neutral article? --213.196.214.177 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with anon. The scope of this article is diet i.e. whether Hitler was an omnivore, flexitarian or vegetarian. An expansion of the article into what he ate on a typical day would be useful in establishing his dietary philosophy. The article is not about Hitler's wider animal rights/welfare beliefs and actions e.g. how could Hitler reconcile the collateral destruction of livestock, pets and wild animals through the action of war, plus the Nazi's taste for uniforms made out of black leather. I still don't understand the reluctance to change the article name to NPOV. I suspect there would not be the same objections moving Adolf Hitler's homosexuality to the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I wouldn't object to such a move. Note that the latter title is where that article is. And "there is considerable evidence that... [Hitler had an] antipathy to homosexuality, and no evidence he engaged in homosexual behavior." Here, we have pretty broad agreement in reliable sources that Hitler was a vegetarian, and he also self-identified as such. Doubts about his vegetarianism are a minority view, and should weighed appropriately. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article properly focuses on the issue of how he classified himself and how others thought of him. As the article shows, his dietary identity relates to Nazi propaganda, his social relationships, and so forth. What kind of broth or vitamin pills he ate is trivia. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is fact no doubt that Hitler was a vegetarian, but even if there were real doubt about it, this would still be the subject of the article. It is not about his diet - how much he ate, whether was balanced, if he liked cabagge. It's all about his vegetarianism. Nothing else. The sexuality article is about what it says its about. Alleged homosexuality is just one of the many claims that have been made. Again the truth is simple, but people love stories about Adolf. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The article is in fact about his diet: whether it was vegetarian or not. As pointed out above, putting his vegetarianism in the title loads the article towards that, apparently disputed, conclusion. At any rate, "Hitler's vegetarianism" is an awkward title (to my eyes at least). "Hitler's diet" is more natural. For example, we generally would title a section "Hitler's religion" or "Hitler's religious beliefs", not "Hitler's Protestantism", especially if the nature of those beliefs is disputed in the article itself. Glaucus (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It could also be expanded to other notable aspects of his diet. I see claims in there disputing his non-consumption of alcohol. Without knowing the literature, that alone might be too minor a viewpoint to warrant its own article, but be worthy of a section inside a larger article on his diet. Glaucus (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Per other comments, I can't support moving to "Adolf Hitler's diet" unless there are multiple aspects of his diet that are noteworthy. However, "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" could address the POV titling concern. Formerip (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Glaucus (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be fine with that also. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Support for Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. Much better than the current title, and it shouldn't pose a problem for any of the opposers who are concerned about the article scope. In case this request is closed unsuccessfully, we should immediately resubmit this proposal instead. --195.14.223.86 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Singalongschmee (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Singalongschmee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support I am not particularly swayed by the arguments that the title exists to slur vegetarians in any way. That's a non-starter for me. But the argument that Glaucus makes seems cogent and relevent and has swayed me that a name change is in order, even if the current one does not violate NPOV in any way (I don't believe that it does), there is still a good reason to move it nonetheless. FormerIPs suggestion seems like a good second alternative, but I prefer the "diet" title better. --Jayron32 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't matter that some people try to redefine the word "vegetarianism" to exclude Hitler's or other people's behavior, if he identified with the movement or if other people identified him with it (which they do, and "vegetarianism" is the word that our sources use), then our title should indicate that clearly. Shrigley (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The point here seems to be that sources are in dispute with one another, which I think cuts the feet off your argument. Formerip (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Mild oppose, though the proposal seems well-intentioned. I don't see this as a neutrality issue. The topic of the article is "the question of whether Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian"; the title is simply a shorthand for that. I think FormerIP's suggested move to "Hitler and vegetarianism" (now a redirect) is worth considering, as that title doesn't imply an affirmative answer to the question. Would the nominator consider that as an alternative? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My preference is still "Adolf Hitler's diet", but if there is no consensus I would support either "Hitler and vegetarianism" or "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" as alternatives. They are an improvement over the current title at least. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Notable and extensively discussed that it warrants a focused article. General question of his overall diet isn't the concern in the literature. Let's reflect the literature, not our own POV. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• We're not "reflecting" the literature so much as parotting the anti-vegetarian propaganda therein. If that matches your POV, I'm happy for you, but it isn't a valid reason to keep the POV title. --195.14.223.86 (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Diet is too general. The comparison with sexuality or religious view is not quite accurate, imo. With the title "hitler's sexuality", reader would know it is about whether he was gay or not. On the other end, if the article titled, "religious view of hitler" is about his view on Christianity, the the title is spot on. If it is about his occultism, then the title should be changed to "occultism of Hitler". Vegetarianism of Hitler is the title which make appropriate reference to the issue discussed here. Vapour (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with everyone else that the subject of the article is Hitler's purported vegetarianism, so eradicating the 'vegetarian' aspect from the title is being deliberately obtuse. It is pretty much accepted that Hitler adopted some vegetarian practices, even if he didn't completely convert to a full vegetarian diet so I don't think the title is particularly misleading. That said I wouldn't have any objection to the suggestion above of Hitler and vegetarianism, it seems to be free of any non-neutral connotations. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While the current title is POV, the proposed new title is inaccurate. I suggest calling the article "Hitler and vegetarianism". TFD (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is inherently POV, to the point that it could reasonably offend. The article covers more than simply whether or not this individual was entitled to describe himself as a vegetarian, so a title referring to his diet more widely is both more accurate and more clearly neutral.Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)