Talk:Adolf Hitler

Hitler's evil in first paragraph?

I found the sentence "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil. According to historian Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man."" has been put in first paragraph of the article. But should it put in first paragraph? Or if it should be in first paragraph, should we include Ian Kershaw's opinion?Mariogoods (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please see talk page and archives for previous discussions of this matter. Britmax (talk) 00:50, 20 December

,,,from the last talk..that is second most cited after IAN ...is...Joel Feinberg; (Regents Professor of Philosophy and Law) (2003). Problems at the Roots of Law:. Oxford University Press. p. 189. ISBN 978-0-19-515526-6. Adolf Hitler would win honors, hands down, as the most evil man who ever lived, and the ultimate model of human wickedness...--Moxy 🍁 01:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please, cite Adolf_Hitler's_wealth_and_income. Hilter was a billionaire and a tax evader.Geysirhead (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Stalin is also universally regarded as evil, except in Russia. (JosefHe (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC))

Whether Hitler was evil or not is a piece of subjective opinion, even if that opinion is held by the majority of people who study the life of Hitler. Unless this statement is substantiated with the universal definition of evil and evidence is shown that he committed acts that fall under this universal definition, it cannot be said that he was evil. Let's stay by the facts and include verifiable information only. Stating that under his Nazi rule about 6 million Jews, and in total 11 millions victims, were persecuted, is verifiable. Stating that, according to someone, he is considered evil and attributing that statement to that person might be okay in other parts of the article, but it definitely does not belong to the lead. Veritas cosmicus (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The content is a summary of the material in the "Legacy" section, and that's why it's in the lead. (The lead, as you likely know, is intended to be a summary of the entire article.) It's okay to provide a consensus of what historians or other experts have to say about a subject. That historians hold this opinion of Hitler is a verifiable fact and therefore something we can and should include. — Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Diannaa; mainstream RS historians state this as expert opinion and therefore, it should be included. It is not a fringe theory or unverified opinion. Kierzek (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Full concurrence with both Diannaa and Kierzek here, as it is widely stated by historians, psychologists, and scholars of the humanities that Hitler was evil. When this reasonably objective and accepted fact is disputed, it is from the perspective of Nazi apologists or fans of the regime.--Obenritter (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that "evil" (which sounds particularly cartoony) should be replaced by "gravely immoral". Per the "Legacy" section: "Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral". In my opinion, the "universally regarded" gives "gravely immoral" much more encyclopedical weight than "evil", which is quoted here as: "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime." So as you can see, between "often" and "universally [regarded]", the latter has considerably more relevance. LuizLSNeto (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE READ what I will say about this debate (down below). Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and Wikipedia only includes FACTS. When they include OPINIONS (such as Hitler being evil), it is NOT the opinion of Wikipedia, but the opinion of the Majority of humans. When they state Opinions, they do NOT say :"We think Hitler was evil". Instead, they say:"People think Hitler was evil". So, it is not Wikipedia's fault. I believe that the statement about Hitler being seen as evil by the majority of the population(whether true or not) shouldn't be there. Thank you, and please make this change. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require that WIkipedia water down the unanimous consensus of historians to imply by omission that there's some chance that the person directly responsible for the mass slaughter of millions as a matter of ideology and hatred should be treated with kid gloves. There is no serious dissenting view in mainstream thou8ght where this is concerned, and Wikipedia reflects the consensus of mainstream thought. We say it like it is, and omission makes Wikipedia a worse place for everyone. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like you did not understand me. I know what NPOV is. I am not treating this with kid gloves. Yes, Hitler is seen as evil by most. Yes, maybe he is (who am I to judge?!). Yes, he killed because of his ideology. Of course we HAVE TO INCLUDE that Hitler is seen as evil. 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃 Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Jam ai qe ju shikoni, the WP:Lead is a summary of the article; there is no good reason stated, thus far, not to include it; what I am hearing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At this point, WP:Consensus is not in your favor for a change. So, please consider that fact. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Kierzek, I will consider what you said. It seems like we will never agree on this (sadly). Maybe you do not agree with my reasons. It is OK. It seems like we have only one last chance: VOTING. Do you think we can do that? If so, how? Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Kierzek, also, please do not mistake me for a nazi or an anti-nazi. I am none. And I do not want to hide Hitler's actions. I try to be neutral when I read history(things happen wether we like it or not) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and we don't vote. We cite policy, and NPOV policy requires that we state the plain facts and not water them down for a fallacious appearance of balance. The lead paragraph summarizes article content.So no, we can't do what you want. Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, be respectful bro. I just meant we should do a poll. End of. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion is correct, again read the links. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity..., neither is it the result of a vote." Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes Kierzek, I meant A POLL Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, WIkipedia isn't a democracy, and this is a poor choice for a topic to argue about. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, i would like to add my 2 cents. While i don't like it when articles insert opinions about the topic, the prospect of opinions being banned on this site seem unlikely. However, i do think a good case can be made for removing the quote "According to historian Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man."" from the lead, for multiple reasons: First, it's redundant to the prior sentence "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil". Second, this sentence is not reflected in the body text. Third, the lead shouldn't use references. Fourth, it gives undue weight to this particular historian's take. I'm going to remove it unless someone objects. Koopinator (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a good edit in my opinion.— Diannaa (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead bro Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I've so far stayed out of this discussion. On the one hand I find the characterisation of AH as 'evil', unnecessary (saying what he 'achieved' sufficiently characterises him for me), but on the other hand I recognise that he holds a special status as almost the epitome of evil - so I was quite happy to follow, but not take sides in this discussion.

BUT .... the proposed text seems the worst of both worlds, the Kershaw quote ("Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man.") expresses precisely and articulately, exactly why the 'evil' label is applied. The argument that it is not in the body is also wrong - the legacy section says almost precisely the same thing (except there we have 'gravely immoral', rather than 'evil').

I can see an argument for not discussing AH's immorality/evil-ness in the lead at all, I can also see an argument for moving such a discussion down from the first para. I cannot see ANY argument for saying AH was evil but not expanding on why the term is used about him - which the Kershaw quote does very succinctly IMO. 'Evil' is such a lightly and loosely used term, almost comic-book-ish, we might as well be saying "Hitler was a very bad man" - true, but utterly banal in the circumstances IMO.Pincrete (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Having just caught up on this discussion, I don't see it being argued that we should say he's regarded as evil and not explain why. We do explain why, elsewhere in the article. The topic at hand is how much detail to have in the lead. Since we don't want to use citations in the lead, and we don't want to omit discussion of his overwhelmingly negative legacy from the lead, this seems like an excellent compromise to me. --causa sui (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think it better to either omit "he is seen as evil" from the lead, or to state succinctly why (which IMO the Kershaw quote does). But I'll "go with the flow" on this. Pincrete (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It should not be in the lede. Stalin's actions and ideology are widely seen as evil, yet there is nothing in his article on this site calling him evil. (JosefHe (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC))

Perhaps there should be? Feel free to start discussion on Talk:Joseph Stalin. --causa sui (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hitler is actually widely admired in former British colonies, especially in the Middle East where "Mein Kampf" is a bestseller. Saying he is universally regarded as evil is incorrect. (JosefHe (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC))

I agree that that is incorrect. It's a good thing the article doesn't say that. --causa sui (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Our article on Evil highlights very early on that it is an ill-defined concept, with widely differing meanings in different cultures. To use the word in this article as if it has a single, unarguable definition is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a moral philosophy other than Nazism where the systematic murder of multiple classes of people totaling millions of human lives solely based on their DNA is considered anything other than evil, I'll give you a million dollars. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Then rewrite our article on Evil. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and does not use itself for reference. Find me a reliable source that explicitly claims Adolf Hitler is not evil. When you do that, we can have a discussion about adjusting the description of him here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Silly demand. "Evil" is simply the wrong word to be using here. It means too many things to too many different people. And it's far too often based on the proclamations of old religions. We need to find a more precise way to say he was a really nasty bloke. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hows this? "Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) or socially undesirable. Hitler and the Nazi regime were also responsible for the killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theatre. The number of civilians killed during World War II was unprecedented in warfare, and the casualties constitute the deadliest conflict in history." Seems precise to me, what do you think? Shall I add it to the lead? --causa sui (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That would work for me as a replacement for the final paragraph of the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems too long for the first paragraph. Near the end of the lead would be good. --causa sui (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to including this in the lead. I do object to the removal of the evil sentence, as that is the consensus view of reliable sources and it is cited in the article. Calling a spade a spade is needed here, and it should be reflected that there is a consensus view on the topic. Appeals to cultural relativism on the topic of evil are a distraction here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The suggested final paragraph for the lead is identical to the one we already have. Not sure what your proposed amendment is? — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That would explain why I thought it fit well :) On a serious note: Wikipedia does not need to conform to some culturally relative conception of what is evil. NPOV does not require we do so, and the consensus view of sources is that the actions he took are essentially the sum of what that word means in the English language. As we are the English Wikipedia, there is going to be a natural bias towards native anglophone understandings of the words used. That's unavoidable and not inconsistent with NPOV. It comes with us using English as the medium of communication. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A bit of good-natured trolling on my part. My point is that we already explain this just fine. --causa sui (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• This whole thread is based on a false premise. Nowhere does it say that Hitler was evil. It says "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil". A person himself, and what that person does or thinks, are very different things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Best to re-read this thread.--Moxy 🍁 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

So, Hitler is a good person, and he is an evil person at the same time? 😂😂 Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Every person is a mixture of both, if you're asking my opinion on which way the wind is blowing in his case, it seems the reliable sources overwhemlingly conclude that no, he's just evil. --causa sui (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bro, no one asked for your opinion. (Redacted) Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I consider that value judgement absolutely infantile and unencyclopaedic. Although in a way, I shouldn't be surprised - this is the pinnacle of the widespread anti-racist bias, the ultimate conclusion of that constant scowl permeating every political article here. But I would like to draw your attention to another point - that the use of the word "evil" seems to my knowledge an incredibly Anglocentric phenomenon. To any non-American reader, it would appear as outlandish as young Earth creationism. Evil to whom? There is no source, actually. That would mean absolutely evil... and that's contentious philosophy.--Adûnâi (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this has already been discussed quite a bit, but having spent many years working on contentious political biographies at Wikipedia, I must say that the addition of this sentence to the opening paragraph seems really quite unencyclopedic. It really should be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm neutral, but would point out that this isn't quite a bog-standard biography. The sentence is intended to be a summary of "Legacy", which says in part:

Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral; according to Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man." Hitler's political programme brought about a world war, leaving behind a devastated and impoverished Eastern and Central Europe. Germany suffered wholesale destruction, characterised as Stunde Null (Zero Hour). Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale; according to R. J. Rummel, the Nazi regime was responsible for the democidal killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European Theatre of World War II. The number of civilians killed during the Second World War was unprecedented in the history of warfare. Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime.

References

The word 'evil' is sometimes used almost childishly (evil wizard?), but it is also used to refer to the most extreme manifestations of wholly inexplicable amorality, wholly inexplicable cruelty and complete moral depravity. There aren't many other words that reach that low and there aren't many biog subjects who are credited with quite this number of senseless deaths! Pincrete (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence “Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil” is problematical for numerous reasons and that this wiki article would be more 'encyclopedic' without its subjective use of the word 'evil'. It's problematical because its a statement that assumes an unevidenced time-based current consensus and ignores and negates previous opinions and future ones — so is not fact based. It's problematical because it relies on unevidenced assumptions that mirror current western opinions and ignores middle-eastern and eastern ones. Which is therefore arguably racist. It's problematical because it condenses a lifetime of 56 years to just the "actions and ideology" of the years from 1941 to 1945 and then posits an emotive, subjective evaluation based on a quote from one impartial historian with possibly the most emotional antipathy to the subject matter. Etc., etc. The fact that biographer's such as William L. Shirer, Robert Payne, Leon Poliakov, Gerhard Weinberg, Nora Levin, Alan Bullock, Joachim Fest and many others have relied on Rauschning’s fabricated Conversations with Hitler I regard as a sign of the animus based on misinformation that I would expect an encyclopedia to try and avoid NOT rely upon and perpetuate . I suggest that for this wiki biography to be more fact-based, unemotional and therefore neutral, that therefore emotionally-led antipathy should be avoided. For example, the biographies of the other WW2 leaders do not begin with totals of war-dead that could be fairly ascribed to THEIR "actions" and "ideologies". Why not? I suggest that this is being done intentionally here with Hitler — though perhaps subconsciously — in order to create and perpetuate an emotion-based antipathy held by editors. So as an encyclopedia that aspires to neutrality and impartial presentation of FACTS, I suggest if we do not do that for Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, then in the interests of neutrality I argue that we shouldn't be doing that for Hitler either. SUMMARY: I agree with the arguments for removing this problematical sentence altogether. Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that there have probably been millions of people as morally bankrupt as Hitler. They just didn’t have the opportunity to exercise their immorality on such a wide scale. Were his enthusiastic followers any less evil? (Cue Buffy Sainte-Marie’s Universal Soldier.) I don’t like the line: "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil” as the word evil is used in so many ways, some trivial: “Kimchi tastes evil”. OTOH, I quite like: "According to historian Ian Kershaw, 'Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man.'" Hard to argue with that association. We even have Godwin’s law as a result. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes as it is one of the things he is most notable for, being the epitome of evil.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I think adding that is a very good line that would accurately convey the idea on the lead. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per Midnightblueowl, "evil" is a totally subjective concept and therefore, for us, unencyclopedic; conversely, per Object3000, a similarly all-embracing assessment of the historiographical state of play is both encyclopedic and reader-friendly. It's an excellent quote that summarises the intent behind saying he's evil but in a more professional and scientific manner. ——SN54129 19:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not a fan of expressly evil, it is childish and does not really capture the horrors he created. Also it comes across as inconsistent with other people of the time such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, and Pol Pot all genocidal and evil. The quote seems a better compromise, Ian Kershaw is a clearly recognizable expert on Hitler and Nazism in general. PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• I support mention of Hitler's reputation in the intro as a summary of the legacy section per MOS:INTRO. As Diannaa argued above, his reputation among historians and the public is a verifiable fact, not a WP:NPOV violation; including it is little different than noting that Cats was lambasted by critics. I'll leave it to others to decide whether "evil" or "grossly immoral" is better phrasing, but we should have something in that vein. Sdkb (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Corollary to Godwin’s law: As an online discussion about Hitler grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Cats….. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Gravely immoral" is the way we word it in the Legacy section. — Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I cannot imagine anybody would take issue with "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil." Only a neo-Nazi would dispute that. As to " According to historian Ian Kershaw, "Never in history has such ruination—physical and moral—been associated with the name of one man,", that seems an admirably succinct summary. Guy (help!) 23:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Who is disputing Hitler was evil? No one from what I can see. Only discussions on how to phrase it in the lead and if that word is the right one. Or is this more of a how to win friends and influence people kind of thing? Like all those that disagree with me must be a neo-nazi? PackMecEng (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, I think we are probably in violent agreement: we should not remove the text (because of course we shouldn't), but reasonable people may disagree on exactly how to word it, as you say. This RfC seeks to remove it altogether. That does not seem to em to be a good idea, unless they are merely asking about the inline attribution to Kershaw, in which case I have no strong opinion. Guy (help!) 13:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• You want one sentence that few can argue with (even Hitler supporters rationally), with no equivocation, stating how he is viewed by most experts, using a quote by a foremost historian (Ian Kershaw) on the subject, that contains fewer words than this post by me. This nails it. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Move the sentence to the fourth paragraph

While I take issue with the specific wording of this contentious sentence, a graver issue (at least at present) is the WP:UNDUE weight that its current location affords it. If you look at FA-rated 20th century political biography articles such as Vladimir Lenin, Jomo Kenyatta, and Nelson Mandela, or indeed GA-rated articles such as Joseph Stalin, you will see that all of the information on how they have been perceived both during their lifetimes and posthumously is relegated to the fourth paragraph of the lede. Thus, in the spirit of standardisation and to avoid the UNDUE weight currently given to this sentence, might I suggest that we move it out of the first paragraph of the lede and into the fourth? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the difference is that pretty much he has never (unlike say uncle Joe) ever been seen as anything other the the epitome of evil, indeed I would go as far as to say (for all practical purposes) universally seen as the most evil man who has ever lived. I do not think it is possible to do a revaluation of Hitler that will ever see him in a postive light (as in balance getting the trains to run on time will not be seen as worth the holocaust).Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I propose we just DELETE IT

The problem appears to be with all these proposals to amend the problematical sentence is that we are collectively not approaching this objectively, factually nor with neutrality. Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt (Truman) also deliberately targeted and killed (murdered) millions of civilian, non-combatants based upon their race/ethnicity. What people seem to forget is that during World War 2 there was a war going on!!!!!!! Hitler was a leader of a country involved in that world war, which he stated he never wanted and sought to avoid. In that war ALL the leaders initiated actions that resulted in the deaths of millions of people, over 60% of whom were civilian non-combatants. NEUTRALITY (WP:NPOV) is a core content policy of wikipedia. To suggest that Hitler was more "evil" than anyone else in history, I suggest is a preposterously subjective viewpoint. And I also suggest that editors who have an attachment to using that word are not being neutral. As others have intimated, the word "evil" is an emotive, western-favoured, imprecise, Christian-religion-associated UNENCYCLOPEDIC value that should not have any place in an encyclopedia that aspires to unemotional, NEUTRAL, fact-based, uncontentious information. Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

We do not say he was evil we say he is almost universally regarded as evil.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No we don't. We say his actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil. This discussion is full of what people think of Hitler. That's all irrelevant to that claim. Is there a reliable source that actually says his actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil? HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There are tons. So many that it sort of is a WP:SKYISBLUE scenario. Have you looked? Some of them are already cited in the article. From The Atlantic: "Whether compared to Satan, Lucifer, Beelzebub, or the anti-Christ, Hitler was widely viewed as what the Times of London called the 'incarnation of absolute evil'.[...] Thus Hitler became a hegemonic historical analogy. He did not so much join the ranks of earlier historical symbols of evil as render them unusable." From New York Times: "Hitler's very face has become a universally recognizable icon of evil, along with the swastika, the symbol of the Nazi Party." From David Welch in Hitler: ""The word most commonly associated with Hitler is 'evil' and commentators have been quick to emphasize his role and personal responsibility for the undeniable crimes commited by the Nazi regime.", John Lukacs in Britannica: "However, because of the brutalities and the very crimes associated with his name, it is not likely that Hitler’s reputation as the incarnation of evil will ever change.", and literally countless more. Do you have any sources that say he, his ideology, or his actions are NOT widely regarded as evil? AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not how sourcing on Wikipedia works, and I'm sure you know it. And again, the claim is that "his actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil". So anyone arguing here about how nasty HE was is barking up the wrong tree. Despite the understandable intense emotions surrounding Hitler, we must not throw our policies and rigour out the window here. So those sources you presented above DO NOT support our claim. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It is trivially easy to provide or find links to the material I referenced, and I feel no reason to add in-line citations to a talk page. If there is a particular quote which you think I fabricated I would be more than willing to provide a link upon request, but I am assuming some level of competency as to your ability to check those statements yourself, since they were incredibly easy for me to find with even a cursory google search or glance at the sourcing already in the article. Anyhow, is your argument that it should instead read "Hitler is almost universally regarded as evil.", as that more precisely fits the sources? I wouldn't particularly object, but I would argue that the difference between the man himself and his ideologies and actions is little more than semantics. What is anyone other than the sum of their ideology and their actions? Are you saying that he is considered evil for reasons OTHER than his ideology and actions? And do you have any sources to support that view? Are you honestly arguing that there is significant support for the view that his actions and ideologies are NOT considered evil? Because I would love to see your sources for that. As it is, I don't see you presenting any sources at all. As I said before, this is a case where the WP:SKYISBLUE. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You are becoming very rude, and that never helps. Stop speculating that I mean something different from what I have written. My thoughts are clearly presented above. I won't repeat them now, but I will defend them. (Unless a calm, rational argument appears to convince me otherwise.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not see answers to any of my questions presented anywhere above, only something about you feeling that evil is a vague term. I offered sources that support its use, to which you objected on grounds that they did not use certain words. I have not speculated about anything, I have asked you questions to clarify what appears to be an incredibly vague argument with no sourcing to support it. I asked if you would rather the sentence in question be changed as it more closely fits the exact wording of the sources that I presented. I asked if you have sources that support a viewpoint contrary to the one I have shown support for, because I have not seen you cite a single source. You have answered none of these questions and cited no sources. I'm sorry that you find questions to be inherently hostile, but I am honestly asking questions to which I desire answers. I cannot read your mind. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

At no point did I say that I feel evil is a vague term. You are making stuff up. You are misrepresenting me. That generally happens with someone who disagrees with me but can't refute the argument I am actually presenting. Go away. HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

You said: "'Evil' is simply the wrong word to be using here. It means too many things to too many different people.[...] We need to find a more precise way to say he was a really nasty bloke". Vague means: "of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.", and is an antonym (opposite) of the word "precise". I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I do not feel like I have misrepresented you, and I certainly have not made anything up (also quite an aggressive accusation from one who preaches WP:AGF). And you still have not answered any of my questions, nor provided any sources to support your argument (an argument the specifics of which I am still unclear on, due to your refusal to answer any questions). AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think most people in the west (and his own country) would regard him as evil incarnate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You have just ignored my argument, Steven. And you have instead argued for a subjective evaluation based upon an unverified (unverifiable), emotive speculation. "Evil incarnate"??? I suggest to you that anyone who believes such a ridiculously unencyclopedic statement is NOT equipped to edit wiki pages according to Wikipedias core values. Do you agree that what you or I or anyone else “thinks” isn't what we should be basing this on? Would you argue that verifiable, factual information is? Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No not me [[1]]. And no, I did not ignore your argument. I just do not agree with it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I take that back. I instead suggest that you didn't ignore it, just have not yet understood it. ;-) Otherwise... how do you propose we verify your statement “most people in the west (and his own country)... regard him as evil incarnate”? (And your Variety article only refers to what Americans think. Wiki is bigger than just a resource from and for American readers.) Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

[[2]], [[3]]. This enough or do you want more? How many would suffice?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support For the reasons previously given.
• Nope. Happy to discuss refining the wording, but you can't get away from the fact that Hitler is the poster child for evil. Guy (help!) 13:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Useless reply in my opinion. Read the reply by @Rhododendrites about why you are doing more harm than good.

• Support getting rid of the word "evil" (though I almost started a new section just to say this because of the "there was a war going on" business in the framing of this particular subsection). Yes, it's quite common to call Hitler evil, as well as, I don't know, a "huge piece of shit"? Near universal agreement on that, too. Yet it's not an encyclopedic description. Like "evil," which is a supernatural gloss. "Evil" moves the reality of his actions into the supernatural realm, where they are easier to dismiss as "just evil" rather than a social/political reality that demands in depth, contextual understanding. There are an awful lot of ways we can frame just how awful this person is without "evil". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support I am a Jewish person who lost family in the Holocaust. Though I feel he was evil, that's subjective opinion that we should not state as fact. Hitler was surely the hero in his own eyes, and the eyes of many who I strongly disagree with. Let his actions speak for themselves. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Our statement is factual. It does not say that he is evil, but rather that he is almost universally regarded as such. It is a factual statement about the prevalence of this opinion. On a separate note, I find the other arguments put forth by Mystichumwipe to be flawed, baseless, and unconvincing. I find the comparison of what Hitler and the Nazi's did during the holocaust to the wartime actions of the Allied leaders to be a case of whataboutism taken an extreme that approaches offensiveness, and I would suggest that anyone who believes Hitler's assertion that "he never wanted and sought to avoid" war spend some time researching what actual reliable sources (Evans in particular) have to say on this matter. There is nothing contentious about the statement "Hitler's actions and ideology are almost universally regarded as evil" except to an extremely fringe section of society, and one for which Wikipedia is explicitly and emphatically not a mouthpiece. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose think its best we regurgita what multiple award wining historians say over omission based on unnamed wiki editors that dont like it based on self criteria.--Moxy 🍁 00:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support ARGUMENT 1. It is VERY important to keep these subjective judgments and terms out of Wikipedia. ARGUMENT 2. Evil is a very childish word. Encyclopedias are not supposed to be childish. ARGUMENT 3. If Hitler is described as evil, why aren't Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, Kim Jong-un, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Mao Zedong described as such?! They are all responsible of several deaths. We should follow the example of all the biographies that I stated above with this article. The term "Evil" needs to be DELETED. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not saying he is evil (are people actually bothering to read it?) we are saying he is widely seen as evil.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know that's what we were talking about. "Widely seen as evil" is just as subjective as calling him straight up evil. Test123Bug (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the arguments I have stated above are still applicable even if that is the case. Let me just refraze them: ARGUMENT 1. Evil is a subjective term ARGUMENT 2. Evil is a "childish" term ARGUMENT 3. Why aren't other Wiki articles described in the same way? Even in that case, my arguments still apply. Thank you! Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Hitler "enjoys" a unique place. He is (literally) the poster boy of evil. But this is going round in circles so I bow out.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Rebuttal to argument 1: It doesn't matter if it is subjective or objective; it is not "VERY important we keep subjective judgement and terms out of Wikipedia", just that we keep them from being stated in Wikipedia's voice. Properly attributed statements of others subjective judgements are fine. Our statement is objectively true. Saying that he is evil is subjective. Saying that he is widely viewed as evil is not. For instance, saying "Most people in America believe God exists" is different than saying "God exists". Rebuttal to argument 2: Your opinion on whether or not evil is a "childish" term is just your opinion, and has no bearing on the discussion. There is no policy against using terms some people feel are childish, especially when they are the exact terms used in reliable sources. Rebuttal to argument 3: WP:OTHERCONTENT: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page" AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for A1, I understand what you mean. However, even though it might not be WP's opinion, the disccussion is whether it should be left or not. For A2, WP needs to use proper formal encyclopedic language. The readers should come to the conclusion whether Hitler is evil or not by themselves (and that sentence certainally does not help with that). For A3, it is based on the principle of treating each article in the same way and not showing tolerance towards specific articles. I am here to give my contribution to the discusion, not to prove you wrong or to debate with you. For one thing, I am happy that we are having a discussion on this matter because debating is better than non-debating. This is my vote. Have a good day!Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support The sentence seems so out of place. Has no business being there in my opinion. Who is to say what is evil? That has no business being in an encyclopedia which is supposed to be objective. And, even if the majority of people consider it evil, so what? Does that somehow teach you about his life? No it doesn't, because anyone who has read even a tiny bit about Hitler would come to that conclusion themselves. It's spoonfeeding and I don't like it. Delete it. Test123Bug (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked Test123Bug for racist POV pushing elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

We are not saying he is evil (are people actually bothering to read it?) we are saying he is widely seen as evil. This is a very significant part of how he is seen.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• The current consensus seems to be that we should remove the sentence from the lead, so I have gone ahead and done that today. — Diannaa (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure its that clear it seems to be 5 to 4.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

With the addition of Davey2116 it brings it to 5-5. Also, it is not supposed to be a vote, but based also on the strength of the arguments. Most of the "Support" votes are exclusively based on "I don't like it" arguments, and the misconception that we are saying in Wikipedia's voice that he is evil. I strongly suggest you reconsider this assessment of consensus. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been reading differently. Seems like most of the support votes are based on the premise that "widely seen as evil" is incredibly vague and hard to source properly. What the sentence is doing is summing up every human's opinion on Hitler. It comes down to the sources not supporting this statement and also a subjective interpretation of "widely seen". Where is the source? Are there anonymous studies? Stratified grouping? Cross cultural analysis? I don't see it anywhere and believe me I looked all throughout the legacy section today. Test123Bug (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I provided two in this RFC that say it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Post-removal oppose per above. The statement is not subjective; it's simply acknowledging a subjective view held nearly universally. I prefer reinstating the sentence together with the Kershaw quote. Additionally, I do not believe there was a consensus for removal. Davey2116 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral but … … I avoided voting, because I am largely neutral about 'evil' on its own, but like Davey2116, I would like to see the Kershaw reinstated, but probably at the end of the lead, as a summary. The argument against Kershaw appears to be that it is one opinion, ignoring that it beautifully and succinctly expresses a very widely held view. I concur with Davey2116 also that many of the 'remove' arguments are truly terrible. Why don't we say the same about Stalin/Pol Pot/Mao etc? Because historians/commentators don't "almost universally" regard these figures as evil - perhaps they should, given the death count of some of them, but actually they don't, simple as that! Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Just a note that this line was originally added by a sockpuppet. I noticed this when I was cleaning up after the sock was blocked several months ago, and I intended to remove it for that reason but I evidently forgot to do so. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the removal! Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the line was originally added by a sockpuppet is certainly cause for closer scrutiny but it is not by itself an argument against inclusion. That's what's called an ad hominem attack. Davey2116 (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't present my statement above as an argument for removing the line now. See that it is bolded as a comment (not support) and it is prefaced with "just a note". I originally planned to remove it as in general allowing edits/articles by sockpuppets to remain is rewarding the violation of policy on sockpuppetry. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• SupportIt ought to be removed entirely, it is editorialization. Evil is a Judeo-christian centric concept and so it could not possibly be a universal sentiment. Assigning ethical blame ought not be the role of an online encyclopedia. Gnostc (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not editorializing, it is accurately summing up what reliable sources say. Also your views regarding holocaust denial and reliable sources make it difficult to assume good faith about your ability to objectively assess RS on this matter. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if "reliable sources" say it, it is still editorializing. Having an opinion on the evil of something is by its nature editorialization, since evil is also something one needs to have knowledge of, not only the subject. My edit history from 6 years ago shows I am interested in the subject at hand and nothing more. Your opinion on my opinions is also editorialization in itself, and you would do well to not comment on other people's votes trying to "put them in context", as if you know better. Stay in your lane. 18:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Pictorial representation of a well known "Judeo-christian centric concept". Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Completely different conception of evil. Judeo-Christian evil can't be "banished", it permanently exists in the world. Bad translators just resorted to using the same word, for a totally foreign context. Don't talk about what you don't remotely understand. 18:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand enough to know that almost all cultures and all religions and many atheists have some concept of evil, and that nothing in the text implies that the Judeo-Christian understanding of the word is the one we are using. Enlighten us please as to how AH is viewed by RS in parts of the world which do not follow "Judeo-Christian" ethics.Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

So...if different conceptions of evil exist, it is difficult for "universally acknowledged as evil" to make sense. You can't account for every culture's conception of evil. There's lots of Indians who idolize Hitler for some reason. And one could surmise that the Arab Islamic world, not being too fond of Israel, and by extension the Jews, do not regard Hitler's actions as evil, since they don't view the Jews as blameless. So it's clear editorialization by people with very limited perspectives and bones to pick. Can show the detrimental effects of Hitler's actions very easily with proper sources without having to editorialize on top of it. Gnostc (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

We just rely on what reliable sources say, not on the opinions and original research of editors. Opinion pieces like the one you linked are not reliable sources, and even if they were that article doesn't support your contention. From the article: "It’s curiosity about a really sick and evil mind. We read it the way you read [Karl Marx’s] Das Kapital", which not only goes against the idea that he is "idolized", but also provides evidence against your assertion that evil is a "Judeo-christian centric concept" as it quotes a non-Judeo-christian using it exactly the same way our article says is common. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The point was that calling something evil IS an opinion no matter who says it. It can only be fact if it can be verified, and no one knows the nature of evil besides God and the Devil, in so many words. And "original research by editors" is exactly how "reliable sources" are found for wikipedia articles. Very convenient to call any source you don't like "original research by editors". Here's some more for the "many Indians like Hitler" assertion. One,two, three,four. None of those are opinion pieces. All from the first page of googe incidentally. It's like you people don't even try to make a well balanced article. Can change it or not, I don't care, but my disagreement is staying on this page for all to see. 22:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support Readers can form their own opinion on whether or not someone is evil after learning that they've murdered millions. If someone would still think that he's not evil after knowing that fact, I doubt that sentence would change their minds. Meeepmep (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content not users, even if they are the PPC for North Minehead.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on number of Jewish deaths in The Holocaust

We currently state in the article that at least 5.5 million Jews were killed in The Holocaust. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler as to how we arrived at the current figure of 5.5 million. Should we leave it as 5.5 million, increase it to 6 million, or use some other figure? — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• I support increasing the number to 6 million, per the sources I provided at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. The 5.5 million figure was arrived at as a compromise, and I am pretty sure given the data I uncovered back in 2013, that that number is too low. — Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• 5-6 million, as it seems its a range rather than a single authoritative number.Slatersteven (talk)
• @ Diannaa: Why a section on Jewish deaths and not others? The genocidists were much more successful in exterminating other socially devalued people. Keith-264 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead actually says "responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims" and the body says "eleven million non-combatants, including 5.5 to 6 million Jews (representing two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe), and between 200,000 and 1,500,000 Romani people" so the other victims are indeed mentioned. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 15:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• support existing text.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• I support increasing the number to 6 million - I'm basing this on from this link at the Holocaust Museum. For full disclosure, on this link also from the museum, it has the number as between 5.1-6M. I contacted the museum to ask about the discrepancy, but they have not contacted me (although I suffered a computer crash and don't have my email back yet). The first link gives what appears to be reasonable documentation references. Yrwefilledwithbugs (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Dianna!! You refuse to answer simple questions. And now you want editors to have a vote on whether 5.1 (R. Hillberg, 5.2 (R. J. Rummel), 5.29 (W. Benz), 4.2 to 4.5 (Reitlnger) are LESS than 5.5 ?????

It's a question of simple arithmetic. All these authoritative sources gave figures that are LESS. You can't vote that away. The current sentence has always been mathematically WRONG! And now some editors — for unwikipedic personal preferences — want to increase the mathematical incorrectness?! Bizarre!! I think you are bringing wikipedia into disrepute. — Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I support leaving it as it is. Idealigic (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Increasing to 6 million. Numerous sources, including most of the recent high quality sources available (Evans, etc.), support this number. 5.5 seems to have been the accepted minimum prior to the opening of the Soviet bloc archives in the 90's, at which point it became clear that 5.5 was too low of an estimate. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support existing text. As I state above, my opinion from the lengthy "Dispute resolution" discussion has not changed. 5.5 million was a minimum number pursuant to RS sources, therefore, a lower number than that should not be considered. We do not need to get into a confusing array of opinions. The information is to be balanced and weighted, with a consensus presented for general readers. I agree with Diannaa that most RS sources use the estimate of around 6 million, so a range of at least 5.5 to 6 million could be used. But, stating at least 5.5 million, implies that is a floor number only. I can live with that. It is then further explained in greater detail in the body text for the reader. Like Diannaa, I have stated my opinions in the past and there is no reason to go into a lengthy re-discussion herein. Kierzek (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support existing text. There are sufficient sources that support the content as currently reflected in the text so there is no need to change it.--Obenritter (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support existing text, or as an alternative use range such as used in body (5.5 to 6 million Jews), if necessary adding a qualifier/characteriser (usually estimated as between ...?). There does not seem to be any serious dispute about figures - which are necessarily 'best estimates' and subject to various inclusion criteria as well as the enormous difficulties of poor record-keeping/record destruction across multiple counries, apart from not knowing how/when/why/where enormous numbers of people died. The only 'problem' - if problem it is - appears to be the use of 'at least', which may imply that no-one has arrived at lower estimates. Perhaps we could find a better form of words that more accurately reflects that most (and best?), but not all estimates are at the upper end of the 5.5-6 million figure. I have a better idea of how the circumference of the earth, or the distance to the sun was calculated than I do about how this death toll was arrived at, but even superficial thought highlights how problematic any such calculation inevitably is, and any figure ultimately a 'best guess', regardless of how sincerely calculated. I am insufficiently familiar with the various estimates, nor how and when they were calculated, to suggest an improved wording. Pincrete (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Some 6 million or Approximately 6 million. 6 million is the most widely used figure. Giving a lower bound, "at least 5.5 million", should not be preferred to the most common estimate.--Eostrix (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Some 6 million or Approximately 6 million per Diannaa and Eostrix. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Idea for some details that would be nice.

In the Defeat & Death section, I think it would be important to note that Hitler moved a large amount of troops from the Western front to the Eastern front after the huge loss at Stalingrad. That's partly what made D-Day so successful. So my proposal is:

By late 1944, both the Red Army and the Western Allies were advancing into Germany. Recognising the strength and determination of the Red Army, Hitler decided to use his remaining mobile reserves against the American and British troops, which he perceived as far weaker.[296] On 16 December, he launched the Ardennes Offensive to incite disunity among the Western Allies and perhaps convince them to join his fight against the Soviets.[297]

changed to:

By late 1944, both the Red Army and the Western Allies were advancing into Germany. Recognising the strength and determination of the Red Army, Hitler decided to use his remaining mobile reserves against the American and British troops, which he perceived as far weaker.[296] After failure to recuperate from the casualties at Stalingrad, Hitler ordered a last desperate attempt to once again pierce the Western front: On 16 December, he launched the Ardennes Offensive to incite disunity among the Western Allies and perhaps convince them to join his fight against the Soviets.[297]

Test123Bug (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Where is the link to D-Day, ?Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should necessarily add that part. But moving a ton of troops from the western front to the eastern front will obviously make invading the western front easier. Test123Bug (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are there no citations in the lead?

There is literally nothing that is cited in the lead. This isn't how wikipedia is supposed to work. Fefkwkefe8 (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:lede, the lead should be a summery of the article, so any material should already be cited in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

See in particular WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material" and "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". It is actually quite common for Wikipedia articles not to have citations in the lead, although unfortunately this often results in people not familiar with how Wikipedia works to wrongly assume that a given statement in the lead is unsupported simply because the citation is not given in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2020

going to replace dead links Cesternino (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have freshened up the urls and fixed one dead link. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Quick suggestion

In one of the very first sentences of the entire article:

"He rose to power as the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then as Führer in 1934."

I highly recommend hyperlinking the phrase "rose to power" to this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

2601:645:C000:AE10:CCE:56E1:C67F:1038 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable. Thanks, O3000 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Another quick suggestion

Sorry for spamming a bit but I had another suggestion:

In "Path to defeat" it states:

"On 22 June 1941, contravening the Hitler–Stalin Non-Aggression Pact of 1939"

It really should be called the German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact, as it has strictly been referred to as this throughout the whole article. Also it kind of undermines the fact that the entirety of the two nations were part of this pact. 2601:645:C000:AE10:9C7C:23FD:B029:3F26 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)