Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

NPOV

The following pargraphs just struck me as entirly POV:

"Despite this there have been instances of public figures referring to his legacy in neutral or even favourable terms, particularly in South America, the Islamic World and parts of Asia. Future Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.

The "despite this" is adding in a pov making it seem as if you can't have the two together, obviously again the writers opinon. putting an even favorable is 100 percent pov, it implies that it is amazing that someone could like Hitler.

"While some Revisionist historians note Hitler's attempts to improve the economic and political standing and conditions of his people and claim his tactics were in essence no different from those of many other leaders in history, his methods and legacy, as interpreted by most historians, have caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history."

Who needs a source to tell them that hitler is one of the most despised leaders in history? He is mocked and criticized in television, schools, and movies. Hitler being a despised leader is a very prevalent idea in america, germany and the rest of the world.

According to who has his legacy caused him to be one of the most despised leaders in history, we either need a source or remove it, the writers opinon doesn't count as a source.

Please fix these problems, Thanks!

The second-cited paragraph is trash. The "Despite this" phrase in the first-cited paragraph is POV. And I guess a "Future Egyptian President" will have to be an anti-Pharoh mullah, God bless him (her)?--shtove 22:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Year Reich

Its been awhile since I looked at this article, and I can see that it is still anti-Hitler in bias, at least in the introduction. The introduction ends with a taunt: The Third Reich, which he proclaimed would last a thousand years, collapsed in only twelve. This taunt had been in the article in one form or another, for years. I tried to remove a long time ago, and after an edit war, the opposition basically came down to the position that they simply liked having it in the article.

-I find it quite odd that you consider the statement about the fall of the Third Reich "biased". This statement is completely factual and in no way biased; AH Bold textdidBold textproclaim that the Third Reich would last a thousand years and it Bold textdidBold text only last twelve.

This line is still the pet phrase of at least one of the long time editors here, is my guess. Its purpose is to rub in the idea that Hitler was a failure. This is completely POV. Compare the article on Stalin. You will find few POV expressions of disapproval that last for long in that article, thanks to the Stalinists who police it. It appears that here, we have anti-Hitler partisans who have at least some influence in this article. I don't have time to engage in edit wars; I simply want to express my disdain for the disgraceful inclusion of taunting in the article. Finally, don't waste your time explaining that the statement is factual. Factual statements can be put into an article in such a way so as to promote an editor's point of view.Drogo Underburrow 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you quote is not point of view, nor anti-Hitler. That Hitler was a failure is a simple statement of fact, not a judgement. Given his inability to live up to his own dreams - his failure as a military commander, failure as a statesman, failure as a leader - how exactly does one report on his multiple failures without actually coming out and saying them? What an odd tirade.Michael Dorosh 04:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That Hitler "was a failure" is completely a POV. You are so biased, that I believe you don't even understand your bias. Stating that Hitler was a failure, and giving facts to prove it, is exactly what NPOV isn't. Drogo Underburrow 04:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler said it would last 1000 years. It lasted 12. Factual and NPOV, we don't say "and Hitler was a failure". Please do not begin a discussion by insulting other editors. --Golbez 04:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right...you don't say "and Hitler was a failure"; You instead juxtapose two facts for the reader, that Hitler spoke of a 1000 year Reich, and that it lasted 12, so that the clear implication is that Hitler is a failure. Very clever form of bias. You have a POV to put accross, that Hitler failed, and you construct the article to say it. Some editors don't understand that making points in articles using facts is POV; others do understand, and don't care. Which of those two groups am I insulting, in your opinion? And what exactly is the insult? Drogo Underburrow 04:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith in other editors by blatantly stating that they are too blinded by their bias. How do you propose we mention that the 1000 year reich wasn't? --Golbez 04:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to make the conclusion that the 1000 year reich wasn't? In order to make the point that Hitler failed? That is what POV pushing is, using the article to assert the views of the editors. Its the editor who wants to say that Hitler failed. Its a POV. You certainly arn't inserting that line to say Hitler was a great genius. Do you see how the whole goal of the writing is to say an opinion?Drogo Underburrow 04:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We're inserting the line to portray what happened to Hitler's goals, yes. So you propose the sentence be removed altogether. Anything else you'd want removed from the intro? --Golbez 05:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's all. I don't like the article intentionally portraying what happened to his goals in a way that intentionally is making the case that he was a failure; that is POV pushing. Its one thing for a reader to surmise that on his own. Its another to selectively present and arrange facts in order to promote this conclusion. Drogo Underburrow 05:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Also, by his own definition, he is a failure, so I don't think it's POV. --Golbez 05:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You arn't convinced of what? The fact that Hitler might have considered himself a failure doesn't mean its ok for Wikipedia editors to say he is. That would be agreeing with him, which means we are also giving our opinion. It would be ok to give his side, though, and report that he thought himself a failure. Wikipedians should not insert their opinions into articles. The article should report what sources say, not what Wikipedia editors say. NPOV is describing an argument, not picking a side. That Hitler was a failure is not something the Wikipedia article is allowed to make a case for. That is POV, just as the opposite would be. A different set of editors who also did not understand NPOV might arrange facts showing how successful Hitler was, by their standards. For example, Hitler wiped out most of Europe's Jews; they could present facts to the effect that he was very successful in this. Of course, that would be POV, even though he WAS successful in killing Jews. Trying to show that he failed cause his Reich didn't last long is POV. Don't you see that success or failure, and arranging facts to showcase it, is inherently POV? Its not NPOV, which is presenting all sides of arguments fairly without expressing any opinion or arranging material so as to suggest who is right.Drogo Underburrow 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the sentence in question is biased. And we aren't saying he is. We're saying a major portion of his vision was the thousand year reich, and it lasted only 12. Objective fact. It's right there in black and white. To say that Hitler failed this goal is decidedly NPOV. I would like to see how there you could create a properly biased statement about the numbers of killed Jews. Please, show me. --Golbez 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

An example would be: "Hitler rid the world of approximately 6 million Jews. If only he had been given more time, he might have completely wiped them off the face of the Europe." This statement is factual, and biased. Its promoting the opinion that killing Jews was a good thing. Drogo Underburrow 07:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it's factual, you're speculating and making claims on his goals. Now if you said "Hitler said he wanted to exterminate all Jews in Europe; he managed to kill most, about 6 million", that would be factual and non-biased. --Golbez 13:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. How is it POV to say that Hitler was ultimately a failure? He shot himself in the head in an underground bunker just as the Red Army marched into Berlin. It's hard to imagine a greater failure as than Hitler. NPOV means we have to represent all POVs on a subject. In whose POV was Hitler not a failure? You are creating hypothetical examples of people who are excited about how Hitler was "successful" in killing lots of Jews. But do such people exist? Some Neo-Nazis, at least, presumably approve of the Holocaust (but most Neo-Nazis would probably say the Holocaust never happened, as well...). But approving of the Holocaust is not the same thing as seeing Hitler as a success. john k 08:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is POV to call anyone a failure. Failure/success is opinion. Its a value judgement. There is nothing objective about it at all. It boggles my mind that people are even arguing about this. Drogo Underburrow 13:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Failure is not subjective if one measure's one's own goals and the results that arose from them. Hitler's goal was this at right: He didn't achieve it. He didn't eradicate the Jews, nor did he recover German lands lost at Versailles; a look at the map shows us what happened to East Prussia. Saying that failure doesn't exist, or there is no such thing as failure, is a POV in itself, and not a widely accepted one. Objectively, Hitler was a failure. If he wasn't a failure, then he was a success. Pray tell, Drogo, tell us what he succeeded at.Michael Dorosh 15:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

File:Russiangoals.gif

NPOV would be to show that he his regarded as a failure by the majority of historians. Not that hard to prove. Agathoclea 15:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Failure and success may be in terms of objective critiera (there are lots of articles referring successful actors or successful politicians), or they may be unencyclopedic value judgements, so in this context the terms are not particularly helpful. The "Thousand Year Reich" was not a one-off campaign promise, it was intrinsic to the Nazi state as Hitler and others envisioned it. Thus it is notable, and unbiased, to point out the actual duration of "Thousand Year Reich". It's not even stated explicitly as a reflection on Hitler personally. Peter Grey 16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Settled? I'd like to clear a lot of the stuff on this talkpage to one or two archives. Agathoclea 16:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

To fail is defined as not to succeed in one's purpose. The Third Reich was frequently referred to, by Hitler, Goering, Goebbels and lesser speakers, as the "Tausend-Jahr Reich". It lasted from 1933 to 1945. Not a thousand years. Therefore Hitler did not succeed in his purpose. Nor did he succeed in eradicating the Jewish people, or destroying bolshevism, or ultimately gaining 'lebensraum' in the east. If it is stated, on these facts, that he failed, wherein lies the conflict? Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Has it occurred to no one that a claim made in a speech by a fascist leader may not be a truthful statement of his goals or beliefs, but a rhetorical strategy aimed at exploiting the emotions of his citizens to shore up faith in his regime? If you believe everything Hitler said, you must be a very interesting individual.

That Hitler's reich failed to last a thousand years is a fact. But to use that fact to call Hitler a failure, which is the intention of putting that information in the intro, wording it the way it is worded, is a POV value statement, and a violation of NPOV. -- Drogo Underburrow 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you know the intentions of people? And why are they even important, the reader makes his own mind when he reads that text, i thought that it was well said and good conclusion to the intro text. I didn't think Hitler was a failure because intro text i read from that page, nor does it imply that he was failure in everything. i knew he did fail in many of his goals that he himself proclaimed, one of them being the 1000 year empire that fell in twelve. You cannot make decisions for the readers and single-handedly decide that piece of fact laid in the end of intro means that the man is completete failure. If that would be the case, i'd have to say that there are many things we would have to leave unsaid then. We have saying in Finland which translates loosely 'don't read it like the devil reads bible', if you see the worst intentions everywhere, we would probably have to edit the whole wikipedia from the scratch because there are so many sentences with perceived bad intentions from one point or another.

I have to agree that that particular sentence comes off as biased. It is not that the statements are factually incorrect, but that they are put together to imply a point of view. When I read that sentence, what I immediately assume is that because the Reich lasted twelve years instead of a thousand, it was a failure. I'm not sure if I would classify a regime that lasted twelve years a failure, specially when there is no objective way to connect the duration of a particular regime to its success. Furthermore, if you read those two affirmations apart of each other and without the add of the word "only", you'll see that the way the article is written now is biased. I believe the problem that is being brought out is not that those facts shouldn't be there. They just shouldn't be there the way they are now, it is what is being argued here.RPin 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I'm going to try an experiment here. Some claim that what the article is trying to do is only to communicate how long the Third Reich lasted. So I'm changing it to say how long, while removing the 1000-year comment, which serves no purpose except to imply that Hitler himself was a failure. Drogo Underburrow 00:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Except your experiment removed all context, removing any reason to have Third Reich in the intro at all. --Golbez 02:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. The "reason" is a POV being asserted by the article. Its an NPOV violation. How many times do I have to say it, you can't call someone a failure, that's pushing a POV. Drogo Underburrow 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We aren't calling him a failure. We're calling the Reich a failure, by his own definition. And if we can't mention how long the Third Reich lasted compared to how long it was supposed to last in the intro, then we can't mention it anywhere in the article, and I defy you to find a comprehensive article in any encyclopedia on Hitler that does not mention the thousand-year reich. --Golbez 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe for a moment that the purpose of saying Hitler's 1000 year reich lasted only 12 years isn't to call Hitler a failure. But just let us assume for a moment that the purpose is to call the Reich a failure. Why is the last sentence, the most important sentence after the first sentence, of the intro about the Reich and not about Hitler? Drogo Underburrow 03:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Reich shows Hitler's life coming to a close, the end of his work and so forth. It is a very relevant display of the end, which is exactly what the introductory paragraph to anyone's life summary should be. Hitler, and anyone in this world, would not mean anything without the symbols they have created for themselves. The Reich is a symbol of his life in this sense, and saying it only lasted 12 years is extremely relevant to his proclomation of what it was supposed to last. His suicide leads right into a fact such as this, and certainly the fluency of the paragraph is aided by this statement.

As far as your idea of calling Hitler a failure: whether or not the author is saying this or not is up for debate, but for the purposes of the article, it is an important fact that should not be removed. Why? Hitler was a failure by his own terms; why should this fact be removed when it describes so well what his life was to himself? His other opinions are expressed, so all I can say is that an edit could be made to express the fact more specifically to this cause. Removing it completely is doing nothing more than hiding facts that belong where they are. Bloogle 05:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll say this just once, because I don't have a whole lot of interest in this discussion. I was searching for info on Hitler's death for a friend who claimed to have found a photography of his corpse, and that sentence in particular made me wonder. Should the discussion not already being taking place, I'd have started one of my own. First, I wonder why it's so unclear to the lot of you why calling Hitler a failure is pushing a point of view, but in any case, you can only address meaning to the life of somebody after you have taken all facts in his biography and chose to look upon them with a particular approach. What is it that allows you to name Hitler a failure? Are the actions he made in his lifetime? Are the consequences of his actions? Are his intentions? All the above? Or maybe something else? Either way, what authority do you have to choose one approach and not other? These are all questions people familiar with existencialism will have no problem understanding.

Second, it is touchy for me to be saying this, because we all know what sorts of thoughts the name Hitler evokes. Were this a discussion about vegetarianism, for example, no one would have trouble assuming a position to defend neutrality on the article. I don't want the article to become an apology of nazism, that's for sure. But because everyone agrees that nazism is a bad thing, it's doesn't give us the right to put it right in the article. This is an encyclopedia, a place for referencing facts, not opinions, and as tempting as it may be, it's definitely not a place for common sense. The Reich, which lasted only twelve years (or rather its last 5 years) were enought to change the face of the world -geographically, technologically, economically, psychologically, morally- forever. For good or for worse, Hitler is one of the most important personalities in history of mankind, and people of all ages will be searching this article for facts on his life. That is why it's our duty as editors to be policing the article so no point of view is implied on it. It's not that I don't want to think Nazism is a failure. I just don't think this kind of information belongs in a place for referencing facts. I do it for the love of seeing neutrality and objectivity in Wikipedia, wether it's about vegetarianism or Hitler.

Third, I'm happy to see so many of you defending your position to place that sentence in the article, but I hope you do realize it's not on the talk page that you should be doing this. It's on the article itself that it should become clear what that sentence really says. If you want to call the Reich a failure, remember it has to be well documented and verifiable, or else it's a bias. Again, let us not forget how this is not a place for common sense, not matter how truth it may seem to us. And an encyclopedia is certainly not the place for conotations and half-meanings.RPin 10:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading all of the above I thought that maybe this would help some: The comment about Hitler and the Third Reich lasting a thousand years should (IMHO) be placed properly within the article on Hitler according to when he first made the claim. The length of time the Third Reich lasted should be placed at the end, by itself. Such as "The duration of the Third Reich was twelve years." By separating the two parts of the single sentence and placing them where they should appear it removes the POV and allows the reader to make the conclusion that the Third Reich did not last as long as Hitler thought it was going to last. Whether or not that was a good or bad thing would then be left up to the reader to decide. The trigger word in the original sentence really is the word "only" which implies failure as in "If ONLY I had bought that car." (I failed in some manner because I did not buy a certain car.) Or, more in context, "I was only able to use the computer for six months". Which implies that something bad happened after the six month timeframe expired. Like the computer failed to operate after the six months had passed. Markem 20:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion could well go on for ever. Firstly, may I say that I am seriously insulted by the anonymous writer a few comments up who implied that I in some way sympathised with Hitler. Leading Nazis claimed that they were initiating the "Thousand -year Reich". It was destroyed after existing twelve years. They did not succeed in their purpose; therefore they failed in it. While there is no end to what can be said about the third Reich, these simple facts stand own their own. Discussion around them is useless verbiage. Anthony.bradbury 22:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The statement that hitler failed doesnt belong here for one reason, there is a debate about it. The NPOV article Defines an opinion or value as " a piece of information that there is some dispute." Factual or not, the is dispute, so it does not belong. False Prophet 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

How can anyone seriously dispute that Hitler failed? In every single aim he ever laid out for himself, he ultimately was defeated. As a result of this, despite horrific yet notable achievements during his lifetime, he blew his own brains out in a bunker in Berlin with Soviet troops coming from the east, and British/American/other troops from the west.

It is possible to dispute any fact, with or without supporting evidence. However, a reasonable individual simply looking at the evidence can state that Hitler failed. He didn't establish a lasting, thousand year reich. He failed in his war of conquest. He didn't eradicate the Jews. He didn't restore greatness to the German people, he inflicted upon them and Europe a terrible wound that they took decades to recover from.

Whether or not the 1000/12 year reich statement belongs there... I think it does, purely because I think it needs to be established- even in an encyclopedia- early on that Hitler's monstrous plans led to nothing but ruin. However, I can see that that /is/ a manifestation of my POV, and can be refuted.

What I can't see being reasonably refuted is that Hitler /was/ a failure. He didn't achieve his aims, any of them. Therefore, he failed. I might be looking at it the wrong way, and I'm willing to accept that. With that said, like I said, I just can't see the debate. He *did* fail. Barnas 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone a failure is a form of disparagement. The intro is worded so that Hitler is called a failure, and that is not being neutral. Editors should break up the sentence about the 1000 year Reich lasting only 12 years, separting the two facts, moving them to different parts of the article so that Hitler is not being called a failure. Or simply delete the sentence. Drogo Underburrow 00:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Failure is an opinionated word. There has to be someone to declare that he failed, and that would be an opinionated statement. There are some points I can think of to prove he diddnt fail

• Munich Massacre- This happened after he died, and while it hasnt been proven that they were what are now known as neo nazis, they continued the tradition of radical anti-semitism.

• The fact that some of Hitlers Officers are still alive- As long as they live freely, the mission to stop them isnt finnished.

• active Neo Nazis- He still has supporters after his death, and his objective still is being sought after

My conclusion is that from a NPOV, Hitlers objectives havent been accomplished, but havent been erraticated. Therefore, to say he failed is neither factualy correct or Of NPOV False Prophet 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Further expanding this argument, we should first define by what standarts is it alright to define Hitler a failure. I have some concerns that a strong anti-hitler sentiment is clouding the judgement of the editors here. First of all, the nazi ideology didn't fail, nor it was deemed to fail as that sentence implies. It was not on the battlefield of ideas that nazism was first defeated. I don't think I need to remember everyone here the massive amount of resources, both material and human, mobilized to defeat nazism. Nazism didn't fail, it was militarly surpressed, and by calling it a failure, not only you are underestimating or even completely ignoring this fact, but you are implying that the nazi ideology would fail no matter what the outcome of the war would be, and there are no "if"s in History. Historicians do not allow themselves to conjecture about possible outcomes, that is something left for pundits and commentarists to do. Second, it wasn't until much, much later that nazism as an ideology was widely refuted. And even so, we still find remains of the extreme right ideology surging on sporadic basis in contemporary democratic systems. To sum it up, I'd urge editors to use the thought of failure with precaution.

Hitler failed by his own standards, and there is no reason not to state so, because it is a valid fact one requires in order to fully analyze the dense information on him. From a NPOV, he failed. By the way, your statements on nazis aren't helping us analyze whether or not Hitler failed, but whether or not the nazi ideology did. Bloogle 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler wan't a failure. He was defeated, and as long as Hitler is used to embody the notion of nazism, let us use the concept of failing with precaution, is what I'm saying. To say he failed and provide facts to back this up is indeed NPOV, but to build the argument around the case of calling him a failure isn't. That so many of you can't realize this is what makes this debate so difficult. This isn't a debate about wether Hitler was right or not, this is about neutrality on the article. Strip yourselves out of you prejudices before you can fully analize the scope of that statement. Or just let it the way it is, I lost all interest in this debate as of now. 200.158.5.37 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Family

William Patrick Hitler is listed as "nephew," but shouldn't that be "half-nephew" since there was a separate marriage involved? 206.156.242.36 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Links

One Haham hanuka seems fond of inserting a link to the "Hitler Historical Museum." I've decided my contribution to Wikipedia is mostly going to be removing dubious links, of which that is one. It is an anonymous source, with no information as to who stands behind it given directly, although its links tend to be to neo-Nazi sites. Its content is inferior to all sorts of other sites on Adolf Hitler. It meets none of the standards for a reliable source. So I intend to remove it whenever Haham hanuka manages to reinsert it, and would ask others who watch the article to cooperate in the endeavor. Bytwerk 19:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, Bytwerk. Haham Hanuka is a known PoV pusher and tried in the past more than once to put this Neo-Nazi link, and was reverted (example). According to his pattern of behaviour, he waits a while, and tries again. I'll remove this dubious link altogether as per Bytwerk reasons. Noon 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(The link was removed already). Noon 22:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now reported HH for 3RR. He can't say he was not warned, as he marked the editsummary of the 4th revert acknowledging the fact of his violation. Just a reminder to everyone else - even given HH's history don't treat it as vandalizm - the 3RR rule applies to everyone in this case. And with another editwar going on today it could be easy to loose count. Agathoclea 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he does not follow the rules and the consequences that follow. He seems uneducated and ignorant of the proper ettiquete of posting. --user:thetruthbelow 22:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

His Moustache

Can we somehow address his moustache? It it is very unusual, even in his time. A lot of documentaries I have seen with people who remember his takeover usually comment on how comical it made him look. The only other person I have ever seen that had a moustache like his were comedians like Oliver Hardy and Charlie Chaplin. The word moustache dosn't even appear once in the article. Even a sentence or two addressing it might be intresting. --The_stuart 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at a picture of Hitler during WWI, you might notice that style of moustache on many from that period

What's the point of removing the semi-protection?

Hi, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind removing the semi protection from one of the most heavily vandalized pages. Just look at the page history. So much noise is generated by the vandals and the reverts, that it's extremely difficult to track good-faith edits and legitimate changes over a longer period.

-- nyenyec ☎ 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. But there are plenty of people watching the page for vandalizm - if you had not reverted I would have within another 10 seconds. Sadly for this case I believe that wikipedia policy forbits longterm protection. Agathoclea 23:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler Historical Museum

The external link to link removed Hitler Historical Museum was removed by User:Bytwerk without giving a reason, why should we avoid this link? --Haham hanuka 08:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There was plenty of reason given by a number of editors. Agathoclea 08:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you point to those editors' reasons? I visited the site - feeble, but the information contained there doesn't seem inaccurate, although it is rather pointedly incomplete eg. the one-para biogs of Hitler's friends and compatriots. And the links section doesn't appear overtly to connect with neo-Nazi sites (definition needed). Inclusion on WP of external links ought to depend on factual content: should a site be excluded for stating some of the facts - eg. translations of Hitler's speeches etc - while failing to refer to, say, the findings of the international tribunals at Nuremberg?--shtove 21:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous sources are not exceptable sources Agathoclea 22:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to summarize, the site is anonymous (the registered owner is "united. thought"). It provides no information as to who is behind it. Its mailing address is a strip mall in Herndon, Virginia. It is a sloppy site, with a variety of errors (typographical and otherwise). It claims to be unbiased, but most of its links led to neo-Nazi sites. There is no indication that the person behind the site knows German. No sources for any of the information provided are given. And there are much more reliable sites on the Internet that provide the same information. Bytwerk 12:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition it was put AT THE TOP OF ALL LINKS by a user who makes a lot of POV edits and is regularly blocked from using Wikipedia for breaking our rules [1] as well as permanently banned from using the system in his mother tongue. gidonb 12:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, on this one I could use some advice. Haham hanuka includes a link to the "Hitler Historical Museum" in this posting. I've noted that the site has been included in quite a variety of other language Wikipedia sites, too (which I've been removing). What this does is build the site's ranking on search engines like Google. So by slipping the URL in, Haham hanuka is using Wikipedia to help a bad site. I'm inclined to edit that by eliminating the hyperlink, leaving enough information for anyone interested to visit that dubious site. However, I'm unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia norms to know if this is appropriate or not. Advice from the more experienced? Bytwerk 14:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As repugnant as the site may be, I don't think that we have the right to edit someone's talk page comments to remove a link. john k 15:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That has not been done, as the edits in question where in the article. Saying that Link-spam should also be removed from talkspace. In this case though I would leave it for a little longer as there is still some (not much) debate about the content of the site and its relevance. That will give us also the time to find out the norms involved and come to an agreement here. Anyway I know that people have been "asked" to remove certain links from their User-Talk-page with a similar reasoning. Agathoclea 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it linkspam to link to an external site that you think should have an external link on a talk page? And user talk pages are not the same thing as article talk pages. john k 20:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been allegations of Searchenginefraud about this particular user. I left that particular link a little longer to give everyone here the opportunity to do a double check themselves. I have now removed it and people can check it in the history of this and the article page if they wish to. It will just be hidden from google. Agathoclea 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Source (Haiden, 1936, 1937)

I can find no reference on the source (Haiden, 1936, 1937) and feel highly disconcerted about this. Are you sure this is not a made-up source? No major book on Hitler lists it!

Janrpeters 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is probably Konrad Heiden. Bytwerk 00:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But then there should be a correct reference added into the article! Janrpeters

Janrpeters 03:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop writing numbers in letters when the numbers are greater than 10

Technically the proper way to write it is less than ten --> in letters, more than ten in numbers like 12. Someone edit the introduction to reflect this change 168.253.20.179 00:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK the English rule on this to use numericals for numbers greater than twenty. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule as such, though it's commonly ten. The WP style guide says: "Numbers may be written as words or numerals, although note that many users prefer that numbers less than ten be spelt out."Bengalski 09:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is entirely a matter of style. I have seen rules saying less than 8, 10, 12, 20, 100 and 1000 should be spelled out. When I write articles, I use 100. It's a matter of taste. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Guide to Syle recommends spelling out words below 100 in non-technical contexts, and below ten in technical contexts. I would certainly feel more comfortable with "seventeen" than with "17". AnnH ♫ 09:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It says "six million" anyway. As you approach larger numbers, writing it out is more efficient. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an important engineering communication subject, and there is no good consensus. My outlook is American English. The paramount thing is to look at the mantissa, the number of significant figures, and not the exponent when deciding to write out numbers. A term like three thousand is better than 3,000. A term like 3,432 is better than three thousand, four hundred and thirty two. If the exponent is a word, with a single digit mantissa, like six million, or seven thousand I use words. I also take the source of the number, like in estimations, 3.2 million is clear and is preferred over 3,200,000 or three million two hundred-thousand. Number are still preferred for some technical terms, like X-band microwave is at 10GHz and is preferred over ten GigaHertz, or a near infrared wavelength is written as 820nM. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(Yes I usually use a capital M for meters, sorry! It causes no end of trouble for editors, but other engineers like it becasue it lessens confusion with milli-.) Dominick ^(TALK) 11:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The 1000 Year Reich

The article states: The Third Reich, which he proclaimed would last a thousand years... What is the source for this "fact"? Where does it say that Hitler said this? Drogo Underburrow 10:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler made frequent references to this type of timespan. If you want to see some references Kershaw's biography details a number of instances. --Davril2020 10:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Which volume is it in? What page(s) is it on? Please give a authoritative citation. Drogo Underburrow 10:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikiquote:Adolf Hitler for one reference, from 1931. Camillus (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Accourding to Third_Reich#History_and_terminology it was dropped in 1939. Agathoclea 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

But still, Agathoclea, it remained colloquial and after the war was used with an ironic twist. I have heard some surviving Jews, jokingly giving as their age 1,020 years, as they lived during the Nazi Regime and additionally for twenty years. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well even if he wanted to after 1939 it could not be un-done that he said it prior :-) Agathoclea 12:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler did believe the "Third Reich" would last 1000 years. It is attributed and he commonly made references to it. Hitler stated in a speech on 24 February 1941: "In general, I should like to add one thing: The German people can look back upon many thousands of years of development. Its history goes back 2000 years. For 1000 years there has been a German Reich, a Reich which actually contained only Germans. During this time our people survived the most astounding blows of fate. It will also survive everything that the present or the future may bring. Indeed, it will do so even better, because it is my belief that there has always been a German people and, for more than 1000 years, a German Reich, but there has never before been German unity nor the compact organization of our people that we possess today, and there has not always been the leadership which the German people possesses today." [2] (maybe that pertains to the discussion?)

Category and name

Ok, not only is he in Category:Fascism, when there is aCategory:Nazism as a subcategory, but he doesn't even belong there, as there is in 14 goddamn subcategories of Nazism! What is it with editors that they feel the need to make categories fall into incoherence?! If you feel the crushing need to make categories pointless, at least get used to the habit of writing family name first in brackets (that is: |Hitler, Adolf]])! Otherwise, he will end up under A for Adolf, for those of you who have not yet figured out that computers can't automotaically figure themthings out. You have locked the page, so I can't modify it: when you do modify it, could you please watch out for any geniuses that feel I still haven't made a point? Prette please? Dahn 06:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is only semiprotected, so you should be able to do something. I would support a category-cleanup anyhow, as there is an awful lot there that is duplicated. A lot of people don't understand that normally there is no need to have the main cat mentioned when there is a subcat. Agathoclea 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just been looking through the categories and there is a larger problem there. If you go back through Nazi Leaders you will find a lot of categories repeated. Agathoclea 10:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Irascible tyrant?

The article states In Mein Kampf Hitler describes his father as an "irascible tyrant," Where does it say this? Please give the page number. Drogo Underburrow 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched three online versions of Mein Kampf with the search text feature in Mozilla Firefox, and a search form, but could find no word, "irascible." Tyrant came up only once, and then he was speaking of Jews. So I'll remove that part. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Hitlers father actually was an "irascible tyrant," but there was no way that Hitler was going to say that about his own father in Mein Kampf, for political reasons having to do with German culture in regards to the family at the time. Having read Mein Kampf, I knew that some editor had invented this "fact", but rather than take it out of this controversial article, I prefer letting someone else do it, and thank you for it. Drogo Underburrow 02:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you never deleted the text in question, so I will. Deleted from the article:

In Mein Kampf Hitler describes his father as an "irascible tyrant," although there is little indication that Alois Hitler treated his son more strictly than was usual for that time and place.

As this is simply false. Hitler wrote no such thing in Mein Kampf, and the second part is unsourced POV of the editor. -- Drogo Underburrow 05:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What is Haiden?

In the paragraphs about World War One there is the sentences: "Meanwhile he was treated by a military physician and specialist in psychiatry who reportedly diagnosed the corporal as "incompetent to command people" and "dangerously psychotic." His commander at the time said, "I will never promote this hysteric!" (cited from Haiden, 1937) However, historian Sebastian Haffner, referring to Hitler's experience at the front, suggests he did have at least some understanding of the military."

What is Haiden, and where are these supposed quotes coming from? Volksgeist 07:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Volksgeist

It should be Konrad Heiden. I've changed it. Bytwerk 11:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've probably missed it; however, where is it cited that he said these things? I see nothing on the article itself about where those quotes came from just (Heiden 1937). The parenthetical citations don't in a bibliographical form at the bottom of the article, either. Volksgeist 12:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone will chase down the appropriate bibliographic data, which should be easier now that the name is right? Bytwerk 13:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Should it even be included if there is no source of information for the statements? Volksgeist 08:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really - but I think people have allowed time to chase the source. Agathoclea 08:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I went to your entry on Konrad Heiden and find it interesting that you list him as a "historian". Not many historians publish their works under fake names. As to his "biography" of Hitler, it is nothing but a propaganda filled piece of trash. I also notice that you fail to state the fact that Heiden was Jewish,so any writings about Hitler would be bias. Perhaps that has to do with the obvious Jewish bias in many of your articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.251.77.6 (talk • contribs) .

Some Journalists do write under pseudonyms especially if they want to keep different careers seperate. Agathoclea 11:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some "Journalists" also write under pseudonyms because what their writing are lies. Ever read the Enquirer??? I'm sure the guy writing about "Bigfoot vs the Aliens" is using his real name. The point is, Haiden's works are bias,period.If he had been a Klansman writing about how bad Martin Luther King was and that some doctor somewhere said he was crazy,he wouldn't be included in this "Encyclopedia". He could no more write an un-bias "biography" of Hitler than he could fly by flapping his arms.At best his works should be labeled fiction, at the least his entry under Hitler should reflect his Jewish background and be classified as propaganda.But, as usual, it's the victors that write history. I wonder if Sitting Bull would have called what happened to Custer a massacre or part of the final solution to the White man stealing everything they had.