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) , SHOULD BE included in this article. BUT, NOT IN THE LEAD. I REPEAT, NOT IN THE LEAD. Thank you, and please make this change. Let's make Wikipedia a better place for everyone! ❤️ #faxopinionsarguments 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. So please change that. 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: DEMOCRATIC 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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

I'm referring to the sentence in the introduction: "the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims"

Please correct "at least 5.5 millions Jews" to "nearly 6 millions Jews"

Reliable resources: Yad Vashem: https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about.html#learnmore Wikipedia's page "The Holocaust" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust 62.0.34.134 (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:62.0.34.134, methods of counting, and thus derived estimates vary and the exact numbers will never be known - either of all those killed or of Jews killed. What we can be certain of is that killing in general and intentional killing of targeted groups, most notably of Jews, took place on an unprecedented, and almost unimaginable scale. 'At least 5.5 million' or 'nearly 6 million' is ultimately a matter of taste - we need to be brief in the intro and both figures are reliably sourceable - so do we put an 'at least' figure or an 'up to' figure. I personally feel that it is always better to be cautious and conservative in such matters, since the figures themselves are so unimaginably awful, that they don't need even a suggestion of 'beefing up' from us.

I recognise however that the 'nearly' figure is widely known and used, so I will 'fall in' with what others think about this.Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of the figure of "at least 5.5 million" was arrived at in the discussion Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler which took place in 2013. Evans in particular notes that 5.5 million has to be considered as a bare minimum, and states that the actual figure is likely closer to 6 million, which is what Eichmann said (Evans, The Third Reich at War [2008] p 318). But I for one have no interest in changing the figure if to do so requires us to re-litigate this old dispute.— Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. As Diannaa's response indicates, this figure was reached after extensive discussions. Changing it would require similarly-extensive discussions to see if the consensus has changed. As such, it is outside the bounds of an Edit Request. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

I would like to make an edit to this article that is needed in the article

yours's truly Dead Meme Lord Dead meme lord (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dead meme lord: This is where you ask someone who can make the edit to do so. It is not a way for users to circumvent the page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Link to Ideology page

I noticed that this page has no section for the political ideology of the subject, As I discovered there is a separate article for this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler) I find it strange that this is not listed in the "see also" section- so I have added it for the sake of order. Perhaps since the two are so closely linked the articles should be merged, I leave this at the discretion of more senior editors. --1.159.83.54 (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The 'Political views' article is already linked in the 'Entry into politics' section, so should NOT be a 'see also' (we don't duplicate in that way). But perhaps you realised that after leaving you post above, as you haven't added it to the 'see also'. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Central to the Holocaust", round 352

Apologies to all who are sick of this merry go round, but I'm going to try to crack this nut one more time because I stubbornly persist in feeling that this just can't be the best way to get the point across.

On de:Adolf Hitler we write:

Hitler autorisierte die wichtigsten Schritte des Judenmordes und ließ sich über den Verlauf informieren.

My German isn't great, but with the aid of a dictionary I have this rough translation:

Hitler authorized the most significant steps in the [mass] murder of Jews and was informed of the progress.

This seems fair. The citations are to Kershaw and a German dentist de:Hans-Joachim Neumann (?), but I can't verify either as I don't have copies of these books. Assuming they check out, iterating further, I have this try:

Hitler authorized the most significant steps of the Holocaust and was regularly briefed on the progess of the ongoing genocide.

I'm not especially attached to this exact phrasing, but something like this might succeed in laying responsibility where it belongs without the use of abstraction and metaphor. --causa sui (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a good sentence.... seems like we're missing a qualifier .like somebody else's name and diminishes his role. Someone will likely revert.--Moxy 🍁 00:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait there’s not enough discussion on this for the change and the sentence is terribly awkward. This has been discussed in depth and even went through mediation. I do not agree to the change. I am out of town this weekend, but there’s not enough time or discussion on this. Kierzek (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. I am editing in good faith. --causa sui (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Really, I’ve been on here 11 years, don’t tell me to go see BRD. The fact is you pushed this through in quick fashion and given the article subject matter and also the fact you wanted to change wording that was the product of lengthy discussion and prior consensus the way you have is not how it should have been done. I’m out of town, so I cannot comment further on this matter right now given real life commitments to attend to at present. But I certainly support Dianaa’s reasoning for the revert; as stated below. I also see now, below, you’re willing to further discuss the matter, so that is good. Kierzek (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I've undone the addition, as it contains content not present elsewhere in the article and is not sourced. We have no source for "authorized significant steps" or "was regularly briefed". Due to the way they did business, such sources may not even exist. We can't use content from the German Wikipedia, even if it looks like it's properly sourced, unless we can view those sources and see what they say. Both their citations are in German. (The Kershaw citation is not one of his books, but "Adolf Hitler und die Realisierung der nationalsozialistischen Rassenutopie." In: Wolfgang Hardtwig (Hrsg.): Utopie und politische Herrschaft im Europa der Zwischenkriegszeit) — Diannaa (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A few worthwhile points are being raised here.

1. We can't use content from the German Wikipedia: We absolutely can translate it into English as it has a copyleft license. There's nothing wrong with farming ideas from our sister projects in other languages either. Unless! You mean we can't use the German Wikipedia as a citation, which is certainly true. We would have to rely on other sources; probably those the German Wikipedia attribute this to. (Although, as I alluded, I have my own doubts about the authority of one of the two).

2. The sources are in German: Well, reliable sources are reliable in any language. The verifiability policy has more on this. There is no basis in policy for excluding reliable sources for being in the wrong language.

3. We need to read the sources ourselves: This is certainly a best practice. As I mentioned, my German isn't great, but it's serviceable with the aid of a dictionary. If the Kershaw source can be found in German I can help with this. I would appreciate assistance there.

4. We don't talk about this elsewhere in the article: I agree that's a problem. If the other issues are resolved then perhaps we can also work out a way to expand on it elsewhere.

5. The wording is awkward: Definitely. I doubt that I did it the best way the first time. As before, if the other issues are resolved then hopefully we can work out something better together.

6. There was a prior RFC: I think that justifies the text being what it is for as long as it has been. No one who supported it at the RFC, or after, has done anything wrong.

Thanks for working with me on this. This is a hard problem but I believe we can improve on it together. --causa sui (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

causa sui, what I don't understand is what the proposed change is intended to achieve. If - as I suspect - the objection to present text is that it is unspecific, that to a certain extent is deliberate, not because vagueness is ordinarily a virtue, but because in THIS instance and this early in the AH article, the nuances of precisely HOW MUCH detail AH knew, how involved he was in process are too complex for an opening para. No significant historian absolves him of a central responsibility, but none is in a position to say precisely how directly involved he was in the mechanics. Pincrete (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What I meant is that we can't use German Wikipedia as a source, because it's a wiki, and not considered a reliable source. I am not comfortable with using their statements as to "authorized significant steps" or "was regularly briefed" since I am unable to obtain the sources that they used and don't want to add the material unless they've been checked by one of us. If one of us can obtain these sources and confirm they actually back up these statements, then we could add. But I have seen no such material in the English-language sources that I have viewed on this topic so far in my many years of interest in this topic, and like I already said, I doubt we will ever find sources that gives detailed information about Hitler's level of direct involvement. Historians have looked, and have not found such so far. — Diannaa (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)