Talk:Sexuality of Adolf Hitler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Adolf Hitler article?

Why doesn't this belong in the Adolf Hitler article??

-For the same reason this doesn't belong in the Hitler article. They both make it way too long. Frasor

I'd be glad to boldly merge it if it gets no consensus again (without the middle paragraph, of course). It can be pulled back out if and when there is enough verifiable info for an article. Gazpacho 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tagged NPOV

This article is ridiculous.

• These sources are hardly suffice. One of them leads to a video that mentions nothing about Hitler's sexual orientation until the end when it states "could Adolf Hitler have been gay?" How is that a source? This article had serious "yes" votes for deletion and I believe it should be ran again. --Mmeinhart 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Main problem, of course, is the near impossibility of proving any historical figure's homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter). Until the 1950s, after Kinsey and others came out with their studies, few felt comfortable discussing sexual acts. Try to prove that anyone had sex before 1945 and you'll repeatedly run into blind alleys: people just didn't write about sex a whole lot. About the only proof we have is crime reports, scandals, and children. 03:26, 14 March 2006 --mmeinhart 23:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

References

Could someone please format the references using WikiBib? It just makes it easier to read, and this article needs spotless citations. Thanks. Harro5 10:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Page moved

I renamed the page from Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation to Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. The article is no longer just about his hetero/homosexuality. —Seqsea (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD's?

Why is this article constantly being put up for AFD? Please refrain from re-AFD'ing it for a while. Give a rest period in between them!

Also, to merge this into the Adolf Hitler article would be a bad idea as the main article is huge and would be far too large for any person without a DSL internet connection to read. -Localzuk ^(talk) 11:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• There is no policy that states an article cannot be placed under AFD, regardless of whether it has been before. Not only does placing an article under AFD help to make the article better by getting more of the community involved in improving it, but it also gives those who haven't seen the article in a previous AFD a chance to voice their opinion. Also, the merge that is under consideration isn't the Adolf Hitler article. Check the articles page again and you'll see that. Thanks! OSU80 13:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

OSU80, there's a saying in AFD: It's not Cleanup. Please don't use it for such. Gazpacho 18:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Completed

I have merged this article with Adolf Hitler's medical health on 04/23/05. OSU80 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delettion nom once again

This articles is poorly written that focuses on the unencyclopedic and the sensational. Obviously I am no fan of Hitler, but its article's like these that make wikipedia look so amateurish The proceeding unsigned comment was inserted by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg on 22:30, 6 May 2006

Concur. Also not a fan, but all this is is describing PsyOps/propaganda campaign against hitler, which uses statements by someone Hitler had expelled from the party - hardly a credible source. If this article was entitled 'Propaganda to discredit Hitler', it might stand - but instead the article tries (and fails) to make all this look credible. Recommend merge a cut-down version into the main article. Bridesmill 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles Like This

I now believe that Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia. Who needs to defend and take care of such a falsehood? No small wonder that all the best editors have left. I will my wikibreak permanent, since it looks like this is (and other incompetent edits are) driving nails into the coffin. IP Address 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Cleanup tag

The article meets the standard if there is maybe something to correct it would be a stub but there is not much to add with all this quotes. The article might have been cleaned up but the tag maybe hadn't been removed by now but i see the article totally clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzubiri (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Eva Braun

No mention of his wife?! 75.3.237.103 (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that. This article is still pretty terrible though.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The lede doesn't say anything

"Some historians have argued that he was homosexual, some that he was bisexual, others that he was asexual. Finally, others argue that he was heterosexual."

Is this necessary? As far as I know, that about covers everything that possibly could be argued. It could be trimmed down to just a couple words. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. Not only was it pointless before but that sentence made it look as if the claims had equal weight, like 25% possibility gay, 25% straight etc.

Frankly the whole article stinks. Just some authors trying to cash in off of Hitler's crimes by writing a book claiming he was gay. I mean a book claiming he was straight is never going to sell is it?

Someone needs to re-write the whole thing. I think the fact that most of the women he gets involved with seem to end up trying to kill themselves is worth mentioning as well.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

I don't think the popular culture mentions, particular the second one about Fritz the Cat, are actual social depictions of Hitler's alleged sexuality. It's fairly obvious they were just some juvenile attempts to poke fun at Hitler, on the basis that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of. I'd like to hear the opinions of the other editors on whether or not these listing actually contribute to the article in any way, and whether or not they should remain in the article. Freikorp (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed due to no objections, on the grounds they are not actually depictions of his sexuality therefore do not contribute to the article. Freikorp (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Who cares he could have had sex with cats, really how could Hitler be any worse of a person than he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.8.1 (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've since discovered there is an entire article devoted to Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Accordingly all popular culture mentions should be placed there anyway. Freikorp (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Engagements?

The list at the bottom of the article claims that Hitler was "engaged" to both Erna Hanfstaengl and Renate Müller. What are these claims based on? The article on Hanfstaengl suggests that Hitler's affection for her was one-sided and that she had no intention of marrying him, and the article on Müller makes no mention of Hitler at all, let alone that she was "engaged" to him. Sounds pretty dubious to me, and unsourced as well. 80.222.33.165 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; I've removed "engaged" as too far "out there" to really even be notably alleged.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Most likely orientation?

From what I've heard, it sounds like heterosexual is most likely to be true, but this article gives a disproportionate amount of attention to the theory that he was homosexual. WP improver (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The claims of uralgia, homosexuality, etc., all stem from WWII era propaganda and subsequent attempts to use such to sell books. There is actually ample evidence about Hitler's private life from myriad sources like Albert Speer, several adjutants, his secretaries, the Wagner family, etc. The list is rather exhaustive, actually. And, of course, the truth is rather mundane and boring. Hitler was a product of his times and rather bourgeois and conservative in his sexual mores. He had a few brief affairs when younger, and seems to have really been in love with his half-niece, Geli Rabaul. He was monogamous with Eva Braun for years. He hid this relationship from the public and all but his inner circle, but within that circle, most of whom survived the war, he was very open w/ Braun and they lived together openly at Berchtesgaden as man and wife, in effect. A very boring, non-kinky, petit bourgois relationship. Disappointing to those who want scandal or bizarre kink, but the plain truth is often disappointing. Goering was also monogamous and not a womanizer. Bormann and especially Goebbels, however, were great womanizers, and used their positions to seduce many women. Bormann preyed on secretaries and the like, while Goebbels had affairs with actresses, models, and society women. Himmler was probably more like Hitler-- very middle-class in his outlook and personal behavior. He had a wife and a daughter whom he adored; but he also kept a secret mistress with whom he had, in effect, a second family. 222.230.88.45 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Vainamoinen

I've just written a paragraph about Hitler's most likely sexuality. I still have problems with citations though, but I think it should be easily fixed and adjustable! (I used some of the text above, if that's alright =) ) Highollow (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My deepest gratitude to the people who helped me with the citation-links! Highollow (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What?

The report took evidence from a political enemy of Hitler - Otto Strasser, whose brother Hitler had killed in the Night of the Long Knives.  ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.166.232.140 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Otto Strasser & Gregor Strasser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"gay butt sex with gay jews"

"Hitler was also known to enjoy having gay butt sex with gay jews and niggers because he was gay and he was a futon, although the researchers concluded that the evidence of Hitler's homosexuality was too thin to make any conclusions."

I am not sure this is accurate/ well cited... Just an FYI

 Fixed. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge in Adolf Hitler

The article should be clearly merged on Article:Adolf Hitler as it is already mentioned. And all the statements there are facts and it is why it does have a NPOV. The Sentences that may not be Neutral i remark them as facts and they are quotes and not opinions. --Zzubiri (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I will merge this article and tag it for a speedy deletion if in 7 days no one gives me an against to merge it. If you dont want to merge the article, post your comment answering me why you think the article should not be merged. The excuse of an article being too long is totally invalid due to being no problem of space, memory or organazation on adding a little part. Also post if you agree with merging it with Article:Adolf Hitler Thank you for your time Zzubiri (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This should be merged into Article:Adolf Hitler and then speedily deleted. The week has passed. --71.110.68.86 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Try posting your query at the bottom of the talk page, as you're meant to. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler is a very long article, currently 212 K long, so a merge is not recommended -- this page is a valid application of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, though I think it could be better synchronized with the parent article. If consensus nevertheless develops to merge this page back into Adolf Hitler, the redirect left behind must not be deleted -- that would be a violation of the GFDL (see WP:Merge and delete). Baileypalblue (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend a merge, and the deletion of most of the text from this article. There is little of substance. Reports of rumours, myths and propaganda don't belong in Wikipedia: it is not a branch of the wartime OSS.203.184.41.226 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It should not be merged as the Hitler main article is already long on bytes, and it is discussed briefly therein; further, it is a GA article. This is a sub-article which is important enough to keep but I agree could use tightening up. Kierzek (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No merge. Hitler is a major figure, and his sexuality has always been under question. While the material here might be speculative etc, it is better to corral it here than to be constantly fighting to eliminate this kind of stuff from the main page.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Renate Müller and others

The evidence of any relationship with Renate Müller, seems paper-thin, with no mention in her articles on either Eng or Ger WP. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact ALL the claimed relationships seem pretty speculative and not supported by the individual WP pages, I have 'toned down' the lead and other parts, to reflect the speculative nature of these 'affairs'. Pincrete (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Testimony of valet

I'm not sure of details here, however as part of The World at War, there were interviews with AH's personal staff, including his valet (possibly Heinz Linge). Whether these were part of the original series or 'add-ons' released later, I am unsure. Within those interviews, his valet said that the household staff (room-maids), never saw any evidence of sexual activity between AH and Eva Braun. I am not sure how RS this would be, however this testimony seems as valid as the speculations of other close confidants.

That their relationship was the subject of speculation among personal staff, is itself interesting, and possibly indicative that the character of that relationship was not clear-cut. Pincrete (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Linge's comments from his memories are already in the article and cited. Kierzek (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not these specific recollections, though World at War is not very citable and this is 'downstairs gossip'. Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

True. Kierzek (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I briefly text scanned the subs for all the later World at War progammes. I could not find the text I referred to above. I am certain though that it was part of a UK TV programme (including interviews with Junge), possibly a spin-off of The World at War. For the time being, a dead-end. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Article tidy

I've made a few tidying edits (as per above), however the whole article seems a bit of a mess! We have Eva Braun within 'Homosexuality & 3rd Reich' and other muddles. Speculation almost everywhere, which is not always identified as such. Pincrete (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

One problem is the section title; it mixes his sexual relationship with Eva (hetro) with homosexuality; which I agree was too general in discussion and the trim you made was an improvement. The article needs more ce work, but I would not say it is "a mess", overall. Kierzek (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed the section title. Kierzek (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I did say 'a bit of', and perhaps should have said 'a bit muddled' rather than 'a bit of a mess'. I agree thst some further ce is needed. Whilst your re-title addresses immediate issues, I think some re-ordering would improve further. I was thinking of putting the 'comtemporary opinions', (which BROADLY coincide, with the spread of mainstream historians' views) as the introductory para (possibly just called 'intro'), including any 'background' info. Putting accusations of homosexuality as a distinct section (though NOT so early), and retaining the wartime reports as a distinct sub-section, possibly also the post-1945 claims ('claims/theories' seems more apt than 'research', since many are based on psychological speculation rather than actual historical evidence, possibly also the date should be post-1980 or similar).

I approach this from the point of view that I don't object to speculation, but it should be made clear that it is just that. Pincrete (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well lets all see how it goes as we all work on it further; when we have the time. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Post-1995 research" - this section needs to be intergraded with post-war material in the "Introduction" section. Maybe we can come up with some better section titles, according to organisation. Overall, the article is looking better, thus far. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My thinking is that the section now labelled "Introduction" could be re-named to "Chronology" or something along that line. This section should contain only well-sourced historical facts. Then, below that, we need to detail some of the main myths and speculations, and make sure they are clearly labelled as such, as suggested by Pincrete. The chart at the bottom looks okay, though the sources all need to be verified as being reliable ones (Some of these possible romances are mentioned by Kershaw, Speer, etc so we can improve the sourcing somewhat I think). Then we can re-write the lead to reflect the new article. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes the post 1995 stuff distinct is that is largely based on 'psychological profiling', rather than historical methodology. I thought of renaming it 'theories' or 'claims', but realised that at least one historian is in there. I always saw 'Intoduction' as imperfect wording and possibly temporary. 'Chronology' may not be strictly true, the section is largely 'contemporary' accounts + the conclusions of historians, based on such accounts/docs.

Many of the supposed relationships seemed pretty speculative as far as I was able to establish, however as long as it remains clear that these are not facts, I don't see any problem with their continued presence. I made a few edits to make clear there 'speculative-ness', but don't have access to Diannaa's sources. A three-way mutual interim pat on the back is called for! Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought, would 'Historical accounts' work instead of 'Introduction'? The term works both to mean 'contemporary accounts' and works of historical methodology, possibly shunting the one historian in 'post-1995' into this section. Pincrete (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "Historical accounts" to "Introduction", What do you think Kierzek? -- Diannaa (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical accounts. Kierzek (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The post-1995 section heading was also temp for me, I have since realised that Kershaw is only mentioned (not covered) in this section. I can't think of a suitable title that neutrally expresses that these are (mostly), fairly speculative theories and are more recent. Another observation is that the 'women chart' could do with re-ordering (time of 'relationship' ?). Pincrete (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Alphabetically might be a good way to sort it, as dates will be hard to pin down. Eva Braun and anyone else already extensively covered in the prose could probably be removed from the chart. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Alphabetically is okay, but I believe all should be in the chart for completeness sake. Kierzek (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Chronological would be preferable if viable, but I realise it probably isn't, nor is any grouping by 'certainty'. I have mixed feelings about E Braun, but am happy to endorse the 'completeness' case. Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)… … Afterthought, does it work to list the women by TENTATIVE time order, without claiming that it is chronlogical in the text. This has the advantage of placing events in a 'best guess' sequence without making any claims about that sequence ? Does 'Recent claims' work as a title for 'Post-1995', I realise it's vague, but does make a distinction between traditional historical approaches and more speculative methodology. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made the suggested changes, if they are not an improvement, please amend, of the three of us I think I am the non-historian. I made tweaks to the text within the boxes, including (pedantically perhaps), changing 'First contact' to 'Contact', only because his niece probably knew him most of her life. Feel free to amend/revert. Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is now immeasurably improved. I suspect that any further improvement needs greater access to sources than I have. I may take this off my watchlist soon. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Pincrete. Articles in good condition are less likely to be vandalism targets, and Kierzek and I can keep an eye out. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure to pool ideas so amicably. You two obviously know more about the subject, and have greater access to sources. Pincrete (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sexuality of Adolf Hitler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 16:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this article later today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Is it well-written? Y
• Is it verifiable with no original research? Y
• Is it broad in its coverage? Y
• Is it neutral? Y
• Is it stable? Y
• Is it illustrated? Y

Diannaa, the overall article looks fine and I see no common problems with it. With that being said, I'm having a really hard time understanding why Langer's report is giving so much weight in this article. After all, didn't Kershaw 2008 say that the "Hitler-was-sexsually-turned-on-by-having-women-pee-and-defect-on-his-face" content in Langer's report ought to be regarded as nonsense? Also, Langer's report itself states that the report is based on enumerable sources, none of which were first hand or 100% reliable. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

These reports need to be covered because that's where a lot of the rumors got started. I have trimmed for length -- Diannaa (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome job, as always, I've passed the article. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urolagnia

It is often stated that Hitler was a urophile; it is speculated that it was a major contributory factor in his difficulties in relationships with women and their (attempted) suicides. However, this article only briefly mentions it very briefly as an accusation by Otto Strasser, who was obviously very biased. It has been claimed by others; some documentaries about Hitler state that he was a urophile. Could it all just be anti-Hitler propaganda, or is there real proof that Hitler did have such a paraphilia, and that he indulged it with Geli Raubal and other women? If the latter is the case, the article should mention it more. WP improver (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to see why this painless and non-invasive practice should have induced suicidal feelings in the women. Valetude (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I second Val's point. If his kink had anything to do with their suicide, it's probably that he forced them to kill themselves out of concern they'd reveal his sexual interests. But that begs the question, if he was homosexual or had unusual sexual tastes, why would he make an attempt to conceal them, especially after he achieved such political power that his word and actions literally became law regardless of the existing statutes? Part of Nazi law was that the Fuhrer was infallible and above the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5803:1240:6479:EEF2:17DF:E320 (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

There's more to sexuality than the gender you're attracted to

Otherwise, this article may as well have been called "The sexual orientation of Adolph Hitler". Here are a few other questions to consider. Is it true that Hitler's sex drive, at least at some point, was so low that he had to seek medication? How did Hitler's sexuality develop and change throughout his life? Is it true that he had certain paraphilias? Did he have any other sexual peculiarities? For example, Ayn Rand's whole idea of sexuality and romance was about a woman being dominated by a superior man, which caused her to fill those perfectly good novels with all those vile, sickening rape fantasy scenes (no offense to any Ayn Rand fans, I'm kinda an Ayn Rand fan myself). 213.109.230.96 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? A kinda fan? She writes like a 7th grader, about characters and plots that might seem believable to a 5th grader. Inb4 not a forum (it's the Hitler sexuality article talk page, so yes, it's a forum, go get a better hobby officer wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5803:1240:6479:EEF2:17DF:E320 (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Covered?

THIS IS ALREADY COVERED IN THE MAIN ARTICLE!!!!--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't this be covered in the main article instead of having its own page?? Betina 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The report that this article mostly refers to was written by the Allies in 1943, during the height of World War II. I believe it to be highly biased, and more propaganda than a valid source.

The main article is too long, so it is appropriate for this topic to have its own article. --ukexpat 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Propoganda? Dude, are you DEFENDING the man or something? This isn't propoganda, by now these are well-known facts. 81.145.240.233 13:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No anon, it's all speculation. I've never even heard them claim that he's gay on the History Channel and they're talking about Ancient Aliens nowadays. No bottom. That's why this topic has its own article. To keep the thinly sourced garbage off the main page. However unless someone is a sex criminal, I don't see how any person's sexuality is relevant enough to be part of their wiki page, unless they are somehow famous as a direct result of their sexuality. But I guess some people have a preoccupation with Hitler's orientation and the fact that he allegedly liked pee play (draw correlary with contemporary authoritarians schmuck?) so they gave em a little space to get that out of their system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5803:1240:6479:EEF2:17DF:E320 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You are using Reductio ad Hitlerum

Aha. So because the man in question is evil, every accusation made towards him are automatically true. Great reasoning. The OSS is a propaganda piece, this was even stated by the authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.109.41 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to add something to the masochism part of this article citing Hitler: The Pathology of Evil. How do I go about doing that? Addie777 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl

What is the matter with Leni Riefenstahl? There was a lot of rumours that there is more than an only acquaintance between both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.70.92 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rumors?? Sounds awesome, please write about them in the article with proper citations to the person who spread the rumour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5803:1240:6479:EEF2:17DF:E320 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Cryptorchidism/micropenis claims

I don't understand not including the latest claims about Hitler's cryptorchidism and possible micropenis not being included on the "recent claims" section (a section for, you know, RECENT. CLAIMS.) despite much publicity and a well-sourced citation. As a recent claim, and one that isn't on the fringes of speculation but actually being reported by reputable sources, this needs to be included, and I am aghast as to why some editors use bizarre logic to suppress this info being put into this article.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

First, this is a GA article; second, it is a WP:Fringe "claim", and the book it is from is not written by WP:RS historians; it is a low-grade source by two "authors". It is NOT supported by any well regarded RS historians. Wikipedia is not tabloid news, nor entertainment news and just because some new outlet's "picked up the story" does not make it news-worthy or give it greater historical weight. One does not add anything he comes upon, without regard to its importance and RS citing. It should be kept out of this article; also, the possible cryptorchidism "claim" by itself is already included in the Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism article, (although it is a weak argument, at best); and not cited to the book above. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In other words, your source is crap, you appear foolish for believing it was true, and even more silly for getting so worked up that the book's ridic claim was not included on the wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5803:1240:6479:EEF2:17DF:E320 (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Suicide attempts

We write:

Another died of complications eight years after a suicide attempt, and one made a suicide attempt.

I can't follow this. Can someone explain please? --causa sui (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Person #1: Tried to commit suicide, but failed. Eight years later, they died from complications caused by the suicide attempt.

Person #2: Tried to commit suicide.

Clear? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked it so it now reads:

His name has been linked to a number of possible female lovers, two of whom committed suicide. A third died of complications eight years after a suicide attempt, and fourth one also attempted suicide.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

That's better in clarity. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Historical accounts

The entire first paragraph in this section except for the initial sentence mirrors word for word a passage in *Adolf Hitler: a Biography* by Ileen Bear (Alpha Editions, May 8, 2016). Google books provides no page number. The passage in the article has 4 footnotes, none of which cite Bear. Unless Bear wrote this passage in the article this is plagiarism. Ringdisc (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Ringdisc

https://books.google.com/books?id=wSMzDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT76&dq=Hitler+Roehm+Wagner+pederast&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX5bmd3pjiAhUQVN8KHesJAcgQ6AEIKjAA&fbclid=IwAR3oE607isbFxhYuRHBGOuQBHc_c8E_8bcRtZ5Jlccqg83pFGXD4FpyH6gA#v=onepage&q=Hitler%20Roehm%20Wagner%20pederast&f=false

Well, this is the version from 27 December 2015, which predates the May 24, 2016 publication date of Bear's book. It would appear that the sentences that are duplicated actually predate the publication of Bear's book, as they are present in the December 27, 2015 version of this article. I'm not going to necessarily say that Bear copied Wikipedia, but the sentences in question definitely were here on Wikipedia before Bear's book was published. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I wrote some of this myself. See for example this addition dated February 1, 2015. I also wrote the part about "late returning for tea" and added it to Eva Braun in 2011 when I brought it to GA. Diff of Eva Braun. Somebody copied material from there to this article in in April 2012. So yeah, we had it first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The sincerest form of flattery ?.Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:EEng was watching Stranger Things one evening and was taken aback to hear his own prose from the article Phineas Gage being spoken by one of the characters. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I was flattered that some of my Wikipedia prose (written in approximately 2013) and cited RS books in relation to same, were used in a recent book (2014) on Hitler in the section that covered his last days. Kierzek (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Focus, in the intro, or the lack thereof

The lede seems to me like it should be a section on the question of whether he was gay. It doesn't summarize the article very well at all. Other opinions? --causa sui (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

it should be a section on the question of whether he was gay. Why? Do RS take that idea very seriously? Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The lede passed the vetting for GA and I believe it to be fine. The mainline RS historians do not give it serious consideration. As the article states, there is "no evidence that he engaged in homosexual behavior". The very dated 1943 report is conjecture. And the book "The Hidden Hitler" is at best, speculation, conjecture and pov postulation. Kierzek (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You both misunderstand me. The lede should *not* be focused on the question of his sexual orientation. But it is. That content would be better as a separate section so that the lede can actually summarize the article. If you want to delete it, that's fine with me too. But if you don't think it should be taken seriously then you don't think it should be in the lede either. --causa sui (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you think it should focus on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

causa sui, thank you for the clarification. Well, what I believe is it should be kept to a bare minimum, for the article. BMK, Diannaa, Pincrete, your thoughts? Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the perceived problem is. I think the lead is okay as it is. The subject is Adolf Hitler's sexuality, which encompasses sexual orientation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Diannaa here, which is why I asked you to say (above) what you think it should focus on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, a valid point. causa sui, can you provide some additional elaboration? Kierzek (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is part of the topic of sexuality, yes. But the purpose of a WP:LEAD is to "...identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The lead we have now does none of that; it explores the topic of his alleged homosexuality & interest in bizarre fetishes, several of which are not discussed again -- and, as you mentioned, are not prominent controversies since few historians take them seriously. I think the second paragraph seems okay, but otherwise, most of the lead we have now is more or less a distinct section on Hitler's supposed homosexuality & deviant kinks placed in the position where a lead should be. --causa sui (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, should is missing about Hitler's sexuality that should be there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you meant "what" where you have "should". If so, I think an introduction to the topic and a summary of the article should be there. --causa sui (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I just re-read t, and I think it does that adequately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

Kolozani (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Some people say Adolf Hitler was Pedarast and killed himself because of it

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Is Michael Munn a reliable source?

The following material has been added to the article:

In his 2012 book Hitler and the Nazi Cult of Film and Fame, Hollywood chronicler Michael Munn argues that Hitler "preferred to look rather than touch". Hitler regularly requested German film studios to send famous young actresses to the Reich Chancellery, which – according to Munn – was both a means to fulfill his desire as a fan to have lunch with a movie star, and a manifestation of his political power that had the ability to drum up popular celebrities at will. One of those actresses was Renate Müller, who told German filmmaker Albert Zeisler that Hitler seemed uninterested in sex. Instead, he fell on the floor and begged her to kick him, condemned himself as unworthy and grovelled on the floor. Munn notes that Nazis such as Ernst Hanfstaengl, Otto Strasser and Hermann Rauschning all reported that if he liked a girl, he tended to "grovel at her feet in a most disgusting way," even in company.

References

I left the material in, but I have to question whether Michael Munn is a reliable source for this stuff. He's a film historian and a biographer of movie stars, which hardly seem like credentials for reliability regarding this subject.

Should the material stay in or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I took it out - he is a film historian - I don't think a book billed as "A shocking look into the twisted, lurid world of Nazi Germany’s film industry" can be considered a reliable source for our purposes.— Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the removal and the reasoning given. Kierzek (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is this article a thing?

The subject matter is trivial, and the alleged sources of information are sensationalist, and wildly contradictory. This entire thing should be a footnote on the main Adolf Hitler page, at best. Quite frankly, this article is shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.169.1 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

sexuality is a social construct https://openbooks.library.umass.edu/introwgss/chapter/social-constructionism/ I request that the lines "most historians believe he was heterosexual." be changed and just merely state that there is no conclusive evidence either way. Daedrich JJ flfmjg (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What you want is original research WP:OR and what we have to go by is what the WP:RS historians state. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

the multiple studies by science and biologists on sexuality should make a strong case for this article being outdated and be removed altogether. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499809551913?cookieSet=1 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1536504217696082https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ Daedrich JJ flfmjg (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I would point out that nationality is a wholly human social construct. So perhaps we shouldn't say that AH was German? Anyway, "most historians believe he was heterosexual." implies "there is no conclusive evidence either way". Pincrete (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)