Talk:List of vegetarians

ARCHIVING REFERENCES

It is important to keep references up to date, but as is often the case with web references the links die. When adding a web reference please also archive it at http://www.webcitation.org/archive, so that even if the link dies the page will be archived for reference. If you discover that a link has died, please check to see if there is a record of the page archived at http://www.webcitation.org/query or http://archive.org/web/web.php.

Hitler as a disputed vegetarian

Betty I don't claim Hitler was not a vegetarian but that it is under dispute. And because 90% of his life he probably was not and only in the last 3 years he probably tried to be - it us clearly in dispute weather you can call him a vegetarian. It's fine by me to add any evidence to the reference, as long as you stand a NPOV. Therefore I request you wont try undo the last edits and force your way on a well disputed issue. I thank you and also tip the hat for your snooker contributions. Mateo (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not under dispute. As documented at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism there are historical accounts of him eating meat up to 1937, and as such these reports have been used in the past to challenge the notion he was vegetarian, but these challenges have been well and truly debunked now. In 2013 his food taster at the Wolf's Lair came forward and confirmed that all the food she tested was vegetarian. In addition, in 2017 an analysis of the tartar on his teeth revealed no traces of meat fiber. We now have have witness testimony corroborating the fact he was vegetarian from at least 1942, and that is backed up by scientific evidence. This is a list of vegetarians and Hitler belongs on it, not as a disputed member but as an authentic vegetarian. It does not matter if he was only vegetarian for the final four years of his life: there is no minimum time limit for list additions. Some people get added to this list after just becoming vegetarian, and therefore there are currently people on the list who have been vegetarian less than four years. In some cases it is impossible to know how long they have been vegetarian. Nobody is born vegetarian, they become vegetarian through parental indoctrination or choice. It is not acceptable to use outdated reports to push a vegetarian agenda on this list. Hitler qualifies under the same rules we apply to other list members so he should not be moved to the disputed section. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. This is not just a list vegetarians, but a list of vegetarians and disputed cases. And Hitler is the most famous disputed case. As my accurate edit has shown before it was unrightfully reverted, the food taster also added that Hitler did eat animal parts (not only products) after 1942, specifically broth. So if anything, this testimony shows that Hitler was not a vegetarian, but it clearly shows it's in dispute. A test of meat fiber does not show all the remains that can be traced from a non-vegetarian diet, so it is very a weak evidence and not enough to solve a very long and bitter dispute. But the most important argument for Hitler being disputed is that the amount of time a person has devoted to a vegetarian diet and his or hers strictness is of prime concern when trying to argue that someone is a vegetarian. That is exactly why Albert Einstein is on that list as well. He was probably a vegetarian in the last year of his life but could not avoid animal parts due to health reasons. You may argue that he should be on the vegetarians list, but it is under dispute as well. I Also resent you accusations regarding my motivation of this edit. During the years you made countless revisions that show exactly who has an agenda on this matter. But unlike many advocates of vegetarianism I do not wish to argue that Hitler was not a vegetarians but do urge you to accepts the fact that his definition as such is under dispute. Mateo (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hitler WAS disputed as of 2013. In 2013 Margot Woelk (Hitler's food-taster from 1942) confirmed that all the food she tested was vegetarian, and a forensic analysis of his teeth in 2017 by French scientists found no traces of meat fiber in the tartar on his teeth. We now have scientific evidence that Hitler did not eat meat in the final few months of his life, and witness testimony from a woman forced to be his food-taster and who was at immense risk of being poisoned that he was vegetarian from 1942. Up until 2013 I was more than happy for Hitler to be in the "disputed" section, but since then the facts that have come to light mean it is indisputable that Hitler was vegetarian at the end of his life, and my support for moving him out of the "disputed" section (which was actually undertaken by Dead Mary is the proper response to new evidence. Using outdated sources as you are doing to push a position that has since been proven to be factually wrong is POV pushing, agenda driven, and dishonest! Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan you did not address any of the facts i put froth regarding those two new developments. Woelk testimony is actually prove of the dispute, as Hitler probably did ate broth even after 1942. The 2017 exam do not show trace of all animal parts - the abstention of is the core part of vegetarianism - and even if it was it's only evidence for a couple of months before death. So no way near proof that can resolve this dispute. Now before we continue i request you act civil and stop accusing and smearing. This makes it harder to resolve this issue and reach an agreement.Mateo (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven't put forward any facts. Any objective person who is not immune to reason and evidence can see that Woelk's testimony backed up by the forensic evidence from last year conclude the dispute in favor of Hitler being vegetarian. Nobody has challenged this new evidence, except you, using books written prior to 2013, and one of them from 1973! Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes i have. Hitler ate meat until 1938 and probably ate Broth well after 1942, although disliking it. In addition he was also forced to eat animal parts for health reasons up until his end. These testimonial evidence came from Hitler's secretary and his dietitian. Do any have evidence that not only contradict but actually disprove these fact? If not then Hitler's definition as a vegetarian is clearly still under dispute. Just like it's dishonest by activists to remove him from this article, acting for the claim that the dispute is a done deal is not so far from it. Because of the sensitivity of the matter I sincerely request you to put leave it in dispute, at least until it's clear that Hitler was or was not a vegetarian. Mateo (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Hitler ate meat up to 1937 has no bearing on the discussion. That is not under dispute. Most people on this list ate meat at some point in their life. Should we chuck off Paul and Linda McCartney because they weren't lifelong vegetarians? The fact remains that Hitler became vegetarian by the end of his life. And even if Hitler's chef did occasionally slip some animal broth into Hitler's meals against without Hitler's knowledge and against his express wishes (as outlined at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism) that does not mean he ceased being vegetarian! Vegetarian products are sometimes contaminated by meat lines in food production but that does not mean that the vegetarians who consume them suddenly stop being vegetarian. You are creating a double standard especially for Hitler. Your editing is not neutral! Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

"Should we chuck off Paul and Linda McCartney because they weren't lifelong vegetarians?". No, but if they occasionally eat parts of animals - due to ideological or health reasons - then of course they should not be in the same list as definite vegetarians. I return to Albert Einstein case, that expressed support not only to vegetarian but for a vegan diet but probably practiced it just a short amount of time and could not endure due to health reasons. Quite funny addressing Hitler and Einstein in the same category, but it seems this is the case.Mateo (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Hitler being a vegetarian

An editor keeps moving the Hitler entry from the main list to the "disputed vegetarians" section, typified by this edit. I took the dispute to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Disputing Hitler's vegetarianism, but there was only a single impartial response and the other party does not believe this constitutes a consensus. Therefore I have started this RFC to establish whether Hitler be added to disputed vegetarian section or remain in the vegetarian section? Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Background

Main article: Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism

The background to the "Was Hitler vegetarian?" debate is convoluted, but I will try to outline the issue as best as I can:

• pre-WW2: Hitler was known to eat meat. Dione Lucas, a chef at a restaurant Hitler patronised before the war, stated that stuffed squab was Hitler's favourite dish. Nobody has ever disputed that Hitler did indeed consume meat.
• 1937: Ilse Hess commented that Hitler had ceased eating all meat by 1937 except for liver dumplings. Nobody disputes that Hitler did indeed dramatically reduce his meat intake.
• 1942: In January 1942, Hitler declares himself to be vegetarian. Nobody disputes the authenticity of this declaration, but they do dispute what it actually meant i.e. could Hitler have adopted a semi-vegetarian diet (a diet that reduces its meat component but is still not fully vegetarian), or did he become a full vegetarian?
• Further facts: Traudl Junge (Hitler's personal secretary from 1942 onwards) commented that Hitler ""always avoided meat"" but his chef would occasionally slip animal broth into Hitler's soup without Hitler's knowledge. Hitler's doctor also administered a series of injections which contained animal derivatives. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Disputed

For a long while it has been disputed whether Hitler ever was a vegetarian or not. The authenticity of Hitler's vegetarianism was first questioned by Robert Payne (author) in his biography The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973). The vegetarian advocacy author Rynn Berry referenced multiple accounts of Hitler eating meat before the war in his book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover (2004). Mainstream historians have been more circumspect on the issue, maintaining that Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism. Given the hotly contested viewpoints, until 2013 Hitler was included in the "disputed" section of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent developments

There have been two major developments in the last five years:

• 2013: Margot Wölk, a woman who was forced to be Hitler's food taster at the Wolf's Lair from 1942, was tracked down. Wolk recalled Hitler's vegetarian diet, stating that "There was no meat and I do not remember any fish."
• 2017: French scientists undertook a forensic examination of Hitler's remains. They found no traces of meat in the tartar on Hitler's teeth.

Wolk's testimony more or less closed the debate with even vegetarian advocacy groups conceding that Hitler was vegetarian. Following Wolk's testimony we moved Hitler to the main vegetarian list where he has been for the last five years. Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Vegetarian I think Hitler should be included on the main list. Most of my points are covered above at #Hitler as a disputed vegetarian, but I will recap them here to limit the amount of reading editors have to undertake. I would recommend reading Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism first though:

1. Wolk's testimony and the results of the forensic investigation are very compelling and end this debate IMO. Even if Wolk forgot the odd wurst, the lack of any trace of meat in the tartar on his teeth completely confirms her testimony. This is testimony from somebody with an intimate knowledge of what Hitler ate corroborated by forensic evidence. If we are not going to accept this as evidence then what would we accept?
2. While you could argue that Hitler consumed animal broth occasionally due to his chef's deception, this in itself does not revoke somebody's vegetarian credentials. Vegetarianism is a dietary choice. Vegetarian products are sometimes contaminated by meat lines during production, but when such incidents occur this does not make the thousands of vegetarians who consume these products suddenly not vegetarian. When I became vegetarian many years ago I did not realize that some cheeses were not vegetarian, but I don't consider myself not vegetarian for that period.
3. Hitler was given injections, some of which contained animal components. It is not clear if Hitler was aware of what they contained but I don't consider it relevant. Hitler was a vegetarian, not a vegan, and even vegans sometimes make exceptions for medication.
4. Most challenges to the view of Hitler being a vegetarian draw on accounts of him eating meat prior to the war. This is significant because Hitler only became a full vegetarian some time between 1938 and 1941.
5. New facts change the nature of the dispute per WP:AGE MATTERS. The Hitler entry was moved back to the "disputed" section using a source from 1973. This is disingenuous IMO because it ignores the new evidence. To my knowledge there have been no serious challenges to either Wolk or the findings of the forensic examination.
6. That fact that Hitler wasn't vegetarian his whole life isn't relevant. Most vegetarians aren't born into the vegetarian lifestyle and make that choice down the line. Most people included on this list haven't been vegetarian their whole lives, and some have been vegetarian even less time that Hitler. There shouldn't be a higher inclusion threshold for Hitler.

Despite claims to the contrary I believe I have been very objective in regard to this issue. Hitler has always been a target on this page, and up until 2013 I repeatedly restored the entry to the "disputed" section, because that is where I honestly believed he should be given the evidence at the time. Since 2013, however, I have favored full inclusion because the evidence for Hitler's vegetarianism has built up to an undeniable level. Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Disputed Vegetarian. I do not argue Hitler was not Vegetarian, but that it's clear fact that there is a dispute on the matter, where many argue that he was not.

1. There is a book dedicated to show that Hitler was not a vegetarian, written by Rynn Berry who is considered an authority on what vegetarianism is. One of his strongest claims were that it is impossible to view Hitler as a vegetarian when he acted against organizations promoting vegetarian diet.
2. The most prominent biographer of Hitler that dealt with the dictator's relationship with vegetarianism agrees with that claim. Robert Payne argues the whole "Hitler is vegetarian" argument was a propaganda tool to promote a compassionate image to the ruthless furer. Another biographer of Hitler, Thomas Fuchs, agrees he can't be considered a vegetarian.
3. It is also important to note that we are discussing what should be defined as "a vegetarian above all dispute". Albert Einstein is on the disputed list although he probably did adhered a vegetarian diet and practice it for some time in his life. But it was for a short period time in his life, and was inconsistent due to health reasons. The same can be argued regarding the case in front of us.
4. It is undisputed that Hitler was not a vegetarian for most of his adult like, and up until the start of the second world war. According to multiple sources he ate meat until 1938, and probably ate Broth and meat fat well after 1942, although disliking it. In addition he was also forced to eat animal parts for health reasons up until his end. These testimonial evidence came from Hitler's secretary and his dietitian.
5. While it's undisputed that one can't be vegetarian and eat broth and meat fat the other party claims Hitler ate it against his will. They even go on saying his cook "slipped" the fat to his food without him knowing or against his dictation. Remembering we are discussing the most ruthless dictator who ever lived, this is an absurd argument. If he ate the meat fat he is not a vegetarian. But since we rely here on collaborators and anecdotal testimony it seems best to view it as part of a dispute.
6. The tester testimony should be viewed the same way. Relying on a memory of a women in her 90's regarding details of events that took place 70 years ago, in a world war situation, when this person is either held captive (and can't know what is being put in her food) or collaborating with the nazis, should not be the way to go about settling a much discussed dispute. For example, she says there was no meat but that she does not remember weather there was fish. here's an example of an elaborated opinion that looks unbiased, considers the tester's testimony and still concludes Hitler was probably not a vegetarian. Again this shows the dispute is on going.
7. The party arguing that there is not dispute regarding Hitler's eating habits should put forth evidences that not only contradict but actually disprove the reasonable possibility that Hitler's diet included either broth, meat fat or even fish. If not then Hitler's definition as a vegetarian is clearly still under dispute.
8. Finally, it's important to set the record straight regarding the history of this dispute. So up until 2013 there were many cases of people moving the dictator off the list altogether, arguing Hitler was not a vegetarian, and others restoring him to the disputed section. The first time i found someone moved the dictator from the disputed was [in june 2013]. The edit summery claimed that all the "major biographies" say he is. As pointed above, at least two prominent biographers of Hitler that dealt with this matter actually claims the opposite.
9. Secondly, it never reached consensus. In 2014 alone this edit was reverted at least 5 tims. [[1]] [2] [[3]] [[4]]. The last one added some sources and created a large debate on the matter, and these cases continued [[5]] over the years.
10. So unlike the other parties representation of events, the current situation of the article relies on an inaccurate fact, never got to a consensus and was kept that way while being disputed in the biographies of Hitler and consistently in Wikipedia. It is the other party that never established consensus on the matter, and kept reverting this article, thus creating a quasi-status-quo.
11. Thus i ask to keep Hitler's case in it's original status quo, as the sum of evidence clearly shows Hitler's vegetarian diet and practice is heavily disputed.
12. Finally I would like to add that I welcome this debate and state that I will accept any outcome, so long as the other party would do the same.

With much respect to the Wikipedia process,

12:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

Actually the recent piece updated link, which you claim " concludes Hitler was probably not a vegetarian" actually concludes "In the end, it doesn’t matter whether Hitler was a vegetarian. But, if you really want to know, he wasn’t a very good one". Not a very good vegetarian = was a vegetarian. The piece is of course written by a non-historian vegetarian complaining about AH being linked to vegetarianism! Hardly an authorative source. Atheists say AH wasn't an atheist, Austrians that he wasn't Austrian and there are probably dog-lovers who say AH gives them a bad name! Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me it is disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Hitler's vegetarianism is "disputed" in the same way that whether the Holocaust happened or whether vaccines cause autism is "disputed", and thus WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT should be followed here.

The argument "One of his strongest claims were that it is impossible to view Hitler as a vegetarian when he acted against organizations promoting vegetarian diet" is bogus. "Vegetarian" refers to what you eat, not to which organizations you support/oppose. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Some of Mateo's claims are absurd and are based mostly on his own opinions. Hitler disbanded vegetarian organizations for the same reasons he disbanded film societies i.e. he opposed organizations except Nazi ones. Incidentally, he intended on transitioning the whole of Germany after the war so there was very little need for vegetarian societies in Nazi Germany anyway. Also, the assertion that he "ate animal parts for health reasons" is not backed up by any sources and is untrue, as far as factual record goes. Hitler's medications were not digested but injected, and his medical record is available for all to see: [6]. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also dispute the claim "There is a book dedicated to show that Hitler was not a vegetarian, written by Rynn Berry who is considered an authority on what vegetarianism is." See [ https://slate.com/human-interest/2004/02/was-hitler-a-vegetarian.html ] to see what kind of "authority" Rynn Berry is. Also, the book is over ten years old, and there has been significant new evidence in the last few years. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

He also claims academic sources (not just one) for the claim, I can agree with some and not all of his points.

Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

We see how much hostility is there with one or two users that argue there is no dispute regarding Hitler's vegetarianism. I guess an authority on vegetarians is not a vegetarian who writes about vegetarianism all his life, and has written a whole book about this issue. He knows nothing about the issue, compered to some random guy. It's also interesting that what was a Wikipedia status quo in 2013 and should have stayed that way, is all of a sudden being compered to Holocaust denial or flat-earth claims.

From this point the level of debate can quickly deteriorate and it's impossible to have a discussion. It also does not help to say you dont want express an opinion, erase it and then disrespect the separation between the survey section and the discussion.

So i just turn to point out that Hitler's physician, Theodor Morell, administered many medications that contained animal parts such as cardiac muscle, adrenal gland, liver, placenta, and extracts containing seminal vesicles and prostate. If this is so, he can't be defined as a vegetarian. But for me this is still disputed. 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry whilst I agree there may be some dispute here I think the above is frankly wrong. You do not stop being a vegetarian just because you unwittingly take a animal based product (if that were the case I wonder how many on our list would fail, Gandhi I hear for one). A Vewgan and a Vegetarian (also) are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

We are not talking about animal based product (like milk and eggs), but products that use animal body-parts (the consumption of preventing a person being vegetarian). Also, according to his secretary and dietitian broth and bone marrow were part of his diet. I think it's ludicrous to argue someone disobeyed his order and made him something un-vegetarian when he clearly asks for a vegetarian diet. It's quite reasonable he ate the broth and bone morrow out of habit, not really caring for his "vegetarian diet".

• Compromise - reorganize table (combine disputed section to main list, add notes column). Having Wikipedians decide "who is a vegetarian" (per multiple conflicting definitions of such, and evaluating claims of evidence of such) is too complex and dispute prone - as well as quite WP:ORish (and I refer to both Betty Logan's and Mateo's arguments in their !votes above). What we should be using, are (good and recent) WP:RSes saying "X was a vegetarian" and not make various arguments on the merits of the claims ourselves - inclusion should be based on the existence of such sources (stating outright that "X was/is a vegetarian"). Therefore, I propose to combine "Disputed vegetarians" with "Vegetarians"/"Former vegetarians" (as the case may be). Furthermore, I propose that we add a notes column where disputations or other notes regarding vegetarian aspects of the listed subject could be discussed briefly. In the case of Hitler, this note should merely refer the reader to Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism and possibly mention there is a minority view that disputes some aspects of this (possibly - as it seems this is presently missing from Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism). Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I will support this change if the article name's would be "self described vegetarians" or even if it includes such a definition at the top of the list. Otherwise this proposal would just make it even more binary then it is, which means less accuracy for the readers. 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Self description is (mostly) irrelevant - for inclusion criteria we should rely on what RSes say on the subject. If we have suffcient sourcing stating X is vegeterian - so should include. Any caveats - in the notes.Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This could have been a solution if we had sufficient sources only going in one way. But here you have most of the older but more thorough resources (historians and writers) saying he was not a vegetarian and newer testimonies and the tartar exam saying that we was. So this brings us back to square one: What to do with this dispute? You know my answer... 19:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Vegetarian - The criteria for this article states: This is a list of notable people who have adhered to a vegetarian diet at some point during their life (emphasis mine) and the article Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism says - Today, it is acknowledged by historians that Hitler—at least during the war—followed a vegetarian diet. In my view, at least during the war - would be some point during his life, so he would satisfy the criteria defined at this article. I'd suggest slapping a note on his entry that says at least during the war he followed a vegetarian diet (also agree there should be a notes column). Isaidnoway (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I have showed 2 historians, biographers of Hitler, that argue he can't be defined as a vegetarian: Payne and Fuchs. Both of them did not settled for a comment on the issue but actually expressed a full opinion on the matter. On the other side of the debate i know that ian kershow, who is a very prominent biographer of Hitler, did support him being defined as a vegetarian. But if my memory is correct he didn't deal with this issue in more then a sentence or two. Im curious how did you reach the conclusion that "Today, it is acknowledged by historians that Hitler—at least during the war—followed a vegetarian diet."?

p.s. I normally do not comment in the survey section out of respect to the integrity of the opinion, but since this respect has been breached by another user, and in a very aggressive manner, it became impossible to debate in the discussion alone. So with apology.

13:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Mateo (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was quoting from the article - Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. I read your comment and your sources, I read Betty's comment and their sources, I also did my own research, like I do at all RfC's that I comment at. Fuchs, Payne and Berry all make compelling arguments, but they were all published well before the forensic testing on his teeth was done, so that must be taken into account when considering their arguments and conclusions. As far as I'm concerned, you can not ignore the forensic testing and their conclusions. In my opinion, prior to the war, Hitler ate meat, but during the war he was a vegetarian. So based on the criteria for inclusion for a vegetarian in this article, at some point in Hitler's life he followed a vegetarian diet, and in my view that is not disputed. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. My personal believe is that Hitler tried to follow a vegetarian diet between 42 and 45, and adhered it even before that. But you see, this is not a "was he-was he not" debate. This is a "is it disputed debate". I also agree with you that there are compelling arguments for the side saying he can't be defined as a vegetarian. Actually the historians that dealt with Hitler's diet conclude that he is not. So it's disputed. The Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism article builds it's narrative almost entirely from anecdotal evidence and should be considered original research. The forensic exam didn't find meat fiber in the tartar. That means that Hitler didn't eat meat fiber in the last couple of months of his life. This doesn't contradict the testimony of his secretary and dietitian, reporting he ate broth/meat fat/bone morrow. So it's A. Plausible that Hitler didn't follow a vegetarian diet, even if he abstained from meat fiber. B. This is compatible with the biographers saying the argument that he is a vegetarian was a nazi propaganda tool. Mateo (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's disputed in your view, not mine, according to the loosely defined criteria for this article. I'm just one man giving one opinion in this RfC. Whatever the outcome is, I am totally cool with WP:CONSENSUS. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but i do think you should consider changing your mind. You know, i also thought the definition is loose, but it's quite strict. For me, i misunderstood the meaning of "adhering" and thought it meant something like "support". But actually adhering means to stick fast to something, without deviation. This means that if a person does eat broth/meat fat/bone morrow or fish once in while - he is not adhering. Mateo (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Vegetarian The arguments that he was not are weak, WP:OR-ish and fringe-y. That he might not meet every modern vegetarian's definition and that he may have 'lapsed' occassionally or inadvertently ingested, or been injected with animal products or derivatives, is probably true to a greater or lesser extent for almost everyone on the list, but does not detract from the fact that he claimed to be, and contemporaries and historians accepted his claim. The history of his vegetarianism, (his later years) can go in a footnote. Comment the whole 'disputed section is fairly valueless when it does not record the nature of the dispute(s) - is this people who say they are/were, but others dispute their sincerity ? If so, that's bit like a list of 'disputed Catholics', they say they are but others say they are not very good ones! Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

If it is disputed that other people on the list adhered to a vegetarian diet, by biographers and others who wrote books on the matter, then they should not be on the list as well. It's very simple and as clear as day. Do you know of any testimony of broth/meat fat/bone morrow being part of the diet of Gandhi, Tolstoy or Paul McCartney? Of course you don't. It also baffles me how can you say Hitler "may have 'lapsed' occassionally" and in one breath consider him a person who "adhered to a vegetarian diet" - as the definition require? Explain it to me, please. Mateo (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The definition - or degree of strictness of what constitutes a vegetarian, varies and to an extent is dependent on the person's reasons (moral or otherwise). Involuntary ingestion would never preclude someone. If the people of the time and historians consider someone to have been vegetarian - it isn't up to us to ratify or question that verdict. The Pope may not fit everyone's definition of a good Catholic - does that mean he isn't one? Pincrete (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to be pragmatic and agree that involuntary ingestion would never preclude someone from this list, but would you agree that eating fat meat would? I have shown that "people of the time" testified that Hitler ate broth, meat fat and bone morrow, in addition to consuming animal parts due to his medical status. I'm also the only one thus far that named historians that dealt with this matter. Why wont you address that? Mateo (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Disputed Vegetarian agree with mateo that there's a dispute about whether Hitler actually was a vegetarian and not merely put forth as one publicly. Therefore, put him on the disputed list. ArchieOof (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Vegetarian (Summoned by bot) He was a vegetarian for at least part of his life. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Vegetarian: Hitler's vegetarianism is "disputed" in the same way that whether the Holocaust happened or whether vaccines cause autism is "disputed", and thus WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT should be followed here. Also, I reject Rynn Berry as a source. See [ https://slate.com/human-interest/2004/02/was-hitler-a-vegetarian.html ] to see what kind of "authority" Rynn Berry is. Not only that, but his book is over ten years old, and there has been significant new evidence in the last few years. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I read the Slate article and none of the scholars interviewed (John Lukacs and Daniel Goldhagen) disputed Berry's main argument, which is the supposed semi-vegetarianism of Hitler. Rather, they and the journalist argued the need to write a book solely on that subject and the ethical concerns of Hitler. Ojo del tigre (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't imply that Slate disputed Berry or anything else about Berry's argument. What I said was that the specific claim above ("There is a book dedicated to show that Hitler was not a vegetarian, written by Rynn Berry who is considered an authority on what vegetarianism is") is false. Rynn Berry is considered a vegetarian advocacy author. It's fine to present Berry's arguments (while noting that there exists over ten years worth of new evidence since he wrote his book) but wrong to call him an authority on what vegetarianism is. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon This is the second time you compared your counterparts to supporters of Holocaust denial. I suggest you apologize and revert your position so it will be possible to settle it with the principle of Wikipedia:Civility. Mateo (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Request denied. I never compared my "counterparts" with anything. I compared the sources that say Hitler was not a vegetarian with the sources that say that vaccines cause autism and the sources that claim the Holocaust never happened. In all three cases, a WP:FRINGE view is disputing the mainstream opinion of experts, and we should treat the fringe view as the fringe view that it is.

"It was all vegetarian, the most delicious fresh things, from asparagus to peppers and peas, served with rice and salads. It was all arranged on one plate, just as it was served to him. There was no meat and I do not remember any fish. Of course I was afraid. If it had been poisoned I would not be here today. We were forced to eat it, we had no choice." --Margot Woelk, food taster for Adolph Hitler.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Woelk is not an expert, and considering i'm the only one in this discussion that actually named three experts, this comment just shows how wrong and rude it is to compare the disputed position, which is basically the Wikipedia status quo in this article, to Holocaust denial. I actually think your kind of rhetoric has no place in Wikipedia. Mateo (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Place

This list should follow whatever Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism says, and anyone who wishes to claim that Hitler's vegetarianism is disputed should attempt to get a consensus to change that article, only changing this one to disputed after Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism says that it is disputed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• @Betty Logan: - I'm of two minds here. I certainly agree that most if not all contemporary historians who cover Hitler agree he practiced some form of a Vegetarian diet. Per my own POV I'd see him as some sort of vegetarian (even if his cook slipped him something or if he did or didn't do something adhered to by "modern vegetarians"). My issue is that looking at some later sources (and none of these are great) - it seems that post 2014 this is still being disputed by some - e.g. this vegan claiming this is in doubt, this anthrozoologist questioning the extent/consistency, and Norman Ohler (author of "Blitzed") claiming he wasn't since " he mainlined pigs’ liver extracts and swallowed capsules filled with bulls’ testicles". My question - is how do we define disputed? It is obvious to me that at the least some advocates are disputing his vegetarian status (to large extent on "what is a veterinarian?" grounds). So how do we define disputed? How do we define vegetarian for inclusion in the list? Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz i thank you for going to the heart of the matter. I believe that we should include a person on the list in regards to the total sum of data that is out there on his case. If we have only his own testimony then we assume good faith. But if it is disputed, and in Hitler's case it is so by many, then it should go to the disputed section. The core of this argument is that Wikipedia is not here to settle ideological debates and vote on "who won". This creates a very bad editing culture, and unfortunately it happened here. It's much better and less time consuming to present a full picture of evidence to the reader, and classify it as accurately as possible. Since there is a dispute regarding Hitler and there is a list of disputed case, it is actually a simple matter to judge what classification is more accurate. 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is from 2011 before both recent developments. This source presents Dione Lucas as evidence for Hitler's non-vegetarianism. As I discuss above, Dione Lucas was a chef at a restaurant patronised before the war, and before he turned vegetarian in the 1938–1941 period. Your other source discusses medications that Hitler took, not his diet. Vegetarianism is a diet, and only veganism (which bans using animal by-products) precludes animal derived medications. Many vegetarians will take flu-tablets for example, which contain gelatin. All of these three sources base their arguments on old evidence. If we were basing Hitler's classification on this evidence I agree that "disputed" would be the correct classification, but I now believe this arguments have been superceded. Hitler's food taster (from 1942 until his death) came forward in 2013 and testified that Hitler was a vegetarian during her tenure. Forensic examination from 2017 and published earlier this year found no traces of meat in the tartar on his teeth. I believe the new evidence of the past five years finishes the debate. Nobody to my knowledge has published any argument that challenges the food-taster's testimony or the forensic findings. Postulations based on what Hitler ate before the war shouldn't be given equal consideration to the testimony of somebody with intimate knowledge of his diet and forensic evidence. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

not helpful - who edited what first and how the content dispute arose is not conductive to the discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your protection of the transfer to the undisputed list started well before these new developments, as i have shown above, so you can't cling to them as the reason for you actions. They also anecdotal, can be detailed in a paragraph, and can be equally measured to A whole book dedicated to show the other side. They clearly do not settle the dispute, which is ongoing. 12:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs) Please don't lie. The edit history of the article is available for all to see and here is a diff showing me restoring Hitler to the "disputed" section after another editor moved him to the main section. That was in June 2013, before I became aware of the food-taster's testimony, published in February 2013. After I became aware of the food-taster's testimony I conceded that he belonged in the "main" list. And for the record, forensic evidence is not "anecdotal". Betty Logan (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC) It's evident that the transfer to the undisputed list was done in June 2013 and since kept so mainly by you. Now you became aware of the transfer in the same month and did not restore it, although not mentioning the food taster until 2014. This was not part of your logic. You just believe this dispute should be settled, when it is apparent it is not settled. Now if im not accurate in any detail feel free to correct me. I'm not against you and generally appreciate your contribution to this project. So can you please stop with the smearing that is taking control over your keyboard whenever someone disputes that Hitler can be defined as a vegetarian? Thank you very much. 13:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have two questions - 1. How do we define vegetarian for inclusion? 2. How do we define disputed? Is it enough for various advocates to dispute this? A dispute on the basic facts (e.g. some source (not aware of any recent ones) saying he did knowingly eat meat?)? A dispute (assuming (1) is not a closed definition by us and is based on, say, some sources saying he's vegetarian (as opposed to "ticking" various criteria)) on the definition of vegetarian? Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I will try to answer your questions as directly as possible:

i) "Vegetarian" is very simple to define. A vegetarian is simply somebody who chooses to not eat meat or fish. This is how the vegetarian society define it:

A vegetarian is someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, legumes, nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, fungi, algae, yeast and/or some other non-animal-based foods (e.g. salt) with, or without, dairy products, honey and/or eggs. A vegetarian does not eat foods that consist of, or have been produced with the aid of products consisting of or created from, any part of the body of a living or dead animal. This includes meat, poultry, fish, shellfish*, insects, by-products of slaughter** or any food made with processing aids created from these.

ii) As for what counts as a dispute, the "disputed" section was specifically created out of necessity to accommodate Hitler and others like him i.e. when there was insufficient evidence to catagorize a person one way or the other. It was necessary a few years ago because there were accounts that Hitler ate meat and accounts that he didn't! There simply wasn't enough evidence to call it either way. So yes, there has been a debate lasting 40 years since Payne published his Hitler biography, and plenty of sources to that effect, but it is my contention that the food-taster's testimony and the forensic analysis (which corroborate each other) definitively conclude the debate.

Mateo has relied on old sources as evidence of the debate (i.e. when there was a debate), but he has produced no reliable source that directly takes account of the food-taster's testimony and the forensic evidence. In short, no authority on Hitler or vegetarianism has so far challenged the new findings. Betty Logan (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's try to turn this on its head - I dispute the need for a disputed section - and I think that the conflict between yourself and Mateo arose from the binary choice here. How about we have one list, include based on WP:RSes saying an individual was vegetarian (skirting around the need to define ourselves), and add a notes column where disputes (if any, and possibly other relevant notes) around the vegetarian status could be detailed? E.g. for Hitler, I am sure that even you would agree that some Vegan/Vegetarian advocates have disputed this on various grounds - which could be summarized very briefly in the notes (and for Hitler a link to Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism (currently missing in the list, present in an image of Hitler) would be useful in the notes). Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there are some people who will never accept that Hitler was vegetarian no matter how much evidence is provided. We see this mentality with creationists, climate change deniers and even flat-earthers, but do we really consider evolution "disputed" as a fact? This is an encyclopedia after all, and I find it a bit weird that forensic evidence isn't enough to establish Hitler's vegetarianism as a fact. If the forensics had found meat in the tartar I would have had no problem removing him completely. Incidentally, this article used to be a single list with notes (an approach I personally never had a problem with and actually regarded as a superior format—I find the current approach a bit WP:POINTy) but entries—usually Hitler—were regularly targeted for removal because some editors didn't think it should contain disputed entries. The "disputed" section was created to counter that and it was largely successful in stabilising the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the level of disruption/change would be lower if content disputes were limited to wording in a notes column. I also think that a disputed section is poor for some (possibly not so) hypothetical - e.g. say a 1940s person who generally followed a vegetarian diet but was known to consume, say, Jell-O or some other food with Gelatin. Such a person would not be a vegetarian per the definition you provided from the vegetarian society, but would probably be described as vegetarian in a multitude of sources. Pigeonholing such an individual to the disputed section as opposed to noting the dispute - seems a rather arbitrary and large change. For Hitler, a note probably would be "disputed by some X, see Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" (X replaced by however we describe those who object). Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It not just Hitler, some modern scholars doubt Pythagoras was a true vegetarian, a number of others became vegetarian in latter life. I think (especially with many of the older examples) to have a really clear definition of who was a vegetarian. It might be best if we had "self declared" and "alleged" rather then what we have now. If someone did not say they are as vegetarian it is only someone esles opinion (often from blatantly advocacy sources that they were (or in the case of Hitler, that they were not).Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: The 2017 analysis states: No muscular segment (compatible with meat) was identified after careful examination of the whole surfaces and sections [of Hitler's dental calculus fragments]. And at the end it concludes: The absence of muscular structures within the dental calculus fragments has to be confronted to the fact that Adolf Hitler is said to have been vegetarian (even if only two fragments were examined, and not the totality of the dental calculus deposits).[7] It only mentions muscular segments, but does that include bone marrow? I think that's the most important, and then broth and maybe animal fat. Ojo del tigre (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not just taking the forensic evidence in isolation though. The testimony from the food-taster corroborates the analysis. You have somebody with intimate knowledge of Hitler's diet who said "there was no meat" and does not "remember any fish", and the forensic analysis as far as it is possible to establish these things backs that up. It is plainly obvious that Hitler was committed to a vegetarian diet by the end of his life, regardless of whether he inadvertently consumed some animal broth his chef slipped into his dinner. Let's take my own personal experience as an example. My mother often cooks my favorite vegetarian dish when I am visiting, and despite the recipe instructing her to use soy sauce I discovered she had been using Worcester sauce, which has anchovies as one of the ingredients. By this point I had been vegetarian for over 20 years, but by the logic presented by Mateo I had never been vegetarian at all! Being vegetarian is a dietary choice whereby you choose to fully omit animal parts from your diet, a choice that Hitler was exercising to the best of his knowledge during the Second World War. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Betty, we are no debating a normal person trusting his mother but a dictator, who planed the most brutal holocaust to it's very last detail and was 100% aware the outcomes of his decisions. It's preposterous - let alone dangerous - to argue he "didn't know" or "she slipped it to his meal". You are basically saying it was possible for a mere cook to disobey Hitler's dictation, deceive him to eat something against his wishes. Just to demonstrate how ludicrous that is, I can guess you were upset to find out you ate a non-vegetarian dish for 20 years. Now imagine what would Hitler do to that miserable cook. In all seriousness, it remains plausible Hitler abstained from meat fiber but still ate Broth/Fat/Morrow out of habit. This makes him a non-vegetarian just like people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish. It is also possible he was not a keen vegetarian but acted as one one as part of a compassionate image. Although It's not certain it is plausible, and thus should remain under the disputed section. Mateo (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)