Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jaw fragment

Has the jaw fragment been tested with DNA? Surely this would end the controversy once and for all. (2A00:23C7:CF06:200:AC11:4F26:9556:BA37 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC))

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... I started this page, as, after an RfC, a consensus arose that there should be no paragraph on the Death of Adolf Hitler page about the "Grey Wold" conspiracy theory book. I was invited by a person opposed to the paragraph to write this page instead. Please leave it for the time being, as I believe it may serve a useful purpose. Arrivisto (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I and another editor recommended to this member that he start this page, as he states. Given there are conspiracy theory pages on what happened to JFK, Princess Diana and others, it should be allowed. I agree it needs work, but again believe the page should be kept. Kierzek (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Name of the article

Assuming the article doesn't get deleted, you might consider moving the article to Death of Adolf Hitler conspiracy theories to match the naming convention established in articles such as Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks or this, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. Assistance welcome! If this page gets deleted, c'est la vie; I merely created it in response to a suggestion made last month, and the page can live or die on its own merits.Arrivisto (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A whole decade later, I have to say I agree. I'll set up an RFC below. ~ HAL333 00:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion 2

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (This article does identify its subject as a possible escape of Adolf Hitler to South America) --Op47 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hitler in Brazil — new book

Someone has just published a book claiming that Hitler escaped to Brazil, where he lived incognito until 1984. (See here.) While the idea that Hitler, given his well-known health problems, could possibly have lived to be 95 years old is ludicrous IMHO, it might be appropriate to discuss this in the article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll add this to the article. Arrivisto (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view

Well, looks like the FBI backs that book up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.234.235 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it just means someone repeated the same rumor to the FBI, so the existence of the speculative theory is supported, but the claims asserted by the theory remain just as speculative as ever. It might be possible to mention that the FBI had heard the same thing, but it is not appropriate to claim that Hitler lived in South America because there's an FBI document documenting the existence of the rumor. Acroterion (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Except they clearly state he left for South America by several witness accounts and the original body thought to be his has no DNA evidence indicating it was Hitler or even a man. These FBI documents are credible. If you don't want to put them in, then fine, but the fact they exist and the FBI hid them for 60 years reveals a lot. They specifically state that they wanted to search for him in Argentina and that the British intelligence of his death was not credible. Either put it in, or continue to insult the innocent Jewish victims who deserve to know all the info available about this war criminal. Your continued deletion of the FBI website indicates you are a Nazi sympathizer and is discriminatory to all Jewish peoples in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.234.235 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

info

odd how theres no mention of the 2009 revaluation that the skull the soviets had been claiming was his actually belonged to a young woman (too young for eva brown).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.113.160 (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is dealt with in the article Death of Adolf Hitler: "According to the American researchers, the tests revealed that the skull was actually that of a woman less than 40 years old. The jaw fragments which had been recovered were not tested by the American researchers." No need for it to be added here. Kierzek (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In Indonesia

<blacklised link redacted> Why isnt it added?

Because it is a poor WP:RS source and deals in speculation as to the Indonesia part; just because something is in print and on the internet making a "claim" does not mean it should be included. Ironically, I see in certain parts of the "article", the author quotes whole sections of what I helped write in the Death of Adolf Hitler article. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

what are examples of reliable sources? And anyway, the Indonesia theory may not be true like all the others, but i previously added it because the theory is similar to the argentina and brazil theory, they claimed hitler lived up to an old age, a book about it was written (for Indonesia, there is one titled Hitler Mati Di Indonesia, google it), and it was frequently mentioned. The only difference of the Indonesia theory is that the fbi never investigated it

Neutrality

The section of the article "Alleged escape to Argentina" is written in a tone that conveys a lot of bias. Specifically this opening:

There is no film footage nor reliable photos, and the corpse remains were clearly neither Hitler's nor Braun's. The surviving bunker "witnesses" who testified that the Hitlers had committed suicide had an interest to maintain that story. By contrast, in Grey Wolf, Dunstan and Williams provide...

The framing of this opening gives appears to give credence to the conspiracy theory as legitimate rather than portraying it as alleged. Language needs to be modified to make obvious that these beliefs are those of the authors of Grey Wolf. This may not be the intention, but it is not clear and obvious. The preceding line that "the authors contend" does not carry over. "Clearly?" To whom? Where? That is alleged. And stating, "by contrast," again, attempts to attribute legitimacy when this entire page is literally about conspiracy theories.

--Kakasprincess (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You have a point. I tweaked it a little. Kierzek (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions

Recent ip additions have been reverted for several reasons, including commentary and WP:OR. One main reason was that non WP:RS sources were used. "theunredacted.com" is not considered RS, as it has no editorial over site and we do not know if the presentation of the work is really complete. Neither is the History Channel, imdb.com, nor the other sites used considered RS. "The Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler", I believe has covered in detail here but editor, Arrivisto would know better than I do as to that book. If there is another major work, so to speak, that is RS on the subject then some info. from that could be added as long as it is presented in a balanced NPOV way and not WP:undue. Kierzek (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hunting Hitler

Should some of the material uncovered in the series Hunting Hitler be included on this page? Aetheling1125 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No. The source is not considered WP:RS. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream media story on Hunting Hitler: "CIA veteran claims Adolf Hitler 'faked his own death then fled to South America in submarine via Tenerife'" "The bombshell revelations will be explored in a new TV series called Hunting Hitler for The History Channel. Veteran CIA agent Bob Baer - assisted by US special forces sergeant Tim Kennedy, who was involved in the capture of Osama Bin Laden - explained: "The narrative the government gives us is a lie. If you look at the FBI files it throws open the investigation. What we are doing is re-examining history, history that we thought was settled that Hitler died in the bunker but the deeper we get into it, it's clear to me we don't have any facts for it." Mr Baer's team claim to have access to 700 pages of newly declassified information. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/cia-veteran-claims-adolf-hitler-faked-his-own-death-then-fled-to-south-america-in-submarine-via-tenerife/ar-AAlUjrp Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Does not matter, still WP:Fringe at this time until RS historians state anything otherwise. Kierzek (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theory article, not an article about Hitler's death according to historians. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Should this page be at least semi-protected?

The nature of this page's topic is inevitably going to draw a lot of inappropriate or disruptive edits to it. Does anyone else think that we should maybe see about getting this article protected? SomewhatSpurious (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and believe it should, as should other article as to Adolf Hitler, which are not at this time; such as, Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. Kierzek (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, we protect when there's actual acute or chronic trouble. EEng 19:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The sporadic goofy edits we've seen since the release of the JFK papers will soon fade. O3000 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

but isn't that what temporary locking is for? if an article is seeing an upswing in vandalism that will eventually die off? SomewhatSpurious (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I and others are always reverting "acute or chronic" vandalism and crap from Hitler pages, including this one (the latter due to the contentious subject matter [Hitler], rumors, tabloid stories, blogs and non-RS additions). Even a temporary one would be welcome and reasonable. Kierzek (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean, is there any harm in at least submitting a request for protection? a temp protection won't be the end of the world for the page, and if its not in the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines, the request will just get turned down. SomewhatSpurious (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

One can always make a request. Go ahead if you wish and a decision will be made accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No, don't burden our hardworking admins until you really need it. EEng 22:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion (ii)

I wrote the first draft of this page (to some opposition) in January 2014. Four years later, I returned to the page to restore text from an early version, and I added a reference to Trevor-Roper; both edits have been reverted. These reversions appear to miss the point. This page is NOT seeking to promote the idea that Hitler & Braun lived on (rather than committing suicide); rather, this page seeks to explain why conspiracy theories of Hitler's survival arose, and to say what those theories claim. It is sensible to observe that, had Hitler's and Braun's bodies been found intact and conclusively identified, any conspiracy theory on their "survival" would have been absurd. It is the very fact that the evidence of their suicide is so insubstantial that such theories arose; so my paragraph pointing this out should not be deleted as "speculation".

Trevor-Roper is cited as saying " "the desire to invent legends and fairy tales ... is (greater) than the love of truth"'; so it seems balanced to put in a reference to H T-R's vulnerability to a hoax.

Guy Walters writes convincingly on Nazi topics; but is it necessary to give his dismissals in full: ("rubbish", "no substance", "deluded fantasies", "impossible to believe", and ""no serious historian would give the story any credence"), when no specific critique by Walters is cited?

The current lead sentence is "Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death contradict the FACT that Adolf Hitler committed suicide"; and the "Origins" paragraph states (as FACT), "The theory that Hitler did not commit suicide, but instead escaped with his wife, WAS deliberately promoted by Soviet government personnel". It appears that some editors are not prepared to acknowledge that there is still uncertainty over the facts in this murky area. Arrivisto (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no uncertainly in reliable sources about Hitler having committed suicide on 30 April 1945. The article should not suggest that there is as you are trying to insert. Trevor-Roper's work on this topic continues to be well regarded, and the mistake he made, and soon retracted, regarding the "Hitler Diaries" around 40 years later is irrelevant. I see no problem with the Walters' material: he is clearly dismissing this theory outright. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(Walters) is clearly dismissing this theory outright. Indeed! Walters reportedly declared the book "2,000 per cent rubbish", but this page would do well to document at least some of his objections. To its credit, the Grey Wolf book reminds us that (through royalties from Mein Kampf and from his image on postage stamps and currency, not to mention a portion of the gold looted from all the occupied countries) Hitler had become one of the richest men in the world and could (if desired) have funded an escape; and that Martin Bormann was crucial in managing Hitler's fortune. Arrivisto (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I am glad to see that after my WP:BRD revert, the non-RS cited addition made, has been removed. For www.blackraiser.com/nredoubt is in no way an WP:RS cite. As for the other changes, I have to agree with Nick-D. There is no "uncertainty" among RS historians as to Hitler and Braun's fate. That is what we go by, not WP:OR or WP:fringe theories, which make for good TV and sell books. Kierzek (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Reversion on added image

Beyond My Ken Reason please? UpdateNerd (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The addition of the image creates the impression that the "double" had something factually to do with Hitler's death, when historians agree that ti was just a coincidence. If you wanted to place it further down in the article, with an explanation as such, that would not be objectionable, but as the lede image, it's deceptive and confusiing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I think the assertion that all historians agree on something is assuming too much, but I get where you're coming from. It shouldn't be framed as the cornerstone of the entire article, but not all main images can actually cover such broad topics as this. Since it was taken at the Reich Chancellory, and thought by at least some to be Hitler, is it not highly relevant to the subject? More so at least than the Secret Service mockup which has nothing to do with actual events. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the subject. You'd need to explicitly connect it via reliable sources, and even then having it be the lede image would be a WP:WEIGHT issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This NYTimes article is the most accurate description of the film/photograph's creation. It states that it's not Hitler's corpse, despite Russian television stating so! I believe it to be very relevant to the subject, as no other actual photographic evidence of Hitler's death exists. A body dressed up to look like him found at the Chancellory is one of the biggest smoking guns that there possibly could have been a decoy involved. I'm open to other interpretations, but unfortunately we won't be able to use the image in any other place due to fair use requirements. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If your point is that the "double" is cited in conspiracy theories about H's death, or incites them, then you have a problem, because I can't find that assertion anywhere in the article. Perhaps I just missed it. If mention of the "double" isn't in the article anywhere, then I don't see how an image of the "double" can be included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The article states: "Believing that they might have found the body of the Nazi leader, Soviet officers ordered that the body be filmed ... later that same day ... Soviet troops found the actual charred bodies of Hitler and his wife." The fact that the Soviets filmed a fake corpse, while claiming to find the real one (without evidence) the same day is practically tantamount to a conspiracy, or at least very relevant evidence to corroborate aspects of other conspiracy theories. The fact that a "Soviet archive film supposedly showing Hitler's intact corpse, shown ... on Russian television" should open the door for further discussion on how to incorporate relevant information to the article. I know the article needs to maintain WP:NPOV, but if what is pointed out in the NY Times article is relevant, the proper information needs incorporation into the article as well as the image — but perhaps that should be done first if the image doesn't seem relevant on its own merit. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Where is ""Believing that they might have found the body of the Nazi leader, Soviet officers ordered that the body be filmed ... later that same day ... Soviet troops found the actual charred bodies of Hitler and his wife." in this article? I cannot find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah! The fog clears -- you meant the NYTimes article, not the Wikipedia article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the Times article doesn't make any link between the finding of the "double's" body, or the filming of it, or the photograph, as being connected to conspiracy theories about Hitler's death. Therefore, making that connection ourselves is WP:Original research, which is not allowed. With no tenable connection to our article, the photograph cannot be included. You'll need a source that lays out the facts, similar to the Times article, and then says something like "the discovery of this apparent double for Hitler has been on of the factors which conspiracy theorists cite as evidence that Hitler did not die in the bunker." At this point, you don't have that - and you can;t use two different sources -- one for the facts and one for the use in conspiracy theories -- because that would be WP:SYNTH. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with BMK. As the image has been uploaded under a fair use claim, such a connection is also needed to justify its use anywhere in Wikipedia. As I understand it, the conspiracy theories relating to Hitler's death all involve him escaping from Berlin, with none being focused on him dying there in somewhat different circumstances in May 1945 which apparently is what this photo depicts. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The photo depicts a double meant to look like Hitler, which to my mind sets off all kinds of alarm bells related to the covering up of the actual Hitler’s escape. I guess making that connection within the article falls under OR/SYNTH, but I’d be surprised if I can’t find a journalistic source that points out a conspiracy theory based on this evidence. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

UpdateNerd...looks like you gave up trying to fight Wikipedia user city hall. Can't say I blame you. Here's another article about the double theory if anyone's interested for further revisions, etc. (article in Dutch): [1] RRskaReb talk 23:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy Walters quote

Ban evasion by HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is the point of the Guy Walters quote? It offers no evidence, and does not prove anything one way or another. (109.145.42.86 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)) It's the opinion of an expert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence clearly suffers from WP:NPOV issues. Whether or not it is a "fact" that Hitler died in WWII depends on whether you live in the West, Russia, or work for a government institution. Notable sources such as Stalin, the FBI, CIA, at least considered and perhaps favored the possibility of his survival. The only true evidence of his death is some dental fragments matched by his own dentists. Not saying those don't prove anything, but they are evidence leading to a conclusion, not some objective "fact".

The phrase "contradict the fact" should be used within the article and attributed to a non-editor POV, not the main definition of the article's subject. As far as the qualifier "disproven" in the first paragraph, what source says this? Historians calling it far-fetched, or a looney's pipe dream, etc., is not the same thing as calling it disproven. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, facts don't change depending on where you live. Your evidence is not at all persuasive. The sentence is NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

BMK is correct, as is Nick-D. The facts are the facts per the RS sources; the rest is fiction. Kierzek (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The exact circumstances of Hitler's death have been established very firmly since 1945. It isn't a subjective issue. No historian disputes it (though interpretations of Hitler's last days can differ). The FBI and CIA never believed that Hitler survived Berlin: they appear to have opened files to investigate claims of this at various times, but that's what intelligence agencies (and all other bureaucracies) do when handed a task. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The main issue is that the first sentence doesn’t properly summarize the article. A better intro might read “Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death attempt to refute the fact that he committed suicide...” UpdateNerd (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death contradict the fact that he committed suicide in his Führerbunker on 30 April 1945." Is fine. It expresses facts. You don;t believe in those facts, but they are facts nonetheless. Your change would be POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, articles shouldn’t take sides, but should explain them proportionally. Since this is an article on a conspiracy theory, it shouldn’t start by undermining the explanation of the article’s subject. But it should quickly make it clear that established historians generally discredit such theories. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV does not require that at all. Please see the WP:FALSEBALANCE section. We are not going to give even a sliver of credence to this nonsense, as there is a very clear and very long-lasting consensus among historians, etc, on the circumstances of Hitler's death. Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

But this is an article about those views. The 'False Balance' page you linked supports this: e.g. an article about Earth shouldn’t give weight to flat Earth theories, but the article about flat Earth should fairly state its subject. The first sentence there correctly calls it an archaic concept, but doesn’t say it contradicts the established fact of a spherical Earth in the first sentence. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Then it should. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstood your reply as agreement, hence my bold edit (which I think better summarizes the article). It seems however that you think an article a MoS page cites as an example is incorrect. I think we should let an unbiased administrator decide. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators do not decide content issues. Content disputes are decided by consensus discussion between editors on the article talk page, and you do not have a consensus for your suggested edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For future consensus discussion, consider the compromise of "Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death attempt to refute the fact that he committed suicide..." No one is disputing the facts, as perceived above, only the presentation of the article’s subject. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

UpdateNerd, you need to stop distorting facts and removing material that you personally disagree with. That's called POV editing, and it's a serious violation of WP:NPOV. You took out part of a quote, saying it wasn't in the source, when it fact it was right there for anyone to read. I suggest that you not make any more edits to this article without first clearing them with the editors on this page, since your own ability to tell what's acceptable and what is not appears to be unreliable. The alternative is that you continue on this course of action and your editing behavior is brought to the attention of administrators on the noticeboards, where you could perhaps be topic banned from editing this article. Please consider this matter seriously, if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe my edits are in good faith, NPOV and reflect RS and good articles. There are discordant parts of the article that need improving. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Your edits, while at some point helpful, have now clearly turned to being POV, and hiding them within copy-editing will not help you. You are rephrasing things to make the conspiracy theories, which have absolutely no support among mainstream historians, appear to be more creditable then they are. Reporting accurately what the theories say is one thing, something that we should do by all means, but accurate reporting does not mean framing them in a positive way -- that is POV editing, and that is what you are now doing. As I said above,, if you continue, I will bring the issue of your POV editing, which violates both WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I’m not aware that I’m POV editing; I’m trying to improve the article as I would any other. But it seems that on some articles, the consensus itself is biased, so common sense edits get reverted. Until more objective editors come to my defense, cheers. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"More objective editors", my left foot. The problem isn't my lack of objectivity, the problem is that your point of view is outside the bounds of what we allow. The consensus here isn't biased, since it is, as usual, that we go with what the broad consensus of reputable scholars say on a subject like this, and what they say is that these conspiracy theories haven't a shred of credibility. Thus, our article can report what the conspiracy theories are -- and should do so accurately -- but cannot present them as if they were true, which is what it appears you are trying to do by framing them in a positive way. That's never going to pass muster here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

And yet the only source for that viewpoint in the article is The Daily Mail. If you believe something is the view of a scholar, please provide a source for it. A good Wikipedia article doesn’t assert things that 'everyone knows' are the conclusions of experts. I'm only trying to report information accurately as it can be sourced, and not slant things as you say. E.g. the History Channel made a show in response to documents being declassified; it didn’t "claim to find" them. That is false, just in a way the current bias of consensus allows. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate. The source is not the Daily Mail, the source is Guy Walters, journalist and historian. You want to show that mainstream historians agree that Hitler escaped to Argentina or Mars or wherever? Cite some reputable mainstream historians -- not television programs or popular pablum -- that say so. Convince us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I never attempted to. And Walters is a writer for The Daily Mail. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, then let's talk about the historians who accept that Hitler shot himself in the bunker, and his body was burned in the Chancellory garden: Kershaw, Trevor-Roper, Joachimsthaler, Evans, Bullock, Shirer, Holland, Fest, Overy, Burleigh, the list goes on and on and on. Once again no reputable historian accepts that Hitler escaped to Argentina or any of the other theories about Hitler's death, and there is no a whit of credible evidence to support those theories. The time, place and manner of Hitler's death is an established historical fact, as established as any historical fact can possibly be, and no one can bring forward a single mainstream historian who says otherwise. As such, we cannot (and will not) allow such theories to be framed as anything but what they are: untrue WP:FRINGE ideas which contradict historical fact. You keep trying to soften that, to make the theories appear to be more possible, more acceptable, less egregiously wrong than what they are, and that is your POV influencing your editing. The only good faith I can extend to you at this point is that it's possible that you may not be aware of your bias, but it is clearly present in your edits nevertheless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in argument with those historians, just the inaccuracies I mentioned. Why did you revert my change to the British spelling of travelled, for instance? You're biased against me because of an unrelated past disagreement about something else, I can only assume. Please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater because we're not in harmony about one detail. Cheers. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no memory of any disagreement with you in the past. Please read WP:Casting aspersions, and stop making assumptions about the motives of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I should have been more specific; I meant lack of consensus about the first sentence (which this is a subtopic of). I explained previously that I was in error, no need to interpret justified edits as POV. It’s all balance, and I focused on strengthening the subject of the article before sourcing its disproven nature. Both were/are lacking in the article, and I just made an edit on the side of consensus reality. Cheers. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: I also think that you need to walk away from this article. Continuing edits such as this which falsely claim that some historians don't think Hitler died when he did is totally unacceptable. Adding an unessessary source because the existing source has a "contentious headline (it actually sets out the facts) is also unacceptable [2]. This is disruptive editing being conducted to advance a fringe POV. You will likely be blocked if this continues. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the contentious headline of another reference I tried to add that got reverted, which was the reason given for its removal. I read through the current citation and it didn't seem obvious to me that historians were quoted. The last one I added (which you reverted) made clear views of both fields. Also, the word "most" is more factual (Wikipedia cannot account for the views of all experts in a field, that's POV). Anyway, I didn't undo your undo; I read your reason & came up with a compromise. That's standard activity on any article, so I see no reason this one should be different. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Caption

I hid the image I recently added until consensus for a caption can be determined. We need to avoid making assumptions about decidely fringe info by simply synthesizing facts (e.g., Hitler killed himself, therefore the image was part of a hoax). Wikipedia is based on sources per WP:IS, not editor POV. So unless a source is provided supporting specific claims being made, we shouldn't include them. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. It's way past time that you stopped editing this article given that you are obviously a believer in the bizarre theory that Hitler survived Berlin. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I just believe we shouldn't apply a double-standard because of an "obvious truth". If it's known to be part of a hoax, then it should be easy to find a RS that says so. For the sake of argument, the ex-SS officer could have been bluffing for political intent, or was deluded and maybe not even part of the SS. That's not the same as a hoax (a.k.a. a "prank"). There are countless explanations; we shouldn't just assume one. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

And, since my edit was reverted, I'll just point out that "wrongly purports" reads as a double negative. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Although "wrongly purports" isn't a double negative, it is a pleonasm, which is probably what tickled UpdateNerd's English usage funny bone. If it's important to have "falsely" in the caption, then "falsely claims" is better, but I wouldn't be opposed to having just "purports" by itself, since it generally includes the sense of "false". Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail

The Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid and should never be used on this site. The quotations from Guy Walters are worthless as they contain no evidence. Also the photograph from 1954 has not been proven to be a hoax. (86.160.101.137 (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC))

The 1954 photo is obviously a hoax as Hitler died in 1945. Your refusal to accept this, and edit warring over the matter, casts some doubt over your editing here. You are right that the Daily Mail is deeply unreliable, but the author of this op-ed article was quoted by the Observer as being an expert on the topic, so it can be assumed that he knows what he's talking about and it's a rare instance of where something in the DM is usable. The article on Guy Walters shows that he's the author of multiple professionally published books on relevant topics. I'm entirely supportive of a better source being used to support this point though. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D's reasoning here. When I get home, I will look for a better cite, which covers the same text. Kierzek (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The Observer article actually does contain some of the quote. I found the photo on a bunch of sites claiming it was evidence. All of the sites were far from RS. In any case, since he was dead at the time, it's obviously a fake. The sky is blue. O3000 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Jaw fragment

Has the jaw fragment been tested with DNA? Surely this would end the controversy once and for all. (2A00:23C7:CF06:200:AC11:4F26:9556:BA37 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC))

This IP just attempted to skew the article by claiming that the conspiracy theories about Hitler's death were true (they removed the word "falesly"), so they are clearly a believer in these conspiracy theories -- which is why I archived this query twice. I'm not going to do it again, even though it deserves to be. This time Ill just let it sit here and rot for a while before I archive it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

And they just tried to make the same edit again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The 1954 photograph has not been proven to be false, so claiming it is a hoax is POV. (2A00:23C7:CF06:200:AC11:4F26:9556:BA37 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC))

And they did it again. Help, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

To answer the query (notwithstanding disruptive edits), it was reported in 2018 that a DNA test would be conducted, but nothing has broken concerning the results. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A French team examined the teeth fragments and reported in May 2018 that they were definitively Hitler's teeth. I've added a citation to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Given the conclusive evidence as to the "teeth" fragments, a DNA test using DNA from the jaw remains, which involves a so-called "grandson" is frankly highly suspect given the person to be tested and is not needed either for the truth of the matter asserted. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... It depends on the merits of the evidence, and since it hasn't been presented, it would be premature to judge it. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not "premature" if they are going to base it in part on DNA from Philippe Loret (does the last name ring a bell for you?). He claims to be the son of Jean-Marie Loret who has been dismissed by historians in relation to the matter of Hitler's paternity. Kierzek (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That would only make it more valuable, to disprove Loret's claim for good if it's false (I'm not very familiar with that specific case). But regardless of that, it would be valuable to see if the DNA of the jawbone fragment fits the known facts about Hitler's ancestry and also help clarify whether the skull fragment is also his. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The French investigation did not use DNA so it is worthless. (86.161.73.231 (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC))

So glad to hear your expert opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Bariloche nazi-guía turística and Abel Basti

User:Nick-D did recently reverted an edit I made where I re-inserted material that was in this article some time ago. If Bariloche nazi-guía turística by Abel Basti is not valid for mention why is Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler so? –Dentren | ^Talk 11:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems valid for inclusion to me; the only thing I would do differently is add it chronologically instead of in a subsection. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Just because text may be "sourced", that does not automatically equal notability. Just adding walls of text or intricate detail does not lead to a better article; see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "Grey Wolf" in all its fictional glory is well known, mainly due to the so-called History Channel. Kierzek (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I removed this as it messed up the article's structure, by placing this separately to the material noting that claims that Hitler went to Argentina are considered rubbish by historians. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Kierzek, you havent answered the question on why Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler is to be here but not Bariloche nazi-guía turística. Give a valid reason. Dentren | ^Talk 09:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I gave a reason, you just don't like it. I don't consider it notable to include in relation to a conspiracy theory about Hitler's death. If you convince others to include it, then consensus will be so. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed the last part of your argument where you write that not therefore subject to significant critical film review. ""Grey Wolf" in all its fictional glory is well known, mainly due to the so-called History Channel.". So History Channel is what grants "Grey Wolf" a deserved mention in Wikipedia? That is interesting considering that the Grey_Wolf_(film) article reads that it was not "subject to significant critical film review" and "The liquidators of Grey Wolf Media limited described in the film as "largely unsuccessful" in their May 2018 Progress Report and identified that it generated revenues of only AUD$55,000 AUD (about $39,000) and that much of this was paid in the form of guarantees by distributors rather than sales.". Considering that the book Gre Wolf was published in 2011 [3] there a great chance it tapped from Basti's work. Dentren | ^Talk 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The tie-in to the History Channel being that Gerrard Williams of "Grey Wolf" was a part of that cable channel's series "Hunting Hitler". Kierzek (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

From The Guardian: The authors of the 2011 book Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler, which was made into a documentary film earlier this year, have been accused of plagiarism by a journalist in Argentina. Abel Basti claims his research has been unfairly used to substantiate claims made in the book. [4] Dentren | ^Talk 14:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact of the earlier date of the more obscure work makes it relevant in connection with Grey Wolf, which didn't just appear out of a vacuum. It would at least be relevant on an article about the Grey Wolf book, where it seems to already be located. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Argentinian book is not a reliable source. Probably Grey Wolf isn't either, but we're pretty much stuck with it for extrinsic reasons. There's no reason to exacerbate that situation by adding yet another unreliable source to the mix. If a court determines that the accusation of plagiarism is true, this can be revisited with an eye towards mentioning the Argentinian book as a source for Grey Wolf. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, nobody expects a conspiracy or fringe theory to be reliable. That is not the criteria for inclusion here. What is reliable and give Abels works notability is that it is mentioned by well-established newspapers like The Guardian, El Tiempo and The Japan Times. The authors of Grey Wolf have even acknowledged they recieved help from Basti.[5]. Dentren | ^Talk 10:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

They mentioned the accusation of alleged plagiarism, that's much more about Grey Wolf then it is about the Argentinanian book. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

UpdateNerd, Abels Basti's work is not obscure. Its just not in English. You can fins his book trought the bookshops of Bariloche and other cities of Argentina. If it was really obscure it would not have been reviewed by a "respectable" foreign newspaper like El Tiempo. This whole discussion smells of bias against Spanish language material. It seem to me that that there is an implicit way of thinking that only Anglo-Saxon media (History Channel, etc.) can give notability or worthiness to mention. Dentren | ^Talk 13:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there are many pre-Grey Wolf works which claim Hitler went to South America. You'd need an RS to make the case that it originated with Abel Basti. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no bias against foreign media. That is a non-issue. It has to do with reliable sources no matter what language it’s in. And I never said the “History channel” was a reliable source, I was talking about notoriety. The only thing that “smells” is the edit war that’s going on and the changing without consensus first. Kierzek (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

UpdateNerd, if you see at the version you last reverted [6] it is never stated Basti created everyting from zero. It just states what reliable sources (El Tiempo, The Guardian and The Japan Times) find significant, that in the early 2000s, before Grey Wolf were around Basti published an interesting theory about Hitler in Bariloche, including the claim of him hiding in Inalco. As stated in the sources Grey Wolf authors agree that the recieved help from Basti, who preceeded them in his theories. Dentren | ^Talk 10:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian is the only explicitly reliable source and it doesn't really help your case. According to Williams, there are books going back to the 1950s that claim Hitler went to Argentina, so there's no reason to focus on one from 2004. (He also denies the claims of plagarism in that article.) UpdateNerd (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Argentina story is OLD, dating from almost immediately after the war. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, Anglo-Saxon bias here, why would The Guardian be the only reliable source that gives notability? What's wrong with El Tiempo? Dentren | ^Talk 12:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

So far we have not seen here any reasonable explanation to exclude any mention of Basti and his work, and how "Grey Wolf" would be worthy of mention while Bastis work not. Dentren | ^Talk 14:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The fringe theory that Hitler somehow made it to Argentina and lived there does not in any way originate with Basti. Newspapers and other resources have been raising that rubbish for many years. See for example, Joachimsthaler, p. 145. That does not make it reliable sourced fact or theory, when the mainline historians and evidence clearly points otherwise. As @Beyond My Ken: stated, "The Argentinian book is not a reliable source. Probably Grey Wolf isn't either, but we're pretty much stuck with it for extrinsic reasons. There's no reason to exacerbate that situation by adding yet another unreliable source to the mix." The only place I can see where Basti could be mentioned is on the Grey Wolf article page; which Dentren has already done. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Good to see you in the talk page. I have not claimed in the content I am proposing to the article Basti was the first to bring forward such ideas. Insisting on that would be a straw man. You are correct in that, being fringe conspiracy theories, neither Grey Wold or Guía Nazi-turística are reliable source. Neither me nor any other recent editor are using them as sources. The sources I am using are The Guardian, El Tiempo and as back-up The Japan Times. All which are reputable, specially the first two ones. I am not sure wether you have read the changes I made, but I can tell you that the sources are not used to "argue for claims", just to 1) establish who claimed what, 2) establish the subjects notability (WP:NOTABILITY). Dentren | ^Talk 14:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Guntherberg

I'm not sure how The Santiago Times is proven to be unreliable; the claims are independently represented by another source. Anyways, seems justified to include; most of the theories pointed out on this article aren't "conspiracy theories" per se but actually fringe theories. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The Santiago Times was founded in 1990 as a personal hobby of its founder. It ceased publishing in November 2014. It is now a news website only and the editorial oversight is unknown. Therefore, does not meet RS in my book. And the so-called claim is not notable. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Kierzek (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Being short-lived or founded as a personal hobby doesn't make a newspaper a tabloid. I'll admit there's neither a great case for or against it being a RS. But South America doesn't have the same MSM dynamic as North America, where just a couple of corporations spew out the news. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

We go by Wikipedia's standards -- i.e. WP:RS -- regardless of what "dynamic" is in effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what particular point of WP:RS you're getting at; as I stated above, the foreign news sources neither clearly violate nor fall into well-recognized MSM. It really comes to the subject matter. If it were about anything else, would you object to the source? The report is directly relevant specifically within the context of conspiracy theories that Hitler went to Argentina. Whether "Guntherberg" has Alzheimer's or not is irrelevant, as this is an article on claims Hitler didn't die in Berlin, and that is what is being alleged. It may fall into the realm of non-scientific junk rather than any hard evidence, but that's exactly why it belongs on this specific article. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:RS? It says nothing about being part of the "mainstream media", it requires that

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.

Does the Santiago Times have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Is it a "well-established" news outlet, this hobby newspaper turned into a web site? Probably not, so I reject the site as a reliable source.

You could open a report at WP:RSN if you want to pursue this further Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Santiago Times' website has no mention of staff of any kind, not even the publisher or the editor, let alone fact-checkers. They do mention the founding publisher, Steve Anderson from Fayetteville, Arkansas, of whom it says "force majeure took him to Chile in 1987," [7] a statement that makes little sense. There's absolutely nothing there that inspire the least bit of confidence in this as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This material is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the article. The story is about an old man whose wife says is suffering from dementia claiming to be Hitler, not a conspiracy theory about Hitler's death. If Hitler was still alive he'd be 130 years old, so no sane person is going to think that this man is actually Hitler. A (very!) reliable source would be needed stating that this forms part of a conspiracy theory. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Hobby newspaper" is just an opinion. So far as I know The Santiago Times is the prime Enlgish-language newspaper in Chile. Dentren | ^Talk 09:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That is its original history; the fact remains it is a website with no mention of staff or editorial over-sight. Not to mention Nick-D's point as to relevancy. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Soviet disinformation

' ... state-sponsored disinformation campaign'. It would be useful if something could be added about the Soviet motives for this. After all, the disinformation began remarkably soon after VE Day, before the Cold War. Norvo (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that phrasing is a little odd, especially since the Soviet government supposedly cremated Hitler's remains. I think it would better present the facts if that (unexplained) phrase was eliminated, and the paragraph focused on Stalin's promotion of those ideas, which it mostly does already. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Mention of Abel Basti and or his work

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that there appears to be a clear consensus in oppose of the proposal (non-admin closure). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Should this article include a mention of Abel Basti and/or his work? Dentren | ^Talk 13:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: As I said above, the fringe theory that Hitler somehow made it to Argentina and lived there does not in any way originate with Basti. Newspapers and other resources have been raising that rubbish for many years. See for example, Joachimsthaler, p. 145. That does not make it reliable sourced fact or theory, when the mainline historians and evidence clearly points otherwise. As @Beyond My Ken: stated, "The Argentinian book is not a reliable source. Probably Grey Wolf isn't either, but we're pretty much stuck with it for extrinsic reasons. There's no reason to exacerbate that situation by adding yet another unreliable source to the mix." The only place I can see where Basti could be mentioned is on the Grey Wolf article page; which Dentren has already done. I am not going to rehash every point as it is stated in sections of related discussion above. It is thereby incorporated by reference herein. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Kierzek the point of RfC, if you read more carefully nobody is claiming Basti was the first with this kind of ideas. Yet I can not trace notions that are repeated by Grey Wolf like the role of Inalco further back than Basti. There is not attempt here to use Basti's work as reliable sources. "Mention of Basti" does not mean to use Basti as source. That should be clear. Your comment is identical, to what you have written elsewhere and I explained here and elsewhere on why your notions are wrong. also you fail to explain what makes Grey Wolf worthy of mention and not Basti. Dentren | ^Talk 14:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Context is everything, and as I mentioned at help desk, an RfC should be specific. Basti's clearly a WP:FRINGE source, but this is a WP:FRINGE topic, so WP:PROFRINGE has a fair bit of guidance on the subject. That said, whether Basti is WP:DUE is unclear. He's neither the first nor the last person to propose the conspiracy theory that Hitler escaped to Argentina. The notability of his particular claim seems to be derived from his litigiousness toward people who proposed that conspiracy theory after him. I'm uncertain that, "Argentine author decided to sue over ownership of this nonsense," is WP:DUE inclusion. I'm not putting a !vote on this RfC yet. I'd suggest you should propose some text supported by WP:RS to establish whether this is due first. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• I cannot change the RfC, but if you think having an even more specific RfC I may do one in the future. I just thought wording was less important than the underlying issue on wether or not Basti should be mentioned at all. Dentren | ^Talk 14:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody would object to you clarifying this RfC. As it stands I'd need to Oppose on the procedural ground that it's unclear what the intended outcome is and it's not been demonstrated that Basti's work is WP:DUE mention. WP:DUE issues are particularly central to WP:FRINGE topics like this one, and as such, without any demonstration that there's a positive reason for inclusion, I'd lean toward exclusion. The first person to propose this would be notable. A person who attracted significant attention to the theory might be notable. A person who wrote a book about it and sued a film maker about it, whose coverage is about the suit and not independent assessment of the book, is not due. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Basti's work is the foundation of Grey Wolf, Grey Wolf was made with Basti's work as reference. Basti is major author on the theory about Hitler in Argentine. I see it difficult to dispute that. So, its WP:UNDUE to Grey Wolf and not Basti. Sources like The Guardian, El Tiempo and The Japan Times thinks of him as an important on Hitler in Argentina theories, and so worthy of mention. Dentren | ^Talk 14:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to the articles in question? Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Here are they.

• "NAZI-GUÍA TURÍSTICA POR BARILOCHE". El Tiempo (in Spanish). January 2, 2004. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
• "Hitler lived until 1962? That's my story, claims Argentinian writer". The Guardian. October 27, 2013. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
• Thope, Vanessa (October 27, 2013). "Hitler escape book's authors in plagiarism row". The Japan Times. Retrieved August 8, 2019.</ref>
• EFE article: El argentino Abel Basti defiende la tesis de que Hitler estuvo en Colombia.
• In es:Canal 5 noticias, C5N - Hitler en Argentina: Habla Abel Basti
• In Clarín: Controversia “El exilio de Hitler” a la Argentina: el libro que intenta convertir el mito en realidad

Clearly Abel Basti is major figure on the topic of Hitler in Argentina. I fail to see what other author has been so profilic and influential on the topic. Grey Wolf is better known in the English-speaking world because of its exposure in History Channel. Yet this work this is based on Basti. Dentren | ^Talk 15:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm reviewing now. So far I'll say that El Tiempo likely falls afoul of WP:PROFRINGE though I'm not done reviewing it yet. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, done with El Tiempo and the Guardian. El Tiempo falls afoul, as I suspected of WP:PROFRINGE and shouldn't be used as a source in an article on a WP:FRINGE topic. The Guardian avoids WP:PROFRINGE but explicitly states that the "Hitler in Argentina" conspiracy theory was originally proposed by Stalin before being picked up in Books on the subject (that) existed as far back as 1953 and 1987. The Guardian pretty clearly asserts that Basti is just one of many authors who have advanced this position and in fact seems to land on the side that his position was not novel. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The Japan Times article is effectively the same as the Guardian. As such it does not establish that Basti's book was a novel interpretation of this WP:FRINGE theory. In fact, it actively contradicts that interpretation with the precise same quotes as the Guardian article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

EFE falls afoul of WP:PROFRINGE again. As does Clarin. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

All in all I'd say that these sources don't make a case per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability for inclusion of Basti. There's no reporting on levels of acceptance. Basti is neither the creator of this notable conspiracy theory nor is he the last. His significance entirely hinges on his plagiarism claim per the Guardian and the Japan Times, which does not appear to have gone anywhere. Having read the articles it doesn't look like he even filed suit anywhere, he just made some noise. So, I'd say that while a brief mention of Basti would be relevant to the Grey Wolf article page, but his contribution to this conspiracy theory is not independently notable. Whether the Grey Wolf a book and show are WP:DUE a page is also somewhat dubious, and if somebody put it up for AfD I would likely support deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In which sense is El Tiempo WP:PROFRINGE? It just seem that Colombia's largest newspaper found Basti's books interesting and wrote about this. Controversial statements in El Tiempo are attributed to Basti, not presented as true. either you are wrong or I must have missed something. "Hitler in Australia"? You must mean Hitler in Argentina, you are making the same mistake as Kierzek, this is not about saying that Basti was absolutely first, its about establishing Basti as key author (perhaps the most important living one) on Hitler in Argentina theories. Given the role he played in shaping Grey Wolf and the coverage he has in Spanish-language media of different countries and to some extent in English language media he clearly is an important figure in the topic.

Will you comment on EFE, Canal 5 Noticias and Clarín?

Mention in six serious sources: The Guardian, El Tiempo, The Japan Times, EFE, Canal 5 Noticias and Clarín is not enough to establish Basti a noteworthy author in the topic? Does Grey Wolf pass that test? I'm perplexed. Dentren | ^Talk 15:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

With regard to El Tiempo, Clarin and EFE, the reason they fall prey to WP:PROFRINGE is because they respond to Basti's conspiracy theory as if they were reporting statements of fact. It's the in-universe problem. Specifically the language is A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. - Basti's conjecture - that Hitler survived and escaped by submarine to Colombia and / or Argentina, is rejected by the appropriate scientific community (historians) as fringe. As such, a non-expert source (a newspaper) that reports on this as if it were an acceptable alternative, is not to be used as an RS. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability they can't be used to establish the independent notability of Basti's work on this fringe topic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I will take a time to diggest your argumentation which seem so far the only one to [make sense based on facts and WP policies]. So far I can conclude Abel Basti has had plenty of exposure in serious media, but he is often written of lightly. I may return with the Basti issue when I find some more educated analysis or critical review of his work. It seen from this that Grey Wolf would also fail such tests. Dentren | ^Talk 16:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not invested enough to bother with an AfD for the Grey Wolf article, but as I said, I'd consider its notability to be dubious at best. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kierzek and Simonm223. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Simonm223 and Kierzek. Dentren, based on their arguments above, you have a steep hill to climb, here. I do want to credit you with the good faith to both bring the Rfc (although as previously mentioned, the more specifically you can word it, the better) and to consider (and digest) other arguments in good faith yourself. I do want to disagree slightly with your interpretation about Basti's being written of lightly. (First of all: I wasn't entirely sure if you meant, written of, meaning how others write about him, or written off meaning to dismiss someone from serious consideration.) In any case, if I understood Simonm223 correctly, he's not saying either one. You understand what he meant by in-universe, right? Just like we suspend disbelief when reading science fiction like, say, The Time Machine in order to be able to understand and discuss it within its own set of premises, even if they are fictional or physically impossible, I believe Simonm223 is saying that ET, C, and EFE approach Basti's views in a similar way. A serious discussion in-universe doesn't mean they are endorsing it as fact. Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support mentioning said work in a larger list of predecessors to Grey Wolf if valid sources can be found, but if I understand correctly, an unimpeachable one has yet to be found. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Whether or not Basti is the originator of a conspiracy theory about Hitler's death is immaterial. What is important is that he has helped in perpetuating the theory that he escaped to Argentina. This has been covered both by newspapers and books, with many of these identifying him as a conspiracy theorist (see Kapnistos' Hitler's Doubles, p. 244; Corsi's Hunting Hitler) on the subject. I do not understand why it is important for his view to be accepted or proven true. As one comment stated, this very article is WP:FRINGE and you cannot expect the views to be scientific, empirical or factual. If it helps - particularly for those who cite that the journalist is merely known for his litigation - I would like to add that according to Jerome Corsi, Basti wrote a trilogy that presented Basti's investigations and that, along with Patrick Burnside, these works included extensive interviews with the few World War II eyewitnesses to Hitler's supposed arrival in Argentina. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per detailed analysis of Simonm223 and arguments by Kierzek (Summoned by bot). Pincrete (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Please forgive my inability to type effectively on this mobile, and pretend that I wrote "advocation" instead of "afvovation". Carter l j (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias

This article has several problems relating to an author's bias in favor of one possible explanation. It would be improved by presenting the suicide of Hitler as being "widely-accepted" instead of "fact". Likewise, the presentation of other theories would be improved by presenting them as alternative and competing hypotheses rather than the current, pejorative presentation. Separate paragraphs should be included for each alternative hypothesis, providing scholars and advocates, and other references, both in support and refutation of the hypothesis. In short, the current article reads as a persuasive afvovation for a preferred position rather than being an objective presentation allowing the reader to decide a position organically. Carter l j (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No. We’ve been through this before and the facts are the facts. Everything else is speculation, conjecture or propaganda and fiction. Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC on changing name

There is a clear consensus against changing the article title to Adolf Hitler death conspiracy theories.

Cunard (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Should the present article title be changed to Adolf Hitler death conspiracy theories? ~ HAL333 00:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Support The current title is rather cumbersome and awkward. There is no other Wikipedia death article with a title structured like this one. The title change would be in line with the naming precedent on similar articles, such as Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories, Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Martin Luther King Jr. assassination conspiracy theories, and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. ~ HAL333 00:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think the name Hitler should take precedence over other subjects in this title. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is very clear and grammatically correct. The proposed new title and the titles of the other comparable articles don't seem to be grammatically correct to me. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically, they’re both grammatically correct, but one just has redundant and superfluous words. ~ HAL333 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nick-D. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Before readig the above two comments, I concluded that the other titles are the ones that need changing, not this one. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nick-D, as to this title. Kierzek (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion

• Per WP:RFCNOT, last row, please use the WP:RM process for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Prior rfc

I think the prior rfc should have been allowed to run its course, but as RedRose64 noted, I was misusing an rfc. Instead of reopening the rfc, I will open a new move proposal. ~ HAL333 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. There does not seem to be any point in further extending this discussion since this was recently previously discussed to the same effect. BD2412 T 19:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death → Adolf Hitler death conspiracy theories – The current title is rather cumbersome and awkward. There is no other Wikipedia death article with a title structured like this one. The title change would be in line with the naming precedent on similar articles, such as Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories, Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Martin Luther King Jr. assassination conspiracy theories, and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Do not sign this. ~ HAL333 00:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move per nom. Yes, the English syntax is cumbersome and awkward. All the precedents given indicate the correct construction for sentence/name. Additionaly, the special page about alternative theories about the death of this person would still fall under the search for the person's name. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Move per my previous statement. ~ HAL333 03:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Your support for your own proposal is implied. It does not need to be stated. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• I don't really think the suggested phrasing is less awkward. Actually, I think it is more awkward. Assuming I did the search properly, there are no article titles on Wikipedia that include the phrase "death conspiracy". Perhaps Death of Adolph Hitler conspiracy theories? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Go check out Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories. ~ HAL333 02:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Just to point out the obvious, myself, Nick-D, Roger 8 Roger, and Kierzek all oppose the move. At least three of those editors are longtime frequent contributors to the article. I think the most productive development of this entire conversation has been Roger 8 Roger's suggestion above that the other articles need changing, not this one. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Given that there was clear consensus to not make the proposed move in a discussion which very recently closed, this RM is disruptive and, to be frank, ill-advised. The suggested title is poor grammar. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• I’ve been out of town so I have not been able to comment, but I do not think the matter should’ve been handled like it was, and the article title before was grammatically better stated; I agree with Nick-D. Kierzek (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing "myth" to "theory"

The word "myth" in the sentence "The myth that Hitler did not commit suicide, but instead escaped with his wife, was first presented to the public by Marshal Georgy Zhukov at a press conference on 9 June 1945, on orders from Soviet leader Joseph Stalin" should be changed to "theory" to keep it in line with the rest of the article and all other conspiracy theory pages. The conspiracy theory pages about the deaths of John Paul II, John F. Kennedy, Princess Dianne, and RMS Titanic, while equally fake and bullshit, do not use the word "myth". - Jon698 talk 3:18 27 April 2020

But the Stab in the back myth and Myth of the clean Wehrmacht do. "Myth" has been in this article for over 4 years, since this edit, it is part of the article's stable version. There is no need to remove it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Theory" suggests that the claims have had some credibility, which has never been the case. Even the Soviets knew from the outset that claims that Hitler had survived were total rubbish. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Off-topic to this, but wouldn't it make more sense to use a picture of the Führerbunker while it was still intact, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-V04744,_Berlin,_Garten_der_zerst%C3%B6rte_Reichskanzlei.jpg, rather than the one of its demolished. - Jon698 talk 3:58 27 April 2020

Yes, probably. Nick-D (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A word change could be in order, but not to "theory" per Nick-D. I would suggest 'claim'. Using that word "can call [a] statement's credibility into question, by ... implying a disregard for evidence." Which is accurate in this case. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Claim" is much too weak, IMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "premise" is better. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the notion of Hitler surviving the war has always been a total myth. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Notion" is a good word too. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it is not totally correct to say there was no evidence to back this idea. Stalin says he escaped, UK media gave the idea some credence, and there was an escape route out of Europe used by many Germans. The term myth, which implies no evidence at all, is therefore a little strong. The word 'claim' seems to me to be the most accurate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The German Government announced Hitler's death shortly after he killed himself, and this was accepted by the Allied and neutral governments (the Irish leadership even visited the German embassy to offer their condolences! [8]). The Allies confirmed it as the war ended and they captured and interrogated key figures in the German government and people who'd been in the bunker. By the end of 1945 there was no doubt at all. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D and Beyond My Ken, "claim" is weak and ambiguous. The conclusion of the main-line RS historians (and objective evidence) leads to the use of "myth". Kierzek (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Dentist's presence

Not a major detail, but we are amiss in representing this inconsistent detail as fact. Eberle & Uhl wrote an excellent book that doesn't focus on forensic details to the same degree as Petrova & Watson. P&W repeatedly mention only the assistant and technician's presence (and how does this promote any conspiracy theory?). Blaschke is not explicitly removed from the scene, but is not supported by P&W nor any info on the Blaschke article.

I'll walk away from this presently, but I encourage anyone reading this to compare the aforementioned sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Joachimsthaler, p. 230 summarizes Blaschke's statements as saying he did not see Heusermann and Echtmann between 21 April (when he left Berlin) and December 1945 (when he was first interrogated). In short, Blaschke agreed with his associates' identification of Hitler's dental remains, but did not say so until his statements made in December 1945, as well as 1948 and 1954. We could include this information more precisely by noting this. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL

Per above, the Daily Mail IS NOT considered a reliable source - "Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context. (Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail.)". I've removed one such reference to the paper in the article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

True about the Daily Mail in general, it was deprecated as a source because it made up stuff, but in this case, the person being cited, historian Guy Walters, is the author of the piece in the DM, so the reliability criteria is based on them and not on the DM. It's not a piece of reportage by the newspaper, it's basically an opinion piece and Walters is a reliable source as to what his opinions are. I have restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

We have been through this before and local consensus for this article was that the author, a mainline historian, who wrote the cited piece would be allowed as an exception to using the "Daily Mail"; for the reasons stated by BMK, above. Kierzek (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't understand the crusade to remove this Daily Mail reference. Ironically given the subject of the article, it's an example of when the Daily Mail published something reliable. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2021

In the "In popular culture" section, include a mention of the grand strategy game Hearts of Iron IV. In the scenario where Hitler is killed before WW2 takes place, he may appear in other countries with a new identity. For example, if the fascists win the presidency, Adam Hilt may take over. In Greece, Adolfos I. And many more-- he may even appear as a recruitable spy. 2601:8D:501:A3C0:79B7:803B:9880:B9CB (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Grey Wolf year

Grey Wolf is quoted to be in 2014, but that was the year the film came out, per its wikipedia article. Is there something I'm missing here? ℂ𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕂𝕚𝕞𝕓𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, the main article was fixed. ℂ𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕂𝕚𝕞𝕓𝕣𝕠𝕦𝕘𝕙 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

FBI records released in 2014 has proven that this is not a conspiracy theory. There is an entire documentary on it…. 2600:6C46:7B00:83E:4461:2437:5D91:38E5 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no real evidence of anything, only speculation, conjecture and WP:Fringe theories. The FBI followed up on many so-called sightings and rumours over the years and could not obtain any conformation and closed their files. The "Hitler escaped" stories make for good TV shows and fiction reading in books. Kierzek (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clee5635.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The last life of German Dictator: Adolf Hitler

An English explorer, Josh Gates, uncovers secret Nazi hideouts and investigates intriguing theories about Adolf Hitler's true fate in Argentina. He then goes on the hunt for the hidden treasure of Nazi general Erwin Rommel. 2409:4065:D15:29E8:0:0:B4CB:30D (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)