Talk:Adolf Hitler

An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Adolf or Adolph Hitler's Sexuality Was Hitler catholic?

Proposal

1. Because "Adolf Hitler"'s articles are so painstakingly long and enourmous full of incredible detail, (more than the George Washington article even) you end up with all this controversy.

I suggest that Adolf Hitler's articles be compressed with several sections and lone articles be completely removed. Wikipedia is not a textbook, it is not a biography book either. Let's keep this on the level of an article.

And this article alone has about 13,700 words. That is longer than some multi-chapter short stories!

In other words: keep it short, keep it simple. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for all the information you know because your mom told you so or from all the collection of books you have.

Take at least 40 seconds to think about people who use Wikipedia as guide source of information. Colonel Marksman 18:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The world pays far more attention to Hitler than to George Washington. There has been far more written in published sources about Hitler than George Washington. The greater coverage of Hitler on Wikipedia is a reflection of society's greater interest in Hitler. This is how it should be, it would be wrong if Wikipedia devoted the same amount of space to Washington and Hitler, if society devotes much more attention to Hitler than to Washington. Drogo Underburrow 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps so. Doesn't mean you can dump all the information you can into this article (or any article for that matter).
• How about I say everything plain and simple:

On this article, keep only the core importances (general information). Come on, this is an article, not a book, and the same for anything on Wikipedia. If we only keep core importances on only Hitler himself, then length wouldn't be an issue.

Don't tell me all the information here is of core importance.

Also, by keeping these core importances, you eliminate virtually all problems with POV'ing and all this minute small detail crap. (Except maybe the religion part of it) It is those core elements everyone can agree with anyway and can't argue.

The more information you want to add, the more dispute and controversy there may be about it. Might as well add the times he picked his nose when his officers were watching.

Yes, if there is far more interest in Adolf Hitler than George Washington, then there will be more core information, but that's not what I see. There are articles dedicated to his health or religous outlook.

• You're still as yet to counter anything I'm trying to say (you're using George Washington, fewer care for him argument to support yourself in defense which frankly is doing very little for you). I'm giving you principles to think about, and you still have not yet countered any of them or given me any reason to repeal my proposal or suggestions. If you want to argue with me, attack my core principles with reasons. Otherwise, I just keep coming still standing by what I say, the same for anyone else trying to argue something. Destroy their point and prove their thinking is wrong or falls short, and everything else goes down. Colonel Marksman 19:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's religious beliefs - factual accuracy dispute

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed. Just what is factually wrong with the text? Lets see if we can agree on that first, before tackling the harder question of the text's neutrality. Drogo Underburrow 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems that all those who were busy reverting the current version of this page continually through out the day before it was protected, have nothing to say. It seems that only Str77 has studied Hitler, and the rest of his supporters are just that; supporters, who don't know much about Hitler, but do know that whatever Str77 says, is what they support, and therefore they revert in his behalf. So I guess we have to wait for Str77 to state his objections, so that the rest of his crowd can then chime in, "me too!" if need be. - Drogo Underburrow 06:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well normally 2 or 3 editors can enforce their POV stance, as they would force any opponent to break 3RR or give up. This did not happen here. FWIW the now put to sleep text had included theolocical discussions which are not the scope of this article, but they were used to draw OR-conclusions. Personally I find it should simply say "raised catholic" - "did not go to mass in later years" - both verifyable and not disputed. But sadly some people wanted to tinker with that and infer certain conclusions. Agathoclea 07:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct. I also supsect Str1977 is looking to find something, anything, that he deems not accurate to support this tag.

I think the real objection is just about emphasis in content, and inclusion of original research stating his own conclusion of what the facts mean, according to his own understanding, instead simply reporting what the various writers actually say and know.

Also, there is a desire to make the section smaller and take away the MK quotes, as well as the mention of the nature of the Table Talk source, which he knows is the source of virtually all the anti-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler. Therefore, if anyone mentions the questionable reliablity of this source, it will have the effect of raising questoins for readres who based their belief that Hitler was not a Christian on such a source. And, this will thus undermine the POV they want to push. Giovanni33 07:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There never was an attempt on my part, Gio, to do away with the MK quotes, which you could finally provide with some references - we have an online edition linked, so it isn't that difficult) - I even included them as much as I could into "my" version. Also, it is not me who is spreading falsehoods about Table Talk - I acknowledge along with those writer I am proud to call my fellow historians that it has to be used with caution. But you want to stamp it as false, hearsay and also falsely claimed that all anti-Christian quotes come from there. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the Table Talk is not "the source of virtually all the ant-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler." You've got Goebbels and Speer, two rather significant figures. And Speer mentions being present when Bormann was eagerly writing down Hitler's anti-Christian statements, providing independent confirmation of at least some validity to the Table Talk. The article could reasonably draw on Goebbels and Speer, and leave the Table Talk out of it. A good article should draw on the best sources, not everything out there.

Second, if one insists on insisting on including the Table Talk criticism, why not also include statements that criticize reliance on Hitler's public statements? Hitler, after all, lied a lot in public. He knew the hold of the church on many Germans enough to realize that public attacks on the church were a bad idea from a propaganda standpoint, and he ordered some top Nazis to remain in the church even if they wanted to leave. So there could be a footnote insisting that any public statement by Hitler on religion has to be used with caution, since he lied a lot, and didn't want to upset the German Christian population by attacking the church. Now, this would seem to me to be silly, but no sillier than insisting that the article include criticism of a source that others are entirely willing to dispense with. Bytwerk 13:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bytwerk, where does it say in the article that Table Talk is "the source of virtually all the ant-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler."? I couldn't find that anywhere. Drogo Underburrow 14:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting Gio in the entry imemdiately above mine. Bytwerk 14:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you (Bytwerk) were addressing the topic of this section, not criticising Gio.

Why don't we have statements that criticize reliance on Hitler's public statements? Probably because none of the sources we have used say that. Perhaps you can look in Steigmann-Gall and find where he says that for us. I don't think that he ever said that, so why don't you give me a page number? But in any event, do you agree that the article is factually accurate? None of your criticism has been about factual errors. Drogo Underburrow 14:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious, but outside a very limited community of racists, Hitler is not well-liked. Therefore, few would want him associated with the groups that they are members of if they can possibly avoid it. The fact that Hitler was raised Catholic may then be seen as an embarassment to Christians in general and Catholics in specific. Therefore, whenever someone with strong Christian beliefs, particularly Catholic ones, makes edits that serve to make Hitler seem less Christian, there is a potential, if perhaps unconscious, ulterior motive. I say all this not to attack Christians by assuming bad faith but to prod Christians into looking into their own motives and considering whether their allegiance to their religion might possibly be biasing their judgement. For that matter, if Hitler did indeed become an atheist, this might be seen as an embarassment to atheists, so there's room for possible biases in more than one direction. Perhaps the article would be best off if we simply stated the few incontrovertible facts we have and left inferences to the reader. Al 14:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Ali, that Hitler was raised a Catholic is embarrassing for us Catholics but that is not the point as no one disputes that. It raises questions on how to best bring up a child (and believe me, the Catholic content was not the problem in Hitler's case). The contentious point here is that some are pushing the view that Hitler committed his crimes as a Catholic in order to blackwash the Church or Christianity in general. You are right, Ali, that we all should look into our preconceptions and biases - but that applies both to Christians and non-Christians/atheists. If Hitler were an atheists, you are right, that might be embarassing for them too, but and some are embarassed by such claims and wrote "atheist apologetics". I don't mean that in any derogative way as they are right to do that, to defend themselves against unjust accusations. But some are overdoing it by trying to make Hitler a Christian or a Catholic, as if there were only two alternatives. Such tactics have to be resisted too - somone who wants to read such anti-Christian polemics can visist websites another editor likes to link to frequently. As for the facts, I think we merely talked about facts before this section was created as a POV pushing rendition of the pro-Christian statements. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that explains why PETA doesn't use him as a poster-child. He was a vegetarian, loved animals, and was very concerned for their welfare. He opposed women using cosmetics, I hear, because of animal-testing. He made fun of people calling them carrion-eaters. I am getting off topic here, I apologise. I guess I'm getting bored waiting for Str77 or even Bytwerk to acknowledge that the article is factually accurate, so we can move on to the harder part of agreeing that it is NPOV. Drogo Underburrow 14:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Hitler was also strongly anti-pornography (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/peopleevents/pandeAMEX87.html), and yet he is not a poster child for either the right- or left-wing groups that oppose porn. Although, as Marge Simpson said, "There's no shame in being a pariah", it sure looks like Hitler is a hot potato that nobody wants to be stuck with. Al 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess they won't approve the slogan "Hitler hated porn". Drogo Underburrow 19:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Their loss. For that matter, Hitler hated homosexuality, too, which not only has the benefit of alliteration, but it's more politically cohesive. Al 00:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that I've got a stack of papers to read at the end of the semester, I'm not paying a lot of attention to Wikipedia at the moment. But to keep DU happy, here's a nicely sourced quotation on Hitler's dissembling views on religion:

"[T]he overwhelmingly Christian character of the German people meant that Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty, and distanced himself from the radically irreligious within his own Party, even though his own views were probably more extreme.... In reality, his views were a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzschean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-clericalism."

The source: Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History (New York: Hill and Wang, 2000). p. 717. Bytwerk 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is a good source, although the author is partial to the Catholic Church, we should include his view. In a review of the book here,[1], does make th e point that, "In one of the more striking quotes in the book, one that Hoffer would have noted, Burleigh cites Hitler favorably discussing Roman Catholicism: Be assured, we too put faith in the first place and not cognition. One has to be able to believe in a cause. Only faith creates a state. What motivates people to go and do battle and die for religious ideas? Not cognition, but blind faith." Burleigh, is one who advances the idea of Nazism as a Political Religion. Another review here that makes this point:[2] Giovanni33 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio, only that your reviewer's call is missing the mark. In the quote Hitler is not discussing RC, let alon favourably - he doesn't touch upon any core teaching of Christianity or even Catholicism. I guess this is what Burleigh meant by his reference to "secondary values". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you decide to insert this quote in the article, you have my support based on my trust in you that you have quoted it correctly (which is why I made such a big thing about that issue awhile back) and that you have chosen a good source. Now, this next issue won't take you much time; just point out where in the Hitler article religious section there is a a factual error. If you can't find one, please acknowledge that it looks factually correct to you. This will help resolve the dispute, our mission is to get rid of that tag, and get the block off, right? - Drogo Underburrow 15:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In its current state, I don't find any factual errors -- but the issue is a little more complicated than that. Let's say that I did an exhaustive study of DU, and found all the bad things he'd ever done. I could then put these into an essay that presented him as a highly unpleasant human being, the facts of which would be unassailable, but DU might still reasonably argue that, although the "facts" were accurate, the way they were presented led the reader to false conclusions. Bytwerk 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Some factual inaccuracies have indeed been removed but some are remaining (see next section). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have issues with the article. Its important to narrow down the issues so we can deal with them. Right now the tag says that the article is factually disputed. I'm trying to get rid of that part of the tag, so it will only say that there is an NPOV dispute. What you don't like is an NPOV issue, its using facts to mislead, in your opinion. That is an NPOV problem only. Since you agree that there are no factual errors, if we can get a few more editors to also agree, we can move forward in dispute resolution a small step by getting rid of the "factual error" tag. Drogo Underburrow 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If any editor believes there is a factual error in the religious section, please speak up. Drogo Underburrow 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to hear what Str1977 has to say before I change that tag to a NPOV-only dispute. It might well be that Str1977 would agree to the change but I'd like that input before proceeding. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I simply got tired of waiting for Str77. He found time to revert three times a day, and he has been editing other articles, but he hasn't posted here. I think the main issue here, like Bytwerk says, is not over facts, but over the selection of facts and what that selection implies, which is an NPOV dispute. I"m trying to narrow down the dispute to make it easier to solve. Drogo Underburrow 18:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What I would encourage is that you guys who actually know the topic (as opposed to people like myself who are unable to see much difference between the two versions of the paragraph! :-P) continue attempting to achieve a concensus, and leave dealing with the neutrality tags to me. If you can achieve a concensus quicker by not debating the tags then they can get removed quicker! I will in the meantime discuss the tags with other editors. This is only a suggestion... don't see it as a command or anything. :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There's not much we can do if one side won't show up. Bytwerk is busy reading papers; He doesn't have time to make more than a few comments here and there is my impression. He also didn't edit war , so his role in the dispute was minimal, though he does have an opinion about the article and strongly prefers the other version I think. Str77 is basically the only other player, so to speak, on the opposing team. AnnH (Musical Linguist]] admits she knows little about Hitler (she has said on this talk page, "I've never read a book about Hitler".); she simply backs up Str1977 always, reverting to whatever he writes. Others are only casual participants. As you can see, while they did a lot of reverting, in support of Str1977, they have nothing to say; I expect Str1977 to be the only voice on the "other team" aside from occasional comments. - Drogo Underburrow 19:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is the problem with "meat-puppetry." Giovanni33 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you point with your finger on others, there are always three poiting back to you. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you see meatpuppetry as a problem, Gio. You didn't see it as a problem when you pretended to have no connection to BelindaGong, whose account existed for the purpose of reverting to your version, and supporting you (with votes) on talk pages, and who was shown by a usercheck to be editing from the same IP. You didn't see it as a problem when you denied (while forgetting that you were logged on as Freethinker99) having any connection to Freethinker99,[3] whose first edit was a support for you while you were blocked for puppetry, and whose second edit was a revert to your version. You don't see it as a problem with MikaM, who has about 32 reverts to your version out of 40 article edits, and you don't see it as a problem with Kecik, who has 33 reverts to your version out of 36 article edits. Most editors in your position would be a little embarrassed to make the remark you made.

To Drogo, it is disappointing that you are still making personal remarks about me on the talk page, while ignoring the wrongdoing of others. You started off by drawing attention to the fact that I claim to be obedient to the Pope, as if that automatically disqualified me from being able to edit this article legitimately. It made no difference to you that Giovanni, who proves by his edits that his main purpose on Wikipedia is in undermining Christianity, and who makes long posts about how Christianity is like believing that the moon is made of cheese, has an anti-Christian agenda. Call on others to revert the Catholic because she's a Catholic, but don't bother to say that an editor is anti-Christian, because that's off topic here. You criticize Catholics for reverting, but it doesn't matter to you that you, Alienus, Giovanni, Mika, Kecik, and Agathoclea revert. If you're not a Catholic, you're allowed to revert. You come to my page and to Str1977's to complain about use of edit summaries to carry on a conversation, but it doesn't matter to you that you and particularly Giovanni (plus Mika, Kecik, etc.) do the same, or that Alienus even referred to another editor's genitals in an edit summary. You complain about Catholics who revert before they come to the talk page (even Str1977 who contributes very thoroughly to the talk page), but it doesn't bother you that Alienus did the same, and that Kecik almost invariably does that. You stretch the policy of original research to the extent that you won't allow the standard dictionary definition of "practising Catholic" to be used, but you introduce edits that actually state as a fact what Hitler personally felt (not what he said he felt).[4]

I have already stated that I do not and will not revert to Str1977 for the sake of reverting to him, just because I like him (although I do). I did not revert to his "totalitarian", as I have no knowledge of the nazi regime. I do note, however, that Mika and Kecik, both reverted to Giovanni's "fascist", having followed him here from the Christianity article (and other articles) to give him extra support. (Oh sorry, I forgot, they're not Catholic, so their reverts are not relevant to this page.) As I have said before, I had no knowledge of Str1977's existence before I joined Wikipedia; nor had he any knowledge of mine. We live in different countries. I did not know his name until I had been here for seven months. He edits many articles that I don't touch. I edit (and vote at) many pages that he never comes near. My last two hundred edits contain two reverts to his version, and one support for his version on a talk page. See how that compares with MikaM and Kecik. In fact, my last two hundred edits have only two reverts other than administrative rollbacks which are not based on content dispute, and which involve articles in which I have no interest. Except that the edit warring, puppetry, personal attacks, etc. from non-Catholics are not relevant in your view, it would be interesting to count the reverts in the last two hundred edits of those who support your version.

Regarding my "no knowledge" of Hitler, I am not a historian; I am a qualified linguist, experienced in analysing text for meaning. I originally put this page on my watchlist because of the high amount of vandalism, rather than out of any particular interest. I know what "practising Catholic" means, except when people with an agenda try to redefine it. If you mention an author who claims that Hitler went to Mass every Sunday, I will not be in a position to reject it. I am, very much, in a position to reject the eccentric, original-research, and POV-pushing idea that someone who never went to Mass as an adult, was in some way still a practising Catholic. As far as having nothing to say other than support for Str1977 goes, that is a rather cheap shot, all the cheaper as you direct it only at me, while ignoring Kecik; it is also untrue, as I have provided arguments at length about the meaning of "practising Catholic", including the Oxford English Dictionary definition, and references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law. I am also, as a linguist (but even more, as an ordinary, intelligent editor) quite qualified to notice that when the quotations that support one POV are put in block quotes, and the quotations that support the other POV are simply inserted into the middle of the paragraph, that that is not respecting neutrality.

Finally, one reason why I did not contribute yesterday is that I was quite discouraged by the unjusified attacks and personal remarks, which are all the more disgraceful when we recall that remarks made about the other side are constantly criticized. AnnH ♫ 12:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, talk about an over-reaction and a violation of civility (from an admin no less!). Ofcoruse, I won't respond to this at lengh to refute it, as it is just another major distraction from this article, but I will say that the attack above is indicative of extreme defensiveness (getting too close to the truth?). Strategic weakness + fear = extreme visciousness. To lash out like this is counter-productive. I just advise you to cool down, remain calm and level headed and realize that we all have legitimate perceptions of the same reaslity, but lets try to stick to the issue and not get sid-tracked into launching such personal attacks against other editors personal motivations, etc (which you may sincerely believe, but which I don't think is true at all). No one here is tyring to "attack Christianity." No one has that agenda. If telling the truth and being honest is 'attacking Christianity" that says more about your view of Christianity, than anything else. On wikipedia, it advised users not to write about thinks In anycase, there is no need to launch into a full attack and bring up everything you can from the distant past, when its not relevant, along with bad faith interpretations and conclusions. Just maybe it is possible that others can disagree with your POV? I read somewhere in the Wikiguidlines that when dealing with a subject you are too close to yourself it can affect your ability to recognize your bias your overly emotional committment to it will cause you to be overly defensive. I think this is a classic case of this happenening.Giovanni33 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Civil1 Al 12:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Desist from advising those that don't need to be. There's not even a splinter in Ann's eyes, so "Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling". Thanks! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply here to AnnH's (Musical Linguist)'s complaints. It would serve only to further distract the page from the issue of Hitler. Such discussion belongs on her talk page, or mine. I am forced, on further thought, to point out one thing, then I'll try to refrain from further discussion of it here. This is what I wrote:

AnnH (Musical Linguist]] admits she knows little about Hitler (she has said on this talk page, "I've never read a book about Hitler".); she simply backs up Str1977 always, reverting to whatever he writes.

And she replied with a tirade. "The lady doth protest too much, me thinks." Drogo Underburrow 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil to a Socratic, Protagoras. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's religious beliefs - NPOV and factual dispute

I put my objections here since above is already crammed:

• ommission of the (should be uncontroversial) fact that such an upbringing was common in Upper Austria. Confirmed by both Kershaw and Rissmann taht there was nothing special in Hitler’s upbringing.
• Stylistically I also object to saying „by his RC parents“ – if he’s brought up a RC it is understood that his parents are RC and the stance of the two are covered in depth in the following sentence.
• deletion of the influence of pan-german thinking and Darwinism – might not be universally accepted (though no contradictory voice has been given) but because of that I have already disclaimed by “According to Rissmann”
• deletion of the fact (again, not contradicted by anyone) that Hitler didn’t have any religious or Christian or Catholic practice after he left home. No contradictory voice is given, hence it may count as undisputed. The factual reference is replaced by a weasel “a boyhood friend never saw him” – there is more than just one boyhood friend and that friend didn’t say that he never saw him go to Mass but that he never went to Mass and that he stated he “would not be forced into Church”, which is quite a different matter. (so Factual Accuracy is concerned, below abbreviated as FACT)
• Refusal to accept the general and standard definition of what a “pracitising Catholic” constitutes. The “confirmation event” is raised to unwarranted prominence (it was an event where his rebellion became obvious, not the cause of the rebellion).
• The misusing of Kershaw does not appear in the current version, so I won’t repeat my objections (noted above) which however remain valid. (This would have been a factual dispute.)
• Though I agree with him I don’t like the characterization of Chadwick as eminent. In general I object to such classification of sources and authorities unless absolutely necessary. I especially object to them when they are false and weasely (see Toland below)
• POV pushing by using a blockquote for Hitler’s pro-Christian statements.
• I prefer adding a year to Hitler’s “always a Catholic” statement – other utterances are dated as well and especially in this case it is important when he said it. We shouldn’t attribute prophetic qualities to Hitler – he couldn’t make a valid statement about what he will “always” be, if he was speaking in earnest.
• I protest against (re-)moving the factual reference of Hitler never ending his church membership and what Speer (referenced and disclaimed by “according to…”) had to say about that. – in the current version it is included much further down, hanging “in the air”.
• I protest against the inclusion of the sentence: “Though Hitler spoke against traditional Christianity in general, he in fact may have been referring to Catholicism, according to Steigmann-Gall.“ – yes, it is referenced but is also utter bullocks, turning words around in Hitler’s mouth and in St-G’s is nothing more than a speculation
• I also reject the following: “In any event, "No matter how much he vituperated against Christianity or the churches, Hitler gave no indication that he was now agnostic or atheistic: He displayed a continued attachment to a belief in God." – The „in any event“ is a unwarranted endorsement. The info warrant inclusion but IMHO should be included at a better place.
• “As some branches of liberal Protestantism also had similar views,“ – I always preferred „As Protestantism was more open to such reinterpretations“, as it is problematic to associate liberal Protestantism in general (even if we say some branches) with the unclear „similar views“ (what views exactly?). No one will suspect me of POV pushing on this as I am quite openly not a liberal Protestant. I tried to use a compromise version which included the substance of both, but it just got reverted.
• I object to calling John Toland (which is still linked wrongly) “notable Hitler biographer“, as it is a POV endorsement of him (see above) and also wrong. Kershaw would fit that description, even the now dated Bullock (though I’d still object)
• I also object to the inclusion of Toland’s claim that Hitler was “Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy“, as it is misleading given the facts of the matter. We have already stated (in either version) that Hitler didn’t leave the church but how good his standing was is quite another matter. (FACT)
• I do not object to the mentioning of the „deicide“ issue and have included it in my version (though it might be better suited in the Anti-semitism section)
• I reject the inclusion of the Lewy quote as it is based on Hitler’s Reichstag speech we already have quoted above. No need to include it twice.
• "According to historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, much is known about Hitler's views on religion through Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.“ Introduces a whole section of problematic bits. What follows is quotes from Mein Kampf (still unreferenced) which are useful to include. However, this all needs to be integrated into the text (as my version did). Note that this is no section of retelling Mein Kampf or retelling Steinmann-Gall but one devoted to actually giving information about Hitler’s religion. Hence editorial notes explaining how Hitler used this word hat word are out of place.
• „He also states his belief that the Aryan race was created by God,“ is nonsense, even more so if Hitler were a Christian, since of course the other races would fit in there too. If anything in this direction is notable it is Hitler’s belief about the JEws.
• „Refering to God as the "Lord of Creation" and the necessity of obeying "His" will, show Hitler's Christian thinking“ is also nonsense, as these words contain no particular Christian wordings – a Jew, a Muslim, a Deist could have said the same thing. (FACT)
• The following paragraph is completely sinking to the level of being a table of contents fort he Steinmann book: „Elsewhere in Mein Kampf, he says, Hitler makes references to Jesus. Other sources also show Hitler's Christian thinking, according to Steigmann-Gall. He notes an unpublished manuscript where Hitler sketched out his world-view, and he gives as an example a speech on April 1922 where Hitler said that Jesus was "the true God". Finally, Steigmann-Gall gives another example where in a private Nazi meeting Hitler again stated the centrality of Jesus' teachings to the Nazi movement.“
• „Hitler's religious beliefs demonstrated the anti-Semitic view that Jesus was an Aryan rather than a Jew“ is both claiming something that hasn’t been demonstrated and also including a highly questionable characterisation: I think to make Jesus an Aryan is both factually wrong and against the core of Christianity (if not Jew, then no Messiah), hence anti-Christian, I can see that it is motivated by anti-Semitism but I can’t see that the view itself is anti-semitic. Anyway, the paragraph adds nothing substantial to the section.
• The text says that „Hitler writes of his Christian influence on his view of Jews“, but the following quote does not warrant such an introduction, as Hitler does not write on this Christian influence (the text of course implies against NPOV that there are such influences. The quote is an example of the reinterpretation of Jesus as an anti-Jewish hero and of the reinterpretation of the crucifixion, ridding it of any redemptive value. (FACT)

As I said, there are in the “Gio/Drogo version” various instances of an unfinished text and I went all the way last week trying to include the Mein Kampf quotes into the text where it fitted best IMHO. My work simply got reverted.

It contains various violations of NPOV by endorsing certain statements, stating things as facts that are highly debatable or even outright false, putting things into question that are undisputed, rewriting to play down unsuitable facts, highlighting a certain point via technical edits (block quotes) and by repeating it over and over again.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Str1977's objections

Objection 1

• ommission of the (should be uncontroversial) fact that such an upbringing was common in Upper Austria. Confirmed by both Kershaw and Rissmann taht there was nothing special in Hitler’s upbringing.

- Agreed. This is indeed uncontroversial, and I doubt if anyone has any strong objection to it being said. Str77 never tried to insert this statement, if he had, I doubt if anyone would have deleted it. What people objected to was his reverting the entire section to his preferred version. - Drogo Underburrow 20:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not strongly object but I question the need to include what others in the area believe as being relevant to Hitler. Far more relevant is the beliefs that young Adolf was raised with, in particular those who rasied him---his parents beliefs, which by all accounts was sincere and devout, strict, even. It seems the purpose of emphasising "nothing special" serves to undermine the sincereity of the fact that Hitler was raised a fully practicing Catholic, as it pushes the idea that his family was just following the norm, since that was what everyone else did. That is like if a Christian professes their Christianity, and then we comment, "but ofcourse he is a Christian---people are rasied Christian in that areas where he comes from." It acts as a dismissive remark to the beliefs held by the person professing, and is not really relevant to their beliefs. So what if it was common to be rasied a Christian in the area---that is not important. What is important, in this regard, is how the individual in question is rasied--not how others in the area are. But, I wonder, did the majority of children in the area become a choir boy, and be as involved in the Church to the degreee that Hitler's parents had him involved--to the extent that Hitler himself considered joining the clergy himself? I think while most were Catholic, his mother is noted for being an esp. devout one. Giovanni33 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Giovanni33's comments. I have no objection to saying that Hitler grew up in a Catholic area. I object strongly when this fact is then used to claim that this covers the entire matter and there is no need to discuss Hitler's family specifically. See my comments about objection 2. Drogo Underburrow 21:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gio and Drogo, above.MikaM 04:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mika can do no more than agree with Gio since … Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no such claim, Drogo. Very many boys sang in the choir, though that feat probably was the most exclusive in Hitler's upbringing. There was nothing special in his upbringing is the consensus of historians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 2

• Stylistically I also object to saying „by his RC parents“ – if he’s brought up a RC it is understood that his parents are RC and the stance of the two are covered in depth in the following sentence.

- So you want it said that he was brought up in a Roman Catholic area, but you don't want it said that his parents where Roman Catholic? That is illogical, and plain arbitrary. Its more important to state what a person's parents believe, than what people in the area where he was brought up believe, as the primary determining factor in what a person believes as a child, is what his parents tell him. Perhaps this is why you object, you don't want people to infer that at any time in his life, Hitler himself was a devout Catholic? Hmmm...perhaps this is why you and AnnH also were so adamantly opposing describing Klara as "devout" herself, even though that is how the sources describe her.Drogo Underburrow 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The objection is stylistic (which is exactly what he said) because it's repeating effectively the same information twice. DJ Clayworth 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Stating that Hitler's mother was devout is not saying the same information as that people in the same area were generally Catholic. Both need to be said but especially the latter, as its the most important fact about Hitler's religious upbringing. Hitler was particularly devoted to his mother. Drogo Underburrow 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

We are already in the situation where the section on Hitler's religious beliefs are bigger than the section on the Holocaust. Not everything needs to be said here. It's already been said that there was nothing special about Hitler's upbringing in this regard. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Poppycock. If you want to delete material, delete the statement that Hitler grew up in a Catholic area, and simply state that he was raised by a devout Catholic mother, as that is the most important element in his religious upbringing. His father was a distant father, literally, and wasn't even home at times when Hitler was a young child. For example, he was gone for an entire year at one point.Drogo Underburrow 21:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Drogo's remarks. See my comments above. How Hitler was rasied and the beliefs of those who directly raised him and had direct influence on his beliefs and upbringing is far more important than what others beleived in the area (which, if anything needs to be left out for size considerations, it's that).Giovanni33 21:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gio and Drogo, above.MikaM 04:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mika can do no more than agree with Gio since … Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a stylistic objection. If the section is too long, as DJ said (which is a valid objection to sensible editors), the first thing we should delete is repeated stuff. The current version basically says three times that AH's parents were Catholic: first it is implied by his RC upbringing, second it is mentioned excplicitely, and third the stances of both parents are given individually. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GETTING DJ'S POINT! He's not asking you to remove the section, he's asking you to size it down. You detail this far too much. Once again, think about the readers. They know Hitler and stamp the Holocaust on him, and know him by it. They don't think about who he was raised by and how... he wasn't known for how and who raised him. He's famous for his involvement in WW2, a dictator over Germany, the Holocaust, Blitzkrieg tatcics, etc.
• I'm not asking you to delete the section. What you said was just fine. Everything you said (Drogo) should be in the article... BUT NOT IN GREAT DETAIL. Take whole sections and make them into one paragraph.
• Gio is correct too. Delete repeated things, but don't detail anything. It's not necessary. It is an article after all.
• And as for the three of you (Str, Gio, and Drogo), none of you are yet to sit for 40 seconds and think about the people using Wikipedia as a source or simply drop by for something interesting.
• Just eliminate the details, POV, repeats, and you have your core of information. That's all.
• The best articles made anywhere have an overview in the beginning (a single paragraph that puts each important point in an organized fashion). Look at the first 1-2 paragraphs. Now, use that as your outline. If you don't like it, change it, and see how long your introduction is. If you can't do that, you're not writing an aricle. If you're not writing an article, go write a book of collective thoughts and sell it, but don't dump them here. Colonel Marksman 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Colonel, I basically agree with what you are saying. I also think “my” version, as it oringally stood, was at the same time NPOV, factual, informative and also readable, before it got compromised and still reverted by misinterpretation of WP policy and a POV agenda. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 3

• deletion of the influence of pan-german thinking and Darwinism – might not be universally accepted (though no contradictory voice has been given) but because of that I have already disclaimed by “According to Rissmann”

- Pan-Germanism has nothing to do with Hitler's religious beliefs. If you document the sentence with a footnote to a direct quote from Rissmann that Hitler was influenced by social Darwinism, and include “According to Rissmann” in the text of the article, I have no objection. Drogo Underburrow 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. After briefly reviewing Social Darwinism, I don't see anything about religion. So this too has no place in the section on Hitler's religious beliefs, but belongs in the section on his political beliefs. Drogo Underburrow 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hitler was influenced by pan-german thinking and social dwarinism (Not real Darwinism!), but this is about his nationalist and racist ideology, part of his fascism, and in particular Nazism (as well as imperialism)--not his religious beliefs so it does not belong in this section. Hitler did inflused these ideas into his Christianity, using the latter as a basic framework, and borrowing Christian ideas that are shared with Nazism as a political religion (blind faith, no questions, emotion not reason, etc), and his nationalist, racist ideas are mixed in his interpretation of Christianity--but that is already make clear in the MK quotes Str1977 keeps taking out. They show Hitler's Christian thinking as it is infused in his racist beliefs (that Jesus was not a Jew, but an Aryan, for example). Social Dwarinsim is not Hitler's religion, and so your wanting to including it correctly opposed as inflating the section and distracting from the subject it should be focused on.Giovanni33 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First a note: my first version had "social darwinism" (SD), which was wrong. Rissmann talks about Darwinism in general. SD was of course part of the parcel but the main way this influence worked that Hitler couldn't reconcile the Genesis account with the findings of Darwin's theory of evolution. I don't think such a thought should be foreign to you, Gio. So Hitler felt a contradiction which result in him doubting both the Bible and the Church and this doubt of course is essential for his further views.

Unfortunaltey, Gio, you cannot help exposing either your hate of or your ignorance about Christianity by labeling as Christian things that are not elements of Christianity let alone specifically Christian ones): "blind faith, no questions, emotion not reason". And, since you haven't yet understood, if Jesus is not a Jew, he is not the Messiah. So your reiteration of this makes clear what Hitler wasn't. It is also a violation of RC doctrine and hence Hitler wasn't a Catholic.

I am not taking out the unreferenced MK quotes (I only integrated them into the text). No one claims that SD was Hitler's religion, I am only saying that Darwinism played an important role in his intellectual development. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems I'm more familiar with the nature of your own religion than you are. You claim these things are not elements of Christianity, which is interting since they clearly are. I don't want to distract from the purpose of this talk page by proving to you that at its core it is about blind faith, irrationality, emotion not reason, and not to question, etc. There are lots of quotes that show this, including from leaders within the Catholic Church who demand this. That is easily done, if you insist, on your own personal page. But, Hitler certainly recognized these elements of Christianity and happily used them as means to further control and manipulate his religious followers, by incorporating and emphasising these religious practices into his politics. This is not just me saying this, but the historian Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2000). In a review of the book here,[5], the point is made: "In one of the more striking quotes in the book, one that Hoffer would have noted, Burleigh cites Hitler favorably discussing Roman Catholicism: "Be assured, we too put faith in the first place and not cognition. One has to be able to believe in a cause. Only faith creates a state. What motivates people to go and do battle and die for religious ideas? Not cognition, but blind faith." Burleigh argued Nazism as a political religion:[6]

Your view of Hitlers version of Christianity, to you, means he was not a Catholic, but again that is your opinion. Others disagree. I would agree he certainly was not Orthodox, but instead of either of us trying to say what we think he is, I say let the sources and fact they report speak for themselves. This is not only the way to solve the dispute here but its the policy of Wikipedia that requires it. Finally Darwinism may have played a role in Hitlers thinking, this section should only focus on his religious views. Giovanni33 20:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio, not all “my opinion” – the Catholic Church defines what belonging to her requires and if someone doesn’t live up to that he cannot be counted as a practising Catholic. It is as simple as that and no “opinion” on my part involved. You are also misrepresenting your stance in the debate as you are far from restricting yourself to the sources (if such a thing were actually possible). Regarding the “focus on his religious views” I generally agree but … you have come to this position rather recently since you opposed it when I objected to your inclusion of “merely anti-semitic issues”. Now, that a part of your belief system (judging from the Gould quote) is affected you change your mind. However, Darwinism played a part in Hitler’s intellectual biography (leading to his rejection of the faith) and also played a large role (through Social Darwinism) throughout his life – even in the bunker he talked about how the German race had failed to succeed in the “fight for life” and hence should now perish. But we can always improve on the wording. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gio and Drogo, above.MikaM 04:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mika can do no more than agree with Gio since … Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio probably ought to read Burleigh's book rather than depending on reviews. The quotation from Burleigh's book (p. 100) does not say that he favorably discussed Roman Catholicism, rather than he admired certain characteristics of Catholicism --blind obedience, dogmatism, and fanaticism. However, Hitler wanted those three things in service of himself, not the Roman Catholic Church. Hitler was catholic (small "c") in his willingness to adopt strategies of persuasion. He even admires Marxist propaganda in Mein Kampf, though that probably doesn't make him a Marxist. Bytwerk 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically my understanding, as well. We don't really disagree: Hitler admired and used certain elements of Catholicism for political reasons, and he did detest other aspects for political reasons as well. But this is not unique in the history of Christianity or Catholicism. The Emperor Constantine fashioned central religious ideas and doctrines and rejected other doctrines for political reasons, as well---in merging the Roman Empire with the Church in a devine union, with Constantine as a new "Moses." Hitler is no different in this respect. He wanted to mold the Church and change it to suit his political needs of empire, and control.Giovanni33 05:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Gio, you have stated here that Hitler wasn’t a Catholic since “he did detest other aspects” – if you reject an aspect of Catholicism you are not a Catholic, even more so if you even “detest” it. Quite apart from the fact that the things he rejected/detested are the core of the faith while the other elements are merely matters of form or not even elements of Catholicism at all (e.g. your favourite “blind obedience”). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 4

• deletion of the fact (again, not contradicted by anyone) that Hitler didn’t have any religious or Christian or Catholic practice after he left home. No contradictory voice is given, hence it may count as undisputed. The factual reference is replaced by a weasel “a boyhood friend never saw him” – there is more than just one boyhood friend and that friend didn’t say that he never saw him go to Mass but that he never went to Mass and that he stated he “would not be forced into Church”, which is quite a different matter. (so Factual Accuracy is concerned, below abbreviated as FACT)

Stick to reporting what sources actually say, and don't put words in their mouths. a boyhood friend never saw him isn't being weaselly, quite the opposite, its reporting what the source said, and not going beyond that and making up conclusions he didn't say. Drogo Underburrow 21:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Str, you say that "Hitler didn’t have any religious or Christian or Catholic practice after he left home" and state that as a fact. No--that is your opinion, and I certainly disagree with that POV. To me Hitler certainly did have some religious and Christian practice after he left home. There is evidence he want to Chruch. There is a photograph showing him leaving a Church. He prayed in public. Is that not a religious practice? The problem is that you want to include your own non-notable opinion and state it as a fact, which is not established. We are not allowed to do that. We are only allowed to report what sources said, including characterizing arguments, if reputable and notable sources make them. This article can not be allowed to stated what Str1977 believes and state it as a fact. That is why it was correctly deleted, and in its place we have the actual known facts as reported, which you use to base your original research and conclusion. Let other readers think for themselves and make their own assessment of what these facts mean. We don't need you do interpret it for them (esp. if you are wrong, which I think you are).Giovanni33 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gio and Drogo, above.MikaM 04:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mika can do no more than agree with Gio since … Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio, it is you who wants to state your opinion as a fact, in order to malign Christianity. Now, what I stated above was clearly referring to the time after he had left home: his only (and last) Mass was his mother's requiem. Anyway, don't confuse my arguments with what I actually want to include into the article!

So Hitler left a church later? Yes, when he was already in power! So no telling what that meant for him! How many times did he attend church? How many occasions were weddings and funerals? And most importantly, where these churches/services Catholic? So nothing you said changes the fact that Hitler had no Catholic practice of any sort.

Ah, and Drogo, I did include only what my source said in my last overhaul. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Gio, I'm sorry, but that didn't make any sense at all. Re-read what you wrote.

• FACT 1: "Hitler practiced Catholism after he left home."
• FACT 2: "Hitler did not practice Catholsim after he left home."

Which of these is right? You can't say either one is POV. POV is opinion. You just said one of these is opinion. Either he did or didn't. Maybe we don't know, and maybe differing historians believe differently, or uninformed persons might not know. Apparently, someone has some sources. Colonel Marksman 17:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is an opinion still because it involves ones notion of what it takes to be labeled definitively a "practicing" or "not practicing" Catholic. If we stuck to the facts only, we would only state which actions Hitler took or did not take, according to sources. We have that info, but that is not good enough for Str. He wants to sum it up with the label for the readers, which is where the original research (and opinion) comes into play. There is not always a clear line between fact and opinion. Different people can look at the same set of facts and disagree regarding the imposition of such a label, just like many Catholics can regard themselves as practicing Christians even though they don't attend Mass anymore. There are many ways to practice, and not to practice in some ways does not necessarily make one "non-practicing" in an aboslute way, as is implied. I know there are different sects within the Catholic Church, and some such as Opus Dei, which do require regular mass attendence, sizable money contributions from your regular paycheck, and other obligations in order to be a practicing member. Ohters are less strict, less demanding. If we have a source that says Hitler "did not practice Catholicism" after he left home, then we can put that in as a fact as long as we properly attribute the source.Giovanni33 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gio and Drogo, above.MikaM 04:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mika can do no more than agree with Gio since …

Gio, that is what an encyclopedia is all about: summing up facts. Otherwise we would not need any policies. Also, you clearly have no clue about history – not only because all your remarks (here or otherwise) betray it but because you want to only state the facts – that is impossible. But in fact you don’t even want to do that as you want to hide the facts unpleasant to you. Hitler, after leaving home, had no religious life in the Catholic sense and attended Church only for his mother’s burial. That is a fact and not a matter of opinion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 5

• Refusal to accept the general and standard definition of what a “pracitising Catholic” constitutes. The “confirmation event” is raised to unwarranted prominence (it was an event where his rebellion became obvious, not the cause of the rebellion).

The refusal is a refusal to allow you to engage in original research and state that Hitler was not a practising Catholic, giving no source, or a refusal to allow you to put words in source's mouths. If a source said this, specifically, then quote it. Otherwise, desist. But do not give us your interpretation of what sources meant, and then say they said it; instead show us where they actually said it. Drogo Underburrow 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Drogo. Str, if you have a source that says this, then by all means include it. However, you have no such source. It is your POV, which is fine but should not be included in the article. Be happy with the facts as they are known and reported by various sources qualified in this subject matter. You are not allowed to connect the dots and state your own conclusion about the meaning of the facts, esp. when its not clear to me and other editors that your conclusion is valid. As I've said before "not practicing" suggestings a complete abandonment of any and all forms of practice, which we know is not true. Your synthesizing of the facts constitutes original research.Giovanni33 23:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gio and Drogo, above.MikaM 04:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mika can do no more than agree with Gio since … Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have included this source, if you would care to listen. Also, Gio, we don't know that isn't true - in fact all our evidence supports what I wrote: that Hitler ceased to practice the Catholic faith. But maybe you still think, Gio, that saying "Lord" and "Christ" makes one a Catholic. Well, it doesn't. Note that we are talking about "Catholic" and not merely "Christian" or "religious". I know, atheist controversialist have often a hard time seeing such an easy distinction. Not offense, but it is IMHO a sort of illiteracy. But it cannot be the basis for a WP article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Drogo, Gio, and Str, I agree fully with all of you. What happened here is that all 3 of you are talking about 2 different things.
• Listen to what people have to say and then counter it. Str, you didn't do anything to defend yourself. All you did was bring up a different topic only loosly related here.
• If I have this right, Drogo and Gio are concerned over CITING RELIABLE SOURCES (don't look something up yourself and come back to the article and state it, actually post what they said). Str is concerned over STAYING NEUTRAL W/OUT ATTACKING CHRISTIANITY. This is why I agree with both core arguements.
• Now then, if we cite a reliable source (one without interpretations, just the plain simple facts), everyone is happy and correct, and no need for detailed annaylis of how this was in great effect. Colonel Marksman 17:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel, I don’t know whether I have addressed what the two “gentlemen” here talked about or not but what they have done is simply deny the truth of the matter, including the one that there wasn’t any source provided. AnnH provided a dictionary and the catechism, I provided Rissmann who basically says the same (you read a quoted and translated portion in the archives). So we have reliable sources, but Drogo wants to stretch the OR policy to absurd extremes (while turning a blind eye to actual OR violations) while Gio simply holds “what ought not be, cannot be”. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dormant Objection

• The misusing of Kershaw does not appear in the current version, so I won’t repeat my objections (noted above) which however remain valid. (This would have been a factual dispute.)

This is not an objection of the current version, hence the point is moot, and why bring it up? (This does not imply agreement that Kershaw was ever "misused".) Drogo Underburrow 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not do the numbering. This is no objection right now but it used to be one. If you don't bring it up again, we don't need to deel with it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 6

• Though I agree with him I don’t like the characterization of Chadwick as eminent. In general I object to such classification of sources and authorities unless absolutely necessary. I especially object to them when they are false and weasely (see Toland below)

If you want "eminent" deleted, I have no objection. However, I believe that giving the reader a clue as to who sources are, is helpful. Otherwise, the reader may ask, "Chadwick? Who is Chadwick? I never heard of him." But I'm not going to fight with you about it. Drogo Underburrow 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As I argued above, I don't think we should use Chadwick. He is not an expert on the history of Nazi Germany or of Hitler. The book that is cited it not the most scholarly source. We should strive only to use best sources. Also, what he really says (now that it has been corrected) is a bit of out place and is a bit redandant. Toland, on the other hand, is notable for his work on specifically on Hitler, so his use is fine.Giovanni33 23:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to such qualifiers in principle, if there is any controversy regarding its accuracy or regarding the referenced view. Not that a "eminent" scholar cannot hold a valid opinion in a controversy but the danger is too great to use this as a POV endorsing trick. This I want to preempt.

PS. Of course, this also holds true for Toland, who some claim to be notable. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• So then it's agreed. No Chadwick. Not reliable enough. There's no arguement here, just 4 "I accept"'s. Colonel Marksman 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not agreed. I don’t think we need Chadwick but he is reliable enough. I object to the labelling of historians, especially when not justified. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 7

• POV pushing by using a blockquote for Hitler’s pro-Christian statements.

Not all quotes. The block quotes are used only for size. There are some pro-Christian statements where I removed the block quotes from. The block quotes exist for larger quotations, regardless of what they say. Its not POV pushing.Giovanni33 23:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith, but I don't believe you, Gio. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The first quotation, "The National Government regards", supports Giovanni's POV, is 42 words long, and is in a block quotation. The "You see, it's been our misfotune" quotation challenges Giovanni's POV, is 56 words long, and is embedded in the text. Admittedly, it's not as bad as Giovanni's first attempt, which had the twelve-word quotation "I am now as before" in a block quote. At least that was fixed before the article was protected. AnnH ♫ 15:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I fixed it. It was me who removed it from the block quotes format. I say any quotatins that are large should be block quoted, regardless of what it says. I hope this will solve Objection #7.Giovanni33 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You fixed it after you were told to … still your POV pushing agenda is clear. Ann’s counting makes that clear. We could also shorten the quote or only refer to it, if that were your concern, since it doesn’t give Hitler’s religious belief but what he publically stated (and again, no serious historian disputes my take). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 8

• I prefer adding a year to Hitler’s “always a Catholic” statement – other utterances are dated as well and especially in this case it is important when he said it. We shouldn’t attribute prophetic qualities to Hitler – he couldn’t make a valid statement about what he will “always” be, if he was speaking in earnest.

I do not oppose adding a date to when he said different things, but I do oppose any suggestion that him saying something is limited to only one time or date. He continued to say such things throughout his life, so I don't see how a date on one statement is that important unless you mean to imply that he only professed his religious beliefs early in his life, but not later (which is not true).Giovanni33 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, giving a date should be uncontroversial.

Secondly, you claim that "He continued to say such things throughout his life". Now, "such things" is hardly specific and of course you haven't so far not produced any of these "such things".

Finally, of course Hitler's statement was not accurate when he said that and untenable given that he didn't have prophetic powers. Still, we report it because he said it but we need a date. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Before anyone says anything, does it really matter if one statement about him having prophetic powers greatly important anyway? Only people like you guys would know anything about that. If it's something argued over that much, don't put it in there. All you do is tire the reader.
• I say just keep it out and those thoughts to yourself and discuss it elsewhere. Here is not the place.
• It looks like a great majority of these disputes are over his religious life. Once again, I will say, don't go into great details about it and you won't have problems.

Like this: "Colonel Marksman posted this reply 1:00 pm EST May 18th, 2006." Why do we need to say: "Colonel Marksman posted the reply: Before anyone says anything, does it really matter if one statement about him having prophetic powers greatly important anyway? Only people like you guys would know anything about that. If it's something argued over that much, don't put it in there. All you do is tire the reader. I say just keep it out and those thoughts to yourself and discuss it elsewhere. Here is not the place. because he thought.... and he was raised .... making his outcome.... leading to.... Colonel Marksman 17:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My point about the prophetic powers is that Gio wants to include this quote to (falsely) imply that Hitler always remained a Catholic – that is a logical fallacy and was already a lie when Hitler said it (unless it means: I will never formally quit the Church). Because of the nature of the quote I demanded a date for it (shouldn’t be difficult for the one who posted it in the first place, if he hadn’t just nicked it from nobeliefs.org) and originally relegated it into a footnote. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 9

• I protest against (re-)moving the factual reference of Hitler never ending his church membership and what Speer (referenced and disclaimed by “according to…”) had to say about that. – in the current version it is included much further down, hanging “in the air”

Does your silence mean agreement? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it means that after spending the time to set up this section so we could reply to your points, which you could have originally done, making it unnecessary for me to have to copy your material and increase the size of the talk page, then responding to some of your points, I had to take a break. Then later, I got involved in an interesting discussion on monotheism. As for this objection, I think its moot, as it only applies if we use the current version as written, and that is unlikely. Drogo Underburrow 19:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo’s reply speaks for itself. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 10

• I protest against the inclusion of the sentence: “Though Hitler spoke against traditional Christianity in general, he in fact may have been referring to Catholicism, according to Steigmann-Gall.“ – yes, it is referenced but is also utter bullocks, turning words around in Hitler’s mouth and in St-G’s is nothing more than a speculation

So because you don't agree, we have to censor a source? That is putting your views above the source's. Articles are meant to give source's views, not editor's views, so its right to include Steigmann-Gall's remark and wrong to allow you to delete it. Drogo Underburrow 22:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with it, Str1977. That is not your job here to make articles according to what you believe. Our job is to report all POV's, from the reputable scholars who are experts in the field. This includes Steigmann-Gall's remarks, which I happen to think is not "utter bullocks" but his educated opinion regarding the meaning of Hitlers comments, i.e. refering to Catholicism. If you have a reputable source that says otherwise, you are free to cite that source but you can not censor the other POV simply because you don't agree with it.Giovanni33 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Even in St-G's book it is mere speculation. I will never ever ever accept the inclusion of this under any circumstances. Period. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• "So because you don't agree, we have to censor a source?" Drogo, point being, remove it. Whether it's sourced, or anyone agrees or disagrees with it, point being, the statement is POV, regardless of who put it there or who wants it out. You're assuming that Str doesn't agree with it and thinks it ought to be out. I want it out because exactly what Str said IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SPECULATION. Listen to each other! Gio, all you did was follow Drogo's suit. If that was Str's intention, then yes, you'd both be correct on attacking a line of thinking, but you don't know that's why.
• Keep out not only editor's POV, but historian's too. Colonel Marksman 18:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should include all POV's, provided they are POV"s clearly stated as POV's, and ofcourse, only if those are POV's articulated by reputable experts in the field. This way a reader can get a sense of what the scholars think about the question. The more POV's the better as that gives a sense of the current thinking and consensus of the question. Just leaving it to bare facts will trim it down significantly, but it would be dull. The idea is not to remove all POV, but to make sure its done in a NPOV manner (all POV's) and that the sources for these POV's are up to standards and notable, so they can be included. I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason Str wants this removed is because its a POV he does not agree with. Speculation is stating a POV, in weak terms. So, he should be happy about that. Im sure if the author stated as a fact that Hitler was talking about Catholicism, as a fact ,he'd be even more unhappy and still want it removed.Giovanni33 21:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Its nice to know that Str1977 says that he is willing to listen to arguments, he has an open mind, that he supports the policies, and is perfectly willing to accept material in the article that he disagrees with, as long as it is a sourced statement of an expert in the field. I would hate it if he arbitrarily declared himself opposed to something, telling the rest of Wikipedia to go take a hike, so to speak, that it's his way or the highway. Drogo Underburrow 21:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He has already said as much, but I think it was just an emotional outburst. Later after he cools down, I hope he relalizes its a non-tenable possition and he can't get his way. Wikipedia poliices are clear on the matter and non-negotiable.Giovanni33 21:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, I’d be willing to listen to arguments … if I came across any on your part.

Yes, my main point for opposing this sentence is that it is mere speculation, even in Steigmann’s book. The position is far from non-tenable, as I don’t see a WP policy that requires us to include any old nonsense from any old book. If I am not mistaken this issue is taken up further down. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 11

• I also reject the following: “In any event, "No matter how much he vituperated against Christianity or the churches, Hitler gave no indication that he was now agnostic or atheistic: He displayed a continued attachment to a belief in God." – The „in any event“ is a unwarranted endorsement. The info warrant inclusion but IMHO should be included at a better place.

Fine, it can be moved. I don't know if prefacing it with “In any event" is a POV endorsement or not, but I'm sure other wording can be found. Why don't you suggest a preferred lead? Drogo Underburrow 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Its ok with me if we change the wording "in any event" to some other preface, connecting language to the point, but the point should be made as its very clear and well sourced. I do not think that "in any event" is an endorsement, but if you think it is, then we can change it. Make a suggestion.Giovanni33 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this should be included at a better place. It is substantial info and should be treated as such, not as a an apologetic tool for atheism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 12

• “As some branches of liberal Protestantism also had similar views,“ – I always preferred „As Protestantism was more open to such reinterpretations“, as it is problematic to associate liberal Protestantism in general (even if we say some branches) with the unclear „similar views“ (what views exactly?). No one will suspect me of POV pushing on this as I am quite openly not a liberal Protestant. I tried to use a compromise version which included the substance of both, but it just got reverted.

Does your silence mean agreement? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but your posting that question annoys me. Saying "liberal Protestantism" is more specific and more accurate than simply "Protestantism". Drogo Underburrow 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, again you’re not addressing the point. “Protestantism was more open …” is more specific than “some branches (which branches) of Liberal Protestantism agrees with these views” (unidentified) – but if you want to include Liberal I don’t object. Also, your annoyance is no valid argument. I am annoyed by this whole discussion with two posters from I haven’t seen a sensible contribution on WP. However, that doesn’t keep you from posting. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 13

• I object to calling John Toland (which is still linked wrongly) “notable Hitler biographer“, as it is a POV endorsement of him (see above) and also wrong. Kershaw would fit that description, even the now dated Bullock (though I’d still object)

How about this, it is linked to objection 6.

• Keep out editor's and historian's POV and all you have is facts. If those facts are false, then don't put them there. Colonel Marksman 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Except, the fundamental rule of Wikipedia, is to report what sources say. This includes their POV's. When reporting a source's POV, you report it as being said by the source, which is a fact. For example, "Though Hitler spoke against traditional Christianity in general, he in fact may have been referring to Catholicism, according to Steigmann-Gall" is a fact; Steigmann-Gall really did say this. Drogo Underburrow 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So again WP’s policy of “no information to dull for printing” – no, wait: that was the London Times thirty years ago. “my version” does very well report what sources say, what serious historical scholarship says, all in a NPOV and readable form. You want to include anything that anyone wrote (unless, of course, it hurts your agenda). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 14

• I also object to the inclusion of Toland’s claim that Hitler was “Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy“, as it is misleading given the facts of the matter. We have already stated (in either version) that Hitler didn’t leave the church but how good his standing was is quite another matter. (FACT)

Do you claim Toland didn't say it? This is not a factual dispute, unless you claim that Toland didn't say this. The article doesn't say that Hitler was Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, it says that Toland wrote this. Drogo Underburrow 22:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Same as above. You don't have to agree with it, Str1977. That is not your job here to make articles according to what you believe. Our job is to report all POV's, from the reputable scholars who are experts in the field. This includes Toland's claim, which I happen to think is not "misleading" but his educated opinion based on his study of all the facts he wrote about in his well known biography of the man. If you have a reputable source that says otherwise, you are free to cite that source but you can not censor the other POV simply because you don't agree with it.Giovanni33 23:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Much as you like to portray Wikipedia as simply reporting what everyone says, that's not actually the way it works. We have to be selective with who we quote (Drogo and Giovanni, you are being selective whether you admit it or not). The question is, is Toland a good source to quote? It seems to me that this quote flies in the face of much else that is said, and is therefore we can find better quotes. DJ Clayworth 14:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Toland is not a good source for controversial things. He himself said that he was merely trying to narrate facts and not issue a thesis. Now, this is both a naïve view to hold (it is impossible to simply narrate the facts, as much as we historians might try) and also a declaration of bankcruptcy for his book (why read it? I can get the facts from Bullock, Fest or Kershaw too … and more!) Most impotantly, Tolands supposedly uncontroversial book without a thesis is used to put forth a thesis by using a ambiguous sub-clause. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Do you claim Toland didn't say it? Drogo, once again, you're not even getting the point. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO SAID IT, WHY, OR EVEN IF IT IS SOURCED, IF IT IS POV, KEEP IT OUT OF THE ARTICLE. Any historian can say all the opinions he wants, but just because he's a historian doesn't mean his opinions are right.
• You're focusing too much on sources and historian's say-so. I'm sorry, but a historian's POV is no better than yours or mine, or anyone elses.
• Gio, once again, you are following Drogo's suit. DJ is abosolutely correct. Stop looking at everyone as criminals trying to change this for their own good and start looking at everyone trying to help the article and listen to what others are saying.

Colonel Marksman 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should include all POV's, provided they are POVs clearly stated as POV's, and ofcourse, only if those are POV's articulated by reputable experts in the field. Contrary to what you say, there is a big difference between what our POV's are (which don't matter here), and the respective authorities within academia who are qualified to speak on the matter. Their POV matters. It is not fact, which is fine as long as it says "according to..." This way a reader can get a sense of what the scholars think about the question. The more POV's the better as that gives a sense of the current thinking and consensus of the question. Just leaving it to bare facts will trim it down significantly, but it would be dull. The idea is not to remove all POV, but to make sure its done in a NPOV manner (all POV's) and that the sources for these POV's are up to standards and notable, so they can be included. I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason Str wants this removed is because its a POV he does not agree with. Toland is a notable historian and writer on Adolf Hitler. His view of Hitler's religion and what he reports is valid for inclusion in the article. I oppose censoring his relevant statement. And, for the record, his view is not alone.Giovanni33 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree Gio.MikaM 04:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mika can do no more than agree with Gio since … Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel, sources and historians play a valid role in this but even historians can write nonsensical statements (see Steigmann). We also should use the best historians and Toland is not among them, while Kershaw is the current pinnacle of Hitler biography. If there is a real dispute between historians we should report on it including all views in a NPOV, but if there is no dispute we give the consensus of historical scholarship. First and foremost however, we are here trying to write an encyclopedia article and not a WHO said WHAT WHEN collection. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 15

• I reject the inclusion of the Lewy quote as it is based on Hitler’s Reichstag speech we already have quoted above. No need to include it twice.

Does your silence mean agreement? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I looked and I did not see the Lewy quote alrady quoted above. If what I report Lewey quoting, is already quoted then, fine. But, I don't believe you. You can move it and incorporate it with with res of the quote but this quote should remain in the body of the article.Giovanni33 21:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio, are you serious? Yes, the Lewy quote is not in the text because we don’t need it. But Lewy wrote his lines based on what Hitler said in the Reichstag and that is included in the text. Hence, the same info (using the term loosely) included twice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 16

• "According to historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, much is known about Hitler's views on religion through Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.“ Introduces a whole section of problematic bits. What follows is quotes from Mein Kampf (still unreferenced) which are useful to include. However, this all needs to be integrated into the text (as my version did). Note that this is no section of retelling Mein Kampf or retelling Steinmann-Gall but one devoted to actually giving information about Hitler’s religion. Hence editorial notes explaining how Hitler used this word hat word are out of place.

• Now before anyone jumps on him, re-read everything he said twice, think about why he thinks this ought to be (he stated why, don't go off making assumptions), and then discuss a section that doesn't retell Steinmann-Gall, but is devoted to giving information about Hitler's religion. If you talk about anything else, or argue any other point, you're either missing his point, off topic, or just plain rude. Colonel Marksman 18:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 17

• „He also states his belief that the Aryan race was created by God,“ is nonsense, even more so if Hitler were a Christian, since of course the other races would fit in there too. If anything in this direction is notable it is Hitler’s belief about the JEws.

Does your silence mean agreement? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, agreement. It just is boring to respond to objections that are almost not worhty of a response. We are not here to debate what we think. I happen to agree with you that much of what Hitler said was nonsense, although it makes sense from his twisted, racist, logic (much of religious beliefs are aburd and not rational, but its funny that you can only see that when it comes to other's religious beleifs..hehe) However, this, like most of your objections, are besides the point--they are irrelevant. This was Hitler's belief and it should be correctly and fairly characterized, according to reputable sources. That is all this does. The passage is both notable for Hilter's anti-semitism as it is for his religious conceptions, since his is talking about what he believes was the creation of God. When Hilter talks about God, Str1977, he is talking about religious belief--even if his religious beliefs of God involve his anti-semitism. Or do you think God doesnt mean God here but he is only talking about his belief of Jews? Your objections are not only without merit, they are not even very sensible on the surface.Giovanni33 20:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of this statement of belief is fatuous. It would be remarkable if it stated that the Aryan race was chosen by God. Also, snide comments about a user's religious beliefs are objectionable.--shtove 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not fatuous, its notable and part of Hitler's religious belief. I object to censoring it. Anon

Oh, yes it is. Reasons see above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 18

• „Refering to God as the "Lord of Creation" and the necessity of obeying "His" will, show Hitler's Christian thinking“ is also nonsense, as these words contain no particular Christian wordings – a Jew, a Muslim, a Deist could have said the same thing. (FACT)

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. That these words show Hitler's Christian thinking is Steigmann-Gall's opinion, and is rightfully reported in the article as being his opinion. This is another case of Str1977's views being contradicted by a sources' view, expressed in the article, so Str1977 reverts the article. This must stop if we are going to get anywhere. Drogo Underburrow 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Members of other religions could have said it, but they didn't---Hitler said it. Hitler, who was raised a Catholic and continued to profess and demonstrate his Christian thinking in various ways said it. According to Steigmann-Gall this is one way in which Hitler was showing his Christian thinking. I don't find that nonsensical at all. The idea that Hitler could have been talking as a Jew or Muslim--now that would be nonsense (which is why no one says it or thinks such a notion is even plausable). Clearly, the religious beliefs are in the context of the known facts of his religious affiliatoin and membership: Christianity. But whatever you think, whatever I think, or others editors happen think really doesn't matter since this article is not about what we think about Hitler's religious belief. Its about accurately reporting scholarship on the question. That is what this does. Your objection, thus, is without merit as far as this article is concerned. Giovanni33 08:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's being unnecessarily obscure Giovanni. Of course if we were already sure that Hitler was a Christian then we would know that he was talking about the Christian God. But since we are not - in fact since that is the whole thing we are trying to decide - we can't use the fact that he used a phrase which could have been said from many different religious viewpoints as evidence that he was a Christian. It's a circular argument. Which is why Str1977 objected to it being cited as evidence, and rightly so. DJ Clayworth 13:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, its being uncessarily obscure to pretend we know nothing of Hitlers religion and have no context for assuming which God he is talking about. Its perfectly clear to me that Hitler was a Christian. All the known facts point to that. That is why, its is very reasonable for this scholar to point to these statment of Hitler as being indicative of his Christian thinking--NOT Muslim or Jewish thinking. And, again, it doesnt matter what Str or you, or I think--its about reporting what academia thinks.Giovanni33 21:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Members of other religions could have said it?" – what is other religions? Given the facts, that would include Christianity or at least Catholicism, as Hitler wasn't a Catholic when he said it. And don't play stupid, Drogo, by saying "but Steigmann said it" – these constant controversial statements by Steigmann don't cast a good light on his scholarship. Do I call Giovanni a Stalinist because of his admitted atheism? No because it is a non-sequitur! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, these statements by Steigmann cast a very good light on his scholarship (from my POV); you are not in a possition to question his scholarhip. It is not impuned in any way. His statments, no matter how much you disagree with them, can not be censored--no matter what you think of them. These are the rules. If you wish to impune his scholarhip then you must do so by using other scholars who say so. This is how we can protect articles from POV pushing and original research. Giovanni33 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Drogo, but you're treating Str like a crimnial who's here for his own goodness and POV. You're being very rude, and it is that rudeness that is turning me to side with him. Gio, all you do is support Drogo only thinking he is right.
• According to you, (so it seems on this talk page) NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS, IF DROGO DIDN'T SAY IT, IT IS OPINION. Regardless of the arguement, treat yourself as always possibly wrong. Now you are ready for an argument.
• You've taken zero regard to anyone else's say-so and this arguement isn't going anywhere because you're not actually countering anything.
• Now, for this particular objection.

*This is another case of Str1977's views being contradicted by a sources' view, expressed in the article, so Str1977 reverts the article. This must stop if we are going to get anywhere.

• If you knew how to read and consider someone else's say-so, then you wouldn't have said that, I'm sure. Str says that "just because he says "God is Lord of Creation" doesn't mean he's automatically Christian. That is the essence of everything he is trying to say.
• Now, say it out loud with me. "Just because Hitler says God is Lord of Creation does not automatically mean he was Christian." If you want to call that POV, I can take that and find hordes of people that would be happy to block you out of Wikipedia for awhile to let you think about a few things. Like Str says, there are non-Christian beliefs that believe God is Lord of Creation.
• By you continuously "attacking" Str the way you do, it looks like you're trying to say that Hitler was a Christian and was bad. Str is trying to keep Christianity out of it, and the both of you want neutral points.
• Historians are entitled to their opinion, but opinion is not welcome in Wikipedia, whether it be a historian, Str, me, you, or anyone. Just the facts. It looks like you litter this talk with personal opinion in the essance that anything you say must be absolute.
• Give in a little, listen to what people say, and come back with a good arguement. Gio, don't drool over Drogo's "correctness". Str has a reason for saying these objections, and thus far, none of them are opinion.
• DJ has some good points. Colonel Marksman 18:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not drolling, and I don't always agree with Drogo. The fact that I agree with him here is my right given my own independant thinking. Thanks! Also, yes, Hitler was a Christian and he was bad. That is my POV. I'm glad that I have support for this pov within the scholarly community and I want to see that its properly reflected in the article. I have no vested interst to protect Christianity from a bad light as others seem to have. I think the article should report what academics say on the question. Giovanni33 21:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel, you are right. Gio is littering the article with anything he thinks useful for hitting Christianity. Gio, if you think that this passage adds no useful info to the section, as your above post seems to imply (when you actually think through your point) then we can always drop it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 19

• The following paragraph is completely sinking to the level of being a table of contents fort he Steinmann book: „Elsewhere in Mein Kampf, he says, Hitler makes references to Jesus. Other sources also show Hitler's Christian thinking, according to Steigmann-Gall. He notes an unpublished manuscript where Hitler sketched out his world-view, and he gives as an example a speech on April 1922 where Hitler said that Jesus was "the true God". Finally, Steigmann-Gall gives another example where in a private Nazi meeting Hitler again stated the centrality of Jesus' teachings to the Nazi movement.“

Does your silence mean agreement? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it means your objection is so incoherent I didn't feel like responding to it. I have no idea what book is the Steinmann book. Nor do I have any idea what exactly you are objecting to. Drogo Underburrow 07:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not my objection that is incoherent but the passage I was objecting to. It is the worst piece of writing imaginable with no value for this article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 20

• „Hitler's religious beliefs demonstrated the anti-Semitic view that Jesus was an Aryan rather than a Jew“ is both claiming something that hasn’t been demonstrated and also including a highly questionable characterisation: I think to make Jesus an Aryan is both factually wrong and against the core of Christianity (if not Jew, then no Messiah), hence anti-Christian, I can see that it is motivated by anti-Semitism but I can’t see that the view itself is anti-semitic. Anyway, the paragraph adds nothing substantial to the section.

Does your silence mean agreement? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it again means I have better things to do than try to sort out your opinions and separate them from legitimate criticisms of the article. You write, "I think to make Jesus an Aryan is both factually wrong and against the core of Christianity". Who cares what you think? You are not a source. It is a fact that Hitler called Jesus an Aryan, and that is all that the sentence is saying, it is not saying that Jesus really was an Aryan. Drogo Underburrow 07:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have better things to do as well, Mr Drogo, so let’s just delete the passage. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objection 21

• The text says that „Hitler writes of his Christian influence on his view of Jews“, but the following quote does not warrant such an introduction, as Hitler does not write on this Christian influence (the text of course implies against NPOV that there are such influences. The quote is an example of the reinterpretation of Jesus as an anti-Jewish hero and of the reinterpretation of the crucifixion, ridding it of any redemptive value. (FACT)

Does your silence mean agreement? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it means I am defering dealing with this poorly written objection, as it makes little sense. It is hard to respond to objections that are incoherent. Drogo Underburrow 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside the incivility and unnecessary hostility of your response, Drogo, I will point out that I am a qualified English teacher with several degrees and diplomas (undergraduate and postgraduate) in English, Linguistics, and Language Studies, currently working on a doctorate, and have experience both in teaching English as a Foreign Language and in lecturing undergraduate (native-speaker) university students in academic writing. I don't know what your background is, as you don't give any indication on your user page, but I think I am in at least as good a position as you to comment on the prose style of other editors, though I generally consider it in rather poor taste to do so. Apart from the slightly unusual use of the preposition "on" with "write" (and that could be a typo for "of", just as you have a typo in "defering" [sic.]), and the fact that he forgot to close a bracket (how shocking!), I find nothing "poorly written" in his objection. If it makes little sense to you, that may be from a problem in your background knowledge rather than in his English. Let me see if I can put it into simpler English for you:

• To say that Hitler "writes of his Christian influence" (rather than that he writes that Christianity influences him) carries an implication that there is indeed such an influence. That violates NPOV, as there are many who dispute it.
• The quotation does not show a Christian influence, so the introduction (i.e. the line beginning with "Hitler writes of") is not appropriate.
• The quotation does not show the Christian interpretation of Jesus's love and concern for the Jews (see, for example Luke 13:34), but implies that He resented them. Also, there is nothing in the Bible to imply that He drove the traders out of the temple because they were Jews. That is a complete distortion of the passage in John.
• The quotation distorts the Christian understanding of Christ's death, reinterpreting it as a result of opposition to Jews, rather than as the purpose for which He came into the world — i.e. the redemption of the human race.

If there is still anything that you don't understand, perhaps you could point to it without engaging in personal remarks. AnnH ♫ 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from these more thorough points raised by Ann, I want to reiterate: the passage does not say what the introductory sentence claims, it neither talks about the Hitler’s Christian influence nor is it a quote in which Hitler says he was influenced by Christianity. The only thing it shows is what I have written above and which I have included into “my overhauled version”. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary

• As I said, there are in the “Gio/Drogo version” various instances of an unfinished text and I went all the way last week trying to include the Mein Kampf quotes into the text where it fitted best IMHO. My work simply got reverted.
• It contains various violations of NPOV by endorsing certain statements, stating things as facts that are highly debatable or even outright false, putting things into question that are undisputed, rewriting to play down unsuitable facts, highlighting a certain point via technical edits (block quotes) and by repeating it over and over again

Hallo guys, unfortunately I have to go on Wiki-break for the next two days. I'll be back after that and comment on what has transpired here. Right now I just want to say that I don't understand the vitriol spread by some editors. I want to thank those that responded kindly, even if criticially. Finally, let me point out that I have no objection against keeping the section as short as possible. Yes, this is an encyclopedia article and it should be composed as such. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox Versions

I have created three sandbox versions, Talk:Adolf Hitler/Hitler's religious beliefs, Talk:Adolf Hitler/Hitler's religious beliefs version 1, Talk:Adolf Hitler/Hitler's religious beliefs version 2 for us to use in dispute resolution. Drogo Underburrow 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

One comment that applies to all three - they are all way too long. All of these sections are longer than the section on the Holocaust, nearly as long as the section on World War II. DJ Clayworth 13:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One way of shortening it would be to eliminate some of the quotes. I know Gio will object and I am not enthusiastic about removing quotes from Mein Kampf, but IMHO we don't need to post a quote for every bit, especially since there is a certain overlap between the content. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Now we are getting somewhere! Honestly, I like several quotes from Mein Kampf (though not one every other paragraph). It puts into play Hitler's belief system and way of thinking and directly supports the statements made in the article.
• Also, the Adolf Hitler page is on a list for desperate articles needing shortening (see: Wikipedia:Longpages #105)
• Could we now discuss the necessary and core information for this article? Like I said above, why not indicate when Hitler picked his nose when someone was watching? I will also say again: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for all the information you ever read or hear. Yes, I will admit that interest in Hitler is greater than that of George Washington, but still doesn't mean all details possible can be made out. Come on, there is an article all about his health!
• Reannalyize the information here and see what is actually needed to keep this on the level of what it's supposed to be: an article. I don't care if the core information goes over the suggested limit for an article, if it's needed and for good to everyone passing by. Colonel Marksman 16:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Marksman, why don't you go to the first sandbox and re-write it to the length you feel is appropriate? Drogo Underburrow 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonel, some of the quotes I find useful too, but they need to be integrated in a meaningful way into the text (as IMHO “my” version did) and we don’t need all of them (some of them are quite redundant) Did you have a look at one of my earlier versions? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for your arguement

Ok, below this heading, let's stand off all specific arguements, and state what your doing, why, and state why you oppose such-and-such. This way, we don't dispute on any more arguements but take this to the very reason you keep it up. (Don't involve any actual arguement or anything the article says yet. Just evaluate yourself.)

I'm not argueing for the sake of Wikipedia and the article only anymore. I'm argueing in addition for some peace agreements, teach us all something, and take that to the next level. In my experience, arguing is a defined art and can only be taken anywhere if we listen to each other. Once we know what's going on, maybe we can see who the other is, and fix our outlook on each other.

Until you do so, nothing is going to get settled and all you're going to do is call everything Str says as POV, keep this article locked, Gio still following after Drogo, Str with his objection points sitting there without any good reasons against his, nobody is going to listen to DJ (or any middle man in the future), the article will still stay there painstakingly overdone loaded with tiny details and little about where Hitler's fame actually lies, and most importantly, Hitler's religion will still be under dispute.

Set yourself aside for everyone else. Don't do it for me, for Wikipedia, for the article (although, the latter 2 yes), or for your greatness in the article, do it for yourself and your sanity and goodwill. I'm using up several hours of my time here for you and the article, and I've got a number of things I could be doing. But I'm not going to just "mind my own business", walk off, and leave you to yourselves or sit here without trying to dig out any inner thoughts and help get everyone's point across. (Though as of now, I'm "siding" slightly more with Str and promoting DJ.) Colonel Marksman 19:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How long to make the section? Just long enough to describe Hitler's religious views adequately, and not a bit longer. I agree that our goal is not to put everything known here.

We have sources. Its our job to put what they say in the article. We are forbidden to screen these sources, and report on the ones we think true, and leave out the rest. Instead we have to fairly represent what they say. So its a waste of time to argue over what is true and false; its not our job to do that. In a historical field like this, its our job to simply report. We are like journalists, not authorities writing an article from our own sense of true and false. Hence objections about what Steigman-Gall says are simply out of line, or what Toland says, are moot. The only question of fact is, did the source say what the editor claims?

Now, we do have limited space, so not every source can be used. Editors are faced with the subjective task of deciding who to omit. The guiding goal must be to attempt to report on what published sources say, so that the article is representative of the literature of the field, and no view is inappropriately left out. Limited space, however, must not become a license for each side to press for only inclusion of material that is favorable to the editor's POV. Editors instead should judge material by asking if the source is a valid source, and does the material communicate the source's (not the editor's) POV or give the facts according to that source.

To borrow (and modify) a phrase from a notoriously hypocitical news organization, our job here is, "We report what the sources say; you decide what it means." Drogo Underburrow 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, the same hypocritical news organaization also uses the slogan, "fair and balanced." heheGiovanni33 23:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they have learned from Hitler. He said in Mein Kampf, that when you lie, lie big. People disbelieve small lies, but will swallow big ones. So, if you set out to create a partisan news organization, you lie big, and make it your motto that you are fair and balanced. Hitler also taught, again in Mein Kampf, that the key to successful propaganda was endless repetition. Hence, repeat over and over 'fair and balanced". Drogo Underburrow 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this the betrayal of a political bias? God forbid. The pettifogging Drogo snips away at perfectly acceptable contributions, while Gio marches in support, bearing the atheist cross. This article is supposed to recount the events of the life of Adolf Hitler and describe his influence and achievements. It is not a sump for complaints and grudges. And passages from ISBN-published authors are not always worth a quick quote and citation. Stick to facts, and consider the reader.--shtove 23:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pettifogger: One who quibbles over trivia. Are all editors here quibbling over trivia, in your opinion, or just me? Drogo Underburrow 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pettifogger: rascally lawyer. So Drogo is not unique (shock!). Facts are facts; and speculation and cavilling are not suited to WP.--shtove 00:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I assure you I am not a lawyer, though I don't mind being called "rascally", it has a certain "Han Solo" connotation to it, being a synonym for "scoundrel". Drogo Underburrow 01:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you from experience that involvement with a rascally lawyer will make your tears drip out like vinegar. Now, what about the facts and their relation to selected sources? Also: Han Solo was a pirate. Tsk tsk.--shtove 01:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• KK. shtove, let's quit now while we still can.
• Now then, that is settled. Now you sound like a man with good purpose, reasons, and now I see what you're getting at (still need Str's word). You are, in fact, a human being with taste (the Han Solo comment was nice!).
• I also see that shtove thinks your an athiest trying to pin a bad name on Christians by saying "Yes" to Hitler being pro-Christian. (Str, I think, has the same)

Now with that, I see what you're getting at too. State sources by actually puting them into the article, (avoiding mistakes of our own words destroying the article) but picking only the right ones. I will live with that. So that's agreed upon (better be. I see no reason why not. Makes too much sense anyway)

1. The "Adolf Hitler" page, and all sub-pages must have every paragraph (or almost every) footnoted. Every statement will reflect direct words back from an accepted source. This job (I call what the "source general" does) looks like something Drogo would like. The source general can personally see to it that all sources, adds, and paragraphs are footnoted to reliable sources. Before anyone adds anything, they must ask so in the Talk page, give the footnote, and reason for importance. Then we can all agree on the sources being reliable and allow it to pass into the article.

• This will eliminate "vandilism", keep the article free of POV'ing
• Slow down the flood of changes and adds to every paragraph/sentence down to a reasonble level. (E.g. not changing 4-2,000 times a day)
• Get rid of aynomnous persons inserting their own words by will at any time for no reason at all.
• If people don't like their adds/changes being reverted because they didn't discuss changes in the talk page, so be it. We've had too many problems in the past to let that slide again.
• As Adolf Hitler looks to be a topic of world-wide and broad interest, it is important the above is done.

2. Keeping reverts on a reasonable level also includes not reverting back to the original page on such a change as: "He had bought more time..." --> "He bought more time...". (Personally, I hate helping/linking/passive verbs anyway. As a writer, they are evil to me, and only used when completely necessary) I would like to propose to be the "revert lawyer" to the defendants who have problems with the revert. I'd like to see to it that everyone's voice is heard, and we come to terms of some agreement. If things get far too out of hand or nasty, I will personally report them, indicate a list of reasons and rules they break, and try to ban/block them for a time. It will be in a court appeal, with Wikipedia as the judge, all of us as a jury, and I as a lawyer.

• With this, we avoid tension and unnecessary and disliked relations between Wikipedians.
• We don't become absolute rulers (no one man has all the power) and choke out anyone else.
• If we find out something wrong, then we can fix it, otherwise, we'd never know.
• Anyomnous persons will get their word in this if thought necessary.

3. We need an organizer for the article who keeps everything in line. This person will take the accepted information and put it into a smooth-flowing, nicely done article, including photos. With a proper outline and introductory paragraph, the rest of us can approve and any future changes will fit in nicely. Any takers?

• This keeps the article extra clean.
• The organizer, being such an organized person, is best fit for the job.
• Stray information doesn't abruptly hurt the article in this manner.
• Historical facts can be kept in line.

4. Promoter of article. This person (Gio, if you would volunteer, I'd be happy. You do good promoting and supporting so it seems) will overlook all the above at the top of this discussion page. This article was taken down from very many glorious spots. The promoter will help "advertise" and promote the causes of the article and get it back on its good side. People won't be coming into the discussion page and think so badly of it. The promoter will personally see to it that everything done in this article (and any sub-articles created) do good for it. Some people say "Wikipedia is a terrible source for information." Well, I want to say to them, "Look up Adolf Hitler there and tell me that again."

• If we keep our heads together, this article will shine.
• The article (and those involved with it) will have work promoted, and decrease the amount of tension and arguments (as well as any profanity) towards what we do and why we did it.
• The promoter will basically be like a "campaign manager" for the rest of us, wagging a finger saying, "That won't be good for the article and make us look bad."
• Hopefully, we can help keep everyone friendly with the promoter.

5. Footnote background checks are extremely important. Someone needs to head the department of reliable sources, (I will call the investigator) over what goes, what stays, and why. Str, I promote you to this job. While Drogo looks into the truthfulness and accuracy of the footnotes (and comparision with their paragraphs actually in the article), the investigator will oversee those sources, who quotes them, why, and determines POV. If two historians say the same thing, but one says it more factual than the other, the investigator points out the need to chug the other. This will require tremendous amounts of background checking and research (not for the information or article itself, mind you, the information already researched). If someone has a suggestion, and footnotes their source, the investigator personally sees to it about the reliablity of these footnotes and sources.

• The investigator saves the rest of the Wikipedians a lot of time.
• This will point out flaws/points/etc. about the particular source to everyone.
• You don't have "Well, so-and-so said this!", "Well yeah, but such-and-such says this!", "On contrary, so-and-so overrules the other two because of such-and-such."
• This reinforces that the best historians, books, and other sources hard-hit this article and only make it the best collection (and would pound other poorly constructed articles into shame)
• Will help set an example for the importance of good sources.

Overall:

1. No one person has all the power, even in his own department. Each head of each importance will only oversee what is best and present it to everyone else who votes and discusses them.

2. No information will be rejected, promoted, used, or written without discussion.

3. We must agree to at least some form of organization and put our strengths together. (No one man has all the power)

4. No one person will look down upon or look up to any one individual. Every head of each department is equal in heads have their strengths. We will not refer to one another with "weaknesses" unless the individual so states he himself is weak in some area.

5. We agree to be serious when necessary, but not cruel or stone-like. We're all human beings with dignity.

6. Five Wikipedians are better than one. If someone has a complaint about someone doing too much, it will not be true. We all back each other up and have stated our purposes and proper reasons and those complaining can't argue with that. If they have a problem, they can challenge one of the best written articles on the Internet and lose.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we're not making history, we're not changing it, and we probably aren't preserving it, but we sure can do one nasty #### of a job promoting it, and make an impression. Colonel Marksman 04:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So I proposed at least 5 jobs for the article:

Source General (I ask Drogo to take the job)

• Keeps footnotes and article accurate
• Removes editor POV

Lawyer (I would like to take this job)

• Helps defend all sides of a dispute
• Keeps absolute peace with Wikipedians and unwanted anymnous users out

Organizer (Any takes?)

• Designs and keeps up the infastructure of the article
• Keeps the infastructure of the article in place and smooth in future

Promoter (Gio, I ask you to take this job)

• Promotes article, workers, and causes
• Makes our reasons for doing things look very good and acceptable

Investigator (Str, interested?)

• Checks on sources for reliabilty
• Removes source's POV

Str, Drogo (mainly), with this, instead of attacking one another with your strengths, mold them please. Colonel Marksman 03:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

AH, ok, I see that POV is wanted? Uh... I must've missed something. POV is opinion. Everyone, yes, is entitled to their opinion, but I'm saying to only keep the facts. If Hitler, however, stated something of his POV (which it looks he did quite often), then quite obviously, it needs to be in the article. I'm referring to those sources are closer to being editorals than articles or good, solid, sources.

• And quite obivously, if every editor inserts his POV, but his POV is in conflict with another POV, we've got some major problems. Wikipedia is a place for articles, not editorals either. That's what I'm concerned about. Colonel Marksman 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I created the article Adolf Hitler/temp religious beliefs where everybody can edit now that this article is locked. I do have a suggestion for resolving/mitigating the dispute, that is removing all quotes by Hitler that have not been used in scholarly sources about Hitler's religious beliefs. It is easy to add and use quotes to support a POV, but this will lead to a quote war, as I have already seen (and engaged in) on the article Prem Rawat . What should be done is to confine ourselves to summaries by scholarly sources. (I am not neutral about the subject of Hitler's religious beliefs and I tend to believe what Sebastian Haffner has written about this subject in the book The Meaning of Hitler.) Andries 08:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

An open note to Colonel Marksman: A source's POV is not something that should necessarily be removed. Quite the opposite, it often is the purpose of Wikipedia to report what the source's POV is. For example, Bytwerk has recommended including a source, Michael Burleigh, who has the opinion (the POV) that "Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty". So, in Burleigh's opinion, Hitler was sort of a liar. That's his POV, and it is our job to report it. It's not a fact that Hitler lied about personal views, but it is a fact that Burleigh said that Hitler lied. So, yes we are interested in only giving the facts, but do you see how we report a source's POV here in a factual way? Reporting what a source said, is stating a fact, the source really did say it, regardless of whether what he said was true or false, fact or opinion. Therefore, Str1977 has no job under your proposed distribution of duties, as rejecting a source's POV is not something we should do for the sake of keeping out his POV. Drogo Underburrow 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

“A source's POV is not something that should necessarily be removed. Quite the opposite, it often is the purpose of Wikipedia to report what the source's POV is.” – no, not necessarily. But our job here is to write an encyclopedia article and not a collection of views. Look into any encyclopedia and see how it works.

As for the Colonel’s scheme of distributing duties – I don’t think it feasible. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin invaded in common

...and triggered a major war in Europe by invading Poland.

should be:

and triggered a major war in Europe by invading Poland together with Stalin.

Hilter was a war criminal, Stalin was as well, they acted conjointly when invading Poland. Hitlers order to attack Poland is intrinsically tied to Stalins synchronistically attack of Poland. Thanx for ur attention Foreigner

I do not agree. The sentence could be "and triggered a major war in Europe by invading Poland after Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact". The pact enabled Hitler to follow his long-cherished wishes of a Greater Germany. Andries 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was a long-cherished wish of a Greater Germany as well as Stalin had a long-cherished wish of a Greater Soviet Union. Nevertheless your suggested mentioning of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would be an aditional improvement illustrating why Hitler and Stalin dared to attack Poland in common. The pact enabled both Stalin and Hitler to attack Poland. Foreigner

All of these statements are an oversimplification. You could write a whole book or maybe two about the causes of the War. A whole lot of circumstances came together to cause it. Then there was the phoney war...another trigger could have been the invasion of France? or Holland? or Belgium? or Norway... who knows...? Wallie 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, for the basic timing, it's a fact that Germany invaded Poland on 1 September; war was declared (by Britain and France) two days later - the 'beginning' of WW2 by most accounts; and Russia moved not 'synchronistically' but two weeks after that.Bengalski 23:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right Bengalsk. Without the conjointly preparing of World War 2 the Soviet Troups would never have moved. But its correct, it was a planned and synchronisticall movement in delay. Foreigner 10:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, you are right about oversimplification but the start of World War II is quite clearly defined by scholars. And it was triggered (which, BTW, was once upon a time a compromise placed into the text instead of “started WWII) by Hitler’s Germany – Soviet Russia’s role certainly was important, even vital but a) it was Hitler’s war (and Stalin took part of the spoils), b) this is the Hitler article and not the Stalin article, c) the original WWII constallation was Germany vs. UK and France. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Policy

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

I thought I found some interesting things in here:

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. .....

Reasoning behind NPOV

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there's disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it's a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. So we're committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. Something like this is surely a well-established sense of the word "knowledge"; in this sense, what is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and when we use the word "know", we often use so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases. We now "know" otherwise.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves (emphasis mine), thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions (emphasis mine). Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing. .....

Let the facts speak for themselves

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy -- just an essay: Writing for the enemy is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can. The intent is to satisfy the adherents and advocates of that POV that you understand their claims and arguments.

It's a great way to end an argument in real life, and it can often halt an edit war in an instant.

Note that writing for the enemy does not necessarily mean one believes the opposite of the "enemy" POV. The writer may be unsure what position he wants to take, or simply have no opinion on the matter. What matters is that you try to "walk a mile in their shoes" instead of judging them.

Writing for the enemy contributes to the NPOV of Wikipedia. Wikipedians often must learn to sacrifice their own viewpoints to the greater good.

• This is where I come from.

Wikipedia:Describing points of view -- A quick, interesting and necessary read. Colonel Marksman 13:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a British Encyclopedia of 1935 that I picked up cheaply at an auction. It says in it that Hitler was there was initially some problems with Mr. Hitler, but that he is now developing into a responsible and capable leader. Also the Encyclopedia did mention Concentration Camps for Jews in Germany. The problem that this poses is that it impossible to be NPOV in an Encyclopedia. Wallie 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That depends on the purpose of the Encyclopedia and its editors. Wikipedia has a totally different rationale compared to the EB of 1935, which naturally had a POV. Agathoclea 19:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Every source has a POV. Nothing remarkable there. But EB - whatever the vintage - is a reputable source: so, by Drogo's criterion, the EB statement ought not to be kept out (only it will have to be prefaced by, "according to..."). Treating WP as a cut-and-paste compendium, with minimal editing, will only add up to the sum of prejudice, not knowledge. WP editors must be allowed to sift fact from speculation and (to some degree) from opinion.--Shtove 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Shtove, you either you do not understand the NPOV policy, or you are refusing to support it. I think it is the latter. NPOV does not allow editors to decide what is fact and what is speculation, and allow only the "facts" as they see them to be in articles, censoring out the views of sources they do not agree with. Drogo Underburrow 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mixing terms. Facts is facts, as the fella said, and opinions is opinions. Speculation is neither fact nor opinion, and any view that takes speculation as its basis is inadmissible. If there's any objection, then it should be dropped without debate. Plus I think I'm correct in my assessment of the EB example above - if not, please explain it to me like I'm a six year old.--Shtove 10:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wait, wait, wait, wait! Drogo, would please QUIT being so hostile? Geez, its the attitude we don't like of you! You can get banned for that.
• Now then, I have to agree with Shtove, but to a degree, I have to agree with you as well. Point being:

1. The editors are the ones who create/organize these pages, not the sources. Therefore, the editors choose the information put into the articles.

NPOV (neutral point of view) does not allow editors to decide what is fact and what is speculation, and allow only the "facts' as they see them to be in the articles, censoring out the views of sources they do not agree with.

2. Um.... yeah. NPOV IS is about exactly that. You're missing the point in being incredibly judgemental of everyone here. You think when we take something out of a source, we are automatically censoring it because we don't personally believe in it. You're wrong. We censor it out because there's something to personally believe in it in the first place. Neutral Point of View, mind you.

3. NPOV is about taking out the POV, or more commonly as called: balancing it. What? You saying its ok for me to post a sources say-so that Blacks are the reason the USA is going down the toilet? You're statement is saying that I can do that without breaking any policy and all you can do about it is cite sources that counter that line of thinking for a balanced NPOV. I'm sorry, but if you agree to that, then obviously something is wrong. Colonel Marksman 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me put in my two sense. I just put this on my watchlist yesterday because the article needs work. You need to look at NPOV as BALANCING VERIFIABLE RELIABLE SOURCES. I will call it BVRS because NPOV is greatly mistaken even by veteran wikipedians. Since everything in based primarily on Verifiable and Reliable Sources, you first get a list of them on a particular point. If the reliable sources are in conflict THEN you balance. If you have two equally reliable sources that are opposed, the final wording can either be neutral, or give both sources explicit mention. If an article contains only positive information for a biography, that is perfectly fine, as long as it is verifiable. NPOV does NOT mean attempting to neutralize the positive by saying negative things just for the sake of neutralizing. But if someone can find equally reliable and verifiable sources with a negative, then it must be balanced proportionately with what that source says. Proportionately is the more debatable part. Anyway, this article does need work, especially in the religion section. For one thing it is verifiable that Hitler was a systematic liar (big lie technique), so quoting Hitler himself to prove something is a contradiction, especially in dealing with his public speeches. What he actually did by policy is the guide on what he truly believed, and also what associates testified to privately. Hitler was into the occult. He hated Christianity. He was trying to create a new "positive Chrisitianity" which was merely a form of secular humanism. He was a liar and very politically manipulative. He knew there were many Protestants and Catholics in his country, and he tried to appeal to their interest in religion. Remember, Judas was also a Christian. His, and Hitler's, action violated Christianity. Eventually I am going to help with this article, but don't have time right now. --Diligens 11:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Apart from substantive matters, there has been a meandering argument over NPOV and OR in the above sections. I tried to open up the NPOV argument here. The latest on the OR is here. Anon - --Shtove 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was a Catholic

If you try to use what Hitler did, and didn't do, to determine his religious beliefs, then you have to conclude that he was always a Catholic. Not only did he never leave the Church, unlike some other top Nazis who did formally announce that they were no longer Catholics, but he supported the Church and the Catholic clergy except when it opposed him politically. For example, told by his photographer Heinrich Hoffman that the Party, via Bormann (who hated Catholicism), had ordered the removal of cruxifixes from schools, Hitler was shocked and ordered them put back. When asked by Hoffman, who was Protestant, for advise on the education of his son, Hitler told him to send his son to a certain Catholic school run by nuns. You can find event after event in Hitler's life where he supported the Catholic church, coming into conflict with it only when it chose to attack him politically. So do not assume that actions are the key to religious beliefs. Drogo Underburrow 16:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, Drogo. Hitler did not „support the Church and the Catholic clergy“, he was not „shocked“ at the removal of the crucifixes (ordered by Gauleiter Wagener, not Bormann) but worried that this would cause too much discontent in the Catholic population – discontent he had no use for because of the war. Judging from your comments, Drogo, I have to classify you as someone who claims to have read Kershaw. Go and read the book and who will read the same thing. What you are actually doing is spreading the old “Führermythos” of “If only the Führer knew …”, by which the populace laid the blame for anything at the door of the small Hitlers. We know quite well that Hitler dispised the Church and the Catholic religion. You talked about what he did or did not do? He, for instance, didn’t attend Church or received any of sacraments or did other Catholic stuff. But you say “you have to conclude that he was always a Catholic” – you must live in a parallel world.

However, I also have to contradict Dillegens. Hitler was not into the occult. Some of his paladins were and he sometimes ridiculed that. Hitler was much more down to earth in his beliefs – he was neither an atheist, neither a Catholic, neither an occultist. But prejudices die hard. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not one of the Precepts of the Church to order crucifixes to be put into schools. Nor is it one of the Precepts of the Church to advise Protestant friends to send their children to a convent school (where the education may well have been better than the alternative schools). However, it is the FIRST Precept of the Church to attend Mass every Sunday and every Holy Day of Obligation, unless prevented by something like illness or great distance. There's also the obligation to confess sins and receive Communion at least once a year. So I'm afraid your argument that what Hitler did and didn't do leads to the conclusion that he was always a Catholic does not stand up to reason. AnnH ♫ 17:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's father never went to church, but that didn't stop him from participating in public Church events like festivals where he proudly strutted in his uniform. Publically, he was an upstanding citizen and a good Catholic in the eyes of his community. The implication that being a Catholic requires obedience to all church teachings to go to Mass, etc. is not how the world operated then, or now. Hitler stated publically that he was a Catholic and always would be one. He had good relations with the Pope. He was fond of visiting churches, although he was not fond of attending Mass nor receiving sacraments. Hitler, like his father, like his mother, like his entire family, was a Catholic. He was not an atheist; he clearly believed in God, and in fact felt that God kept him alive when by all rights he should have been killed in the First World War, like most of the soldiers in his original unit where, and protected him again when people tried to assassinate him, but only killed those around him. Despite rumors about who his paternal grandfather was, Hitler was not a Jew; he was not an agnostic; he was not a Protestant despite his personal preferences for Protestant beliefs over Catholic ones; he was not a Hindu; not a Buddhist; not a pagan like Himmler later was; Hitler was a Catholic. Catholicism is a big tent, and it encompasses many types of people. It is not limited to people who obey its rules. If that were the case, there would be a lot fewer than 1.1 billion Catholics in the world. Drogo Underburrow 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You use strange criteria to determine an individual's catholicity/catholicness. Their liceity is so...so elusive. Here's a question: what makes one a catholic? I doubt the usefulness of the description, except when it denotes one's obedience and submission to curia and magisterium. Hitler? Nope.--Shtove 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A catholic bastism is enough to make you a Catholic. However it's a very optimistic opinion to believe it's enough to make someone act according to catholic faith :-) Ericd 20:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why we (meaning all the editors of this page) long ago introduced the term "practicing Catholic" - a pC is one who has been baptized into the Church and lives according to the faith. With all good will (or in case of others, bad will) there is no way that Hitler fits into that in any way. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Baptism "makes" one christian. There's something more to the argument going on here, in which the label is applied as if it were indelible, like ethnicity. Come to think of it, some maintain Hitler was a jew.--Shtove 20:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not always necessary to be a church member, or go to church, to participate in church events. Nobody disputes that Hitler claimed to a Catholic in public. However it should be stated that he did not practice, which is what the argument was about the last time I was here. Drogo on the other hand, seems to have gone full circle. having failed last time to convince people that Hitler was a Catholic he thinks that by restating exactly what he said months ago we will suddenly forget all the intervening arguments and agree with him. There is no point whatsoever in listing all the religions you can think of and then saying that because Hitler was not any one of them he must have been a Catholic. It is perfectly possible that he believed in some bizarre religion from his own imagination. Given his apparent conviction that Jesus was not a Jew and that the Aryans were specially created by God that is far from improbable. DJ Clayworth 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not in Adolf's brain... Aside of being the worse murderer in history, he was among the greatest liars... Ericd 20:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was Stalin, or Mao - one of whom was a catholic, being a member of the orthodox church (non-practising sect).--Shtove 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mao or Stalin where what ? Catholic, liars or murderers ? (I vote for second and third, while I don't even want to know if they were sincere communists or marxist.) Seriously (Well trying to be. If it wasn't such a bloody story, is it a kind of joke ?) I am Catholic for the Catholic church because my parents decided it was good for me without my consent. What are you trying to suggest ? Ericd 21:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That Stalin was even bloodier than Hitler (although the Stalin article is quite backward in dealing with this assertion), and that the orthodox church claims to be catholic (like the anglican church, minus the diffidence). Don't know much about Mao.--Shtove 23:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Being baptized a Catholic as a baby makes someone a Catholic in the eyes of the Catholic church. Once a person is baptized, they remain a Catholic forever. Personal belief has nothing to do with status as a Catholic. Later, one receives the sacrament of confirmation, where the bond of baptism is strengthened. Hitler was confirmed, although one witness tells the story that he was very balky about it, doing it under protest. Nevertheless he was confirmed, and that is all that counts.

Age and personal religious belief are not necessary to be confirmed; a two year-old can be confirmed, though typically custom has confirmation happen when a person is a young teen. A balky teen who scoffs at the idea of becoming confirmed, can be confirmed, as Hitler's case testifies.

The Church indeed "requires" its members to attend church, but it imposes no penalty on those who ignore the requirement.

Hitler, baptized as an infant, was in the eyes of the Catholic Church a Catholic, and he said himself he was, though obviously people are free to not believe him. Each person has their own private definitions as to what it means to be a Catholic, and they should not waste space here on them, as personal opinions of editors is not important. If, on the other hand, someone has academic sources to quote on this matter, then by all means share them. Drogo Underburrow 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're about to get dragged through the catechism bushes for that assertion. What about citing a source that states that Hitler was considered a member of the Church of Rome by the Church of Rome itself? Wouldn't that solve all your problems?--Shtove 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to repeat that, as we have already done that. The issue is "practising Catholic". Or, to use more theological terms: apostate. Now, the nature of practising the faith is that you can be a practising Catholic all your life, but if you stop you cease to be one. The same in the other direction: you can be an atheist all your life, but if you come to the Catholic faith and start to life by it you have become one. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"but if you stop you cease to be one". If you stop practising the faith then you cease to be a practising catholic; but do you also cease to be a catholic? I think the term catholic is so complicating. Doesn't use of the terms christian and church of Rome cover the experience of the faithful? Or is the subtlety beyond me?--Shtove 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That depends on which "language" you are talking: colloquially you can say that you are no longer Catholic if you cease to practice, certainly if you leave the Church; on the other hand, theologically speaking, you cannot cease to be a Catholic whether you stop practising, leave the Church, become a Muslim etc. - you will be either a schismatic, a heretic, an apostate, simply an unrepentant sinner or a non-practising Catholic. As a middle-ground I'd say that someone who leaves the Church is no longer a Catholic in every-day language. Now, for our case that is irrelevant since Hitler didn't formally leave the Church (a thought springs to mind: how commong was leaving the church without converting to something else before the introduction of the Church tax?), hence we have for a long time used "practicing Catholic" - that Drogo above tries to blur the issue again and return to primeval times is another mattter. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't solve anything because the question is non-existent... As of today France hasn't denied French nationality to Zacharias Moussaoui as well as Lee Harvey Oswald remains an US citizen, itdoesn't implies any support or approval ? Ericd 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In catholic faith everybody will be reconized as a true follower of the Catholic Faith if he reconize the real God at the time of his /her dead (BTW this works well in most flavours of Islam too...). This mean that you have to be a quick ass at the right time, as you will probably have no other opportunity... Ericd 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler didn't even succeed in this, ending his life with a double murder. After having murdered millions that was only consistent in the end. PS. You not only have to be quick, you also have to be honest. Voltaire was quick and I hope he was honest. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Voltaire was neither quick nor honest he was under pressure by a bunch of clerks, that were young alive and well quicker asses than him... he didn't deny much as he was mostly a Deist. What he confessed in this world is mostly a question for those who are living in this material world :-), the real question is what will you/say think etc... when you'll cross the border and get a personal examination of your case by God ? Ericd 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, as you may guess I'm not a very convicted Christian, but the desire of Hitler to see whole Germany following is own anhiliation doesn't seem especially Christian to me (no smiley, there is nothing to smile about). Ericd 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all right. I didn't know any details about it (the Voltaire issue) and hadn't yet cared to learn about them. Anyway, it is His call and not mine. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not get the entire discussion. But i can assure you that to that going to church regularly was a social norm in this area to the time Hitler did grow up. Even singing in the church chor is in no way any reason to assume that someone really believed catholic. Edit, just read this Hitlers religious believe part, and its a joke. Abolutly irrelevant quotation war. Just remove it entirely.

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs

I've froked this (disputed and too large) section from article by creating new one. Now you can delete or short this section and unprotect the page. --Haham hanuka 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the section was completely 'froked' long ago. ;-) DJ Clayworth 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's defroked.--Shtove 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering how editors to the Adolf Hitler article love to link every word, I'm surprised defroked hasn't been wiki-linked yet. Drogo Underburrow 22:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Defroked ? Sorry I don't understand. It sounds like a "faux-ami" to me. Ericd 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid, Hanuka, that your effort is premature. I thought about creating such a “Main article” as well, since there were concerns about the sections length. But we first have to solve the dispute, then we can move the content over there and shorten the section here. There’s no point in exporting an edit war. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Practicing Catholic"

Editors that insist that the article state that Hitler was not a "practicing Catholic" have yet to produce any source which uses that specific phrase. It is use of the phrase that I and other editors object to. Insistance on including this phrase is a way of making the article lessen the connection between Hitler and his official and self-professed faith, and hence biases the article. It is a way of saying that Hitler was not really a Catholic, of telling the readers what to think instead of letting the readers come to their own conclusions based on factual reporting of Hitler's words and behavior. By all means, if you have a source that says that Hitler never went to church, then include that source in the article, as the article currently does when it quotes a witness who says he never saw Hitler go to church in Vienna. But please, no unsourced blanket statements that Hitler was not a "practicing Catholic", nor using analysis of a source to put words into that source's mouth, like Str1977 does with his German source. Drogo Underburrow 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, stop to spread falsehoods. You know very well that the sources have been provided to the satisfaction of WP policy. It is your extreme interpretation of policy that is not satisfied. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources where not properly provided. You give a German text as a source, but nowhere do you translate the text to state that "Hitler was not a practicing Catholic" or otherwise show that it was said. As we have seen in the case of your reporting what Kershaw supposedly said, you grossly exaggerate what sources say when it suits you. Drogo Underburrow 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, where does it state, word for word, that Hitler's mother was a "devout catholic"? You inserted that phrase a way back without citation, and when challenged could only come up with a source that stated she was devoted to the church. On that basis, I accept the phrase (cheesy as it is) because it's necessarily inferred from the sourced statement; by the same token you ought to accept the description that Hitler "was not a practising catholic" by way of inference from the cited sources. Simple, heh?--Shtove 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The source literally said "devoted Catholic" and that exactly is what I put into the article. Notice I changed it from "devout" to "devoted" precisely to head off editors who would try and turn this issue around and argue simply to attack and not for constructive reasons. Drogo Underburrow 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. "Devoted to the faith and teachings" (fn.6) still doesn't cut it according to your own criterion.--Shtove 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this methodology. We can not use either "devout Catholic" or "Non-practicing" Catholic since both are interpretations, unless a source describes the person that way. This is true for when something is not clear to everyone and when there is dispute. In the case of conflict the way to resolve it to to stick to what the sources actually report.Giovanni33 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing your demands with the ones of WP policy. I satisfied the latter, the former is a probably a bottomless pit. Rissmann wrote to the effect. Anyway, it was you who misrepresented Kershaw by claiming a (anyway irrelevant) silence ... and not only Kershaw: there were also other, unnamed historians that have somehow completely disappeared. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Going sometimes to church makes you a "practicing Catholic" ? Well I've being several time in a Calvinist Temple and twice in a Mosquee. Ericd 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just going but going in what context? If you go to a Calvinist Temple to pray, were rasied as a Calvinist, and continued to profess your adherence to the Calvinist faith, I think your visiting the Calvinist temple would mean a lot more than your visiting a Mosque. Given this context and other evidence, there is room for debate and different interpretations about the nature and extent of Mr. Hitler's religious belief and practices.Giovanni33 01:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The source literally said "devoted Catholic" and that exactly is what I put into the article. Notice I changed it from "devout" to "devoted" precisely to head off editors who would try and turn this issue around and argue simply to attack and not for constructive reasons. Drogo Underburrow 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it rightly belongs in the article, attributing the source. Its only fair to ask the other side to abide by the same standards. This should not be controversial. Its editors wanting to insert their own opinions (calling reputable sources views as "nonsense" when they don't agree with it), that is the cause of this needless edit conflict.Giovanni33 01:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The source did not literally say "devoted Catholic" - see fn.6. You boys will have to huddle up and think of another strategy.--Shtove 01:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was typing my response to Drogo, and I see that Giovanni and Shtove have both added to the page while I was typing, leading to an edit conflict. Here's what I had typed:

No, Drogo, it's not "exactly what [you] put into the article." You didn't say "devoted Catholic"; you said "completely devoted to the faith and teachings of Catholicism". That's not the same thing at all; that suggests orthodoxy rather than piety. I know of a few Catholics who strongly believe the teachings of the Church (contraception, abortion, women's ordination, Real Presence, Confession instituted by Christ, etc.) but do not go to daily Mass, and only say the Rosay occasionally. "Devout" or "devoted" Catholic implies daily (or almost daily) Mass, frequent rosaries, etc. And by the way, you still haven't explained how this is in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and WP:V, or even with your earlier instruction to "state what sources say, not what is." AnnH ♫ 01:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is what the article says:

According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father, though nominally a Catholic, was a freethinker, while his mother was a devoted Catholic

Yes, I did put "devoted Catholic" as you can plainly see. Drogo Underburrow 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what your source says - see fn.6.--Shtove 10:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I said the same thing, I just left out the extra words to avoid a copyright violation. Drogo Underburrow 11:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing the meaning is not the best way of avoiding a copyright violation (assuming that it would be a copyright violation to use two fairly common words that frequently collocate). As I said, being "devoted to the teachings" does not make you a devoted Catholic, as it doesn't necessarily imply religious fervour. And here you said that she was a "devout" Catholic, with no "X says she was a devout Catholic". That goes against your own instruction to other editors to State What Sources Say, Not What Is. And you're still declining to explain this, which I wouldn't even bother about, except that you have constantly applied different rules for your own side, and taken the position that your edits are conforming to policy and that those of your opponents are not, and that if anyone disagrees with your interpretation of policy, that person either is in bad faith or is unfamiliar with policy. You really need to address these issues, Drogo. AnnH ♫ 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying "his mother was a devoted Catholic" is simply a shorter form of saying "completely devoted to the faith and teachings of Catholicism". But I have no objection to using the longer phrase if you prefer it. Drogo Underburrow 12:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the consistent Gio33 has retired, so Drogo won't have to suffer criticism for what is OR in Gio's (and, from time to time, Drogo's) eyes. Given the terms of the source, I think "devout/devoted catholic" is acceptable - but by the same token Drogo ought to stop resisting the description "non-practising catholic". And that daft speculation based on Goebbel's report is still in the article. AnnH's criticism on Drogo's equivocation is spot on.--Shtove 22:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Str1977's moving text around on the page

What will it take for Str1977 to stop his abominable practice of moving other editor's text around on the page? Do you see what he has done this time? We now have duplicate text, and other errors on this page. Put it back the way it was, if you can even figure it out now, Str1977. And don't do that again. Drogo Underburrow

I see you removed the duplicate material, but didn't correct other errors you created. I suppose we'll just leave them. Now don't do that again, and stop vandalizing the page by removing a section header. That header was created to start a new thread, other editors responded to that thread. Then hours later, STR1977 deletes the header. For one thing, this changes the meaning of what I wrote, as it puts my original comment in a section I did not write it for. Drogo Underburrow 00:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, would you be so kind and stop telling others what to do? Especially when your doing so creates another edit conflict. Also, don't put a header above a comment by another editor replying to a post above. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You removed the header from an entire section that was there for hours before you arrived on the scene, I created the section, and then others replied, now you deleted it. This is vandalism simply because you don't like the header. Too bad, you don't get to erase something that was there for awhile and others replied for hours with no problem., now you are putting all their replies in a new section. Drogo Underburrow 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The post was there before you created a new section. Think before posting next time. Now, stop wasting my time. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The text before that header was on the subject of NPOV. I then created a new section, to deal with the statement that "Hitler was a Catholic". The new section was started by my opening statement, to which other editors replied. This is an entirely new thread, and I do not appreciate your coming along after the fact, and deleting the section, thus moving the entire thread back into the section on NPOV. This also changes the impact of my opening statement, which stated the new section, and makes it into a reply to the thread you merged it in. You say don't tell other editors what to do. Well, if you keep your hands off of other people's edits, then they won't tell you what to do. Drogo Underburrow 00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

IF you want to play the enforcer, Drogo, then do it evenly. Other editors have moved sections around during the last two days without you shouting around, so keept it to yourself now. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "playing the enforcer", I asking you to keep your hands off of MY edits. Drogo Underburrow 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And I am asking you to stop wasting MY time or talk page space. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't your talk page. Don't treat it like it is by editing section headers that other people make. Don't move other editor's comments around. Don't insert your comments out of chronological order disrupting the previous conversation, and changing the meaning of what other people said by making your comments before theirs. Drogo Underburrow 01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, keep calm. It is very possible that Str1977 didn't mean it was his talk page, I didn't read it the same way you did Drogo. Take a deep breath... getting stressed with each other won't get this page unprotected. :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Deskana, you are exactly right, I wrote "MY time" and not (*) "MY talk page". Sorry about the ambiguity but it shows who assumes what. This whole section is ridiculous as I was already removing the double-posts and was only prevented by a repeated edit conflict caused by the first comment here. I didn't revert Drogo's header after I figured out his rationale but he keeps on shouting, making unwarranted claims ("moving comments around"), telling me (whithout authority) where I cannot post, while he doesn't enforce his rule against other editors moving sections around, or against editors who do not sign etc. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitlers Scientists

Hitlers war was a very well fought war up until the last few months, or the last year. His scientists were amasing, which was one of the problems. Hitler and his people spent too much time devoloping new weaponry, instead of producing the models in which they already had. If Hitler had not spent so much on this, and mass produced his earlier tanks, I'm afraid he could have won. - 142.68.105.155

This is abolute bullshit. You seem to be totaly unaware of far Germany was behind economically compared to the USA + 2 Front war etc etc. It was basically Germany and Japan vs the world.

Why does this article still fully protected?

--Haham hanuka 07:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved". From {{protected}} --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

dispute has been resolved, just remove the "Hitler's religious beliefs" section (which became an article: Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs) from here. --Haham hanuka 15:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Hitler Putsch" is the German name

In English it's called the "Beer Hall Putsch". The Germans call it the Hitlerputsch. 217.245.8.95 08:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio33

I see this user retired from WP at 3.04 am today. Cerebral cortex blown? Hitler talk can harm your health.--Shtove 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)