Talk:Jean-Marie Loret

The version from German Wikipedia

submitted, translation of "Jean Loret" article from the German Wikipedia site. Translator's notes to follow.--Rex Bachmann 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NO DNA evidence: There is no evidence or claim to support the articles claim that any of Hitler's first nephews on Long Island have provided DNA to compare to the subject of this article. The source article is false and the man in question is neither notable nor is he related in any way to Hitler.

Translator's notes

[I'm new at this and find navigating this site daunting, frustrating, and at times unbearably time-consuming, so, if this is not the proper place for these kinds of comments please move them to the proper place and provide a link. Thank you.]

Note: The translator has striven to keep the English as close to the German original as possible and still make idiomatic sense.

Except for the external National-Zeitung-link which I've added, all the citations of references, refer to those from the German original. So far, no English translations of German (or French) works cited have been consulted. I did substitute French- or English-language links for French place names that are linked in the original German version.

Some translation issues:

1) 'Feldwebel'  : 'staff(?) sargent' I'm unclear on the matching of ranks and military titles.--Rex Bachmann 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rex, "Feldwebel" is indeed roughly equal to Staff Sergeant. Obviously, ranks change over time, and the ranks used by Continental armies have never been exact equivalents to British Commonwealth or American military ranks. Your matching is close enough !... Engr105th 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

2) ". . ., wiewohl offensichtlich bislang kein stichhaltiger Beweis hierfür erbracht werden konnte." : 'albeit/though, till then, apparently no firm evidence for this claim could be evinced'

'wiewohl' : '?' This term is supposed to be less strong than 'obwohl' or 'obgleich', what's usually expected in this context. 'bislang' gives problems here and elsewhere in the article because the German text uses clear preterite-tense 'konnte'. I assume the author meant to say 'up until that time' or he would have used present-tense 'kann', instead, if he means 'still today'. I might have also expected 'bisher' for the latter meaning.--Rex Bachmann 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

3) aus ganz eigenem Ermessen : 'entirely by his own discretion'; 'Ermeßen' is supposed to be tranlated as 'discretion', however I do not see how that fits here, since 'discretion' seems to apply mainly to one's judgment, rather than to one's ability or diligence at work. 'merit' seems much more appropriate here as a summary of the latter qualities.--Rex Bachmann 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

4) "Die Causa Loret-Hitler" : The Loret-Hitler Connexion 'causa' is difficult to translate. It seems to mean, one the one hand, a 'legal matter; cause of legal action' in German, but the reference in the text to the letztendlicher Ursprung ('ultimate origin') seems to point to whatever---the legal and/or the nonlegal---might ultimately "connect" Hitler and this Loret, so 'connexion' struck me as the best expression of the meaning in an idiomatic (American) context.--Rex Bachmann 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

5) 'Kolportagen' : 'literary advocacy works'/'literary propaganda'; again, although 'colportage(s)' may literally translate the German 'Kolportagen', the word is little, if ever, used in America---I don't ever recall seeing, much less hearing this term before reading the German original of this article---and the attempt at a more idiomatic, and certainly a more transparent, term to convey the intended meaning is, I think, justified. I considered "literary PR" ("public relations"), but rejected it. "literary propaganda" seems much more appropriate. The alternative, it seems to me, is to use the term 'colportage(s)' and link to the short Wikipedia article on the subject.--Rex Bachmann 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

6) "Als vermeintliche Belege für die Vaterschaft Hitlers in seinem Handeln, wurden Charlotte Lobjoies Einweisung in ein französisches Sanatorium nach dem deutschen Einmarsch in Frankreich (angeblich auf Weisung Hitlers) und eine langwierige Befragung Lorets durch die Gestapo im Hotel Lutetia, dem Gestapo-Hauptquartier in Paris, sowie die angebliche Kollaboration mit der Gestapo als Polizist."  : 'As supposed evidence for Hitler's paternity, evinced through his actions, were put forward/proposed Charlotte Lobjoie's commitment to a French sanatorium (allegedly at Hitler's instruction) after the German invasion of France and a protracted interrogation of Loret by the Gestapo in the Hotel Lutetia, the Gestapo-headquarter

A few points about this tantalizing article...

1) Under the Bio heading, the second, fifth and sixth paragraphs are tedious to read, in my opinion. The information is there, but it is not in a normal English format.
2) There is a recent book entitled "The Hidden Hitler" by Lothat Machtan that attempts to make a case for Hitler's homosexuality. (By the way, I've read this books and some reviews of it, and I think it is terrible scholarship. Machtan takes info out of context, engages in unsupported speculation, etc). Now, Hitler could of course have been homosexual, or bisexual, and it wouldn't prevent him from also fathering a child in is younger years. But Machtan's book alleges a long-term relationship Hitler had with another soldier/courier, while this article discusses a woman Hitler kept over time while in France...This leaves us with a situation of one Wiki article about a book arguing for a gay Hitler, and another article (this one) talking about Hitler offspring as a randy young soldier. And the two articles make no acknowledgement of one another and take mutually exclusive trails in the Hitler story...Clearly far more scholarly research is needed regarding Hitler's family and his sexuality.
3) I am also suspicious of this topic due to references I see to 1970s interviews and research. Remember, the 70s brought us a veritable explosion of UFO "sightings" and "research", Chariots of the Gods and other von Daniken-esque books, pseudo-scientific junk research...as well as some just plain intellectual nonsense. Therefore, if the story about Jean Loret has its scholarly roots in the 1970s, I cannot help but wonder about the 'provenance' of the story: its documentation as distinct from heresay evidence and "interviews" from the 70s. This article makes reference to Loret possibly assisting the SS - are there SS or French records that can be looked at?

Hitler offspring is a tantalizing subject. I'd like to see it go further in the way of either proving (as far as can be done) or debunking the myth (if that's what it really is).....Engr105th 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On your points:

1) "Under the Bio heading, the second, fifth and sixth paragraphs are tedious to read, in my opinion. The information is there, but it is not in a normal English format."

Hmmmm. And, yet, no one has stepped forward to edit the translation itself. Curious that. As the translator of the original, I can only say that I strove to capture both the spirit and the intended meaning of the original German. When a conflict arises on how to render something in translation, I'd prefer to be a little stiff, and "correct", than be free-wheeling and misleading (or wrong, for that matter). You're welcome to try your own hand at, if it displeases you.

As far as 2) and 3) are concerned, your points/suggestions/complaints are best addressed to the discussion section of the original at <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Jean_Loret>. There, too, there is a call for help to revise the article. So, get out your Wörterbücher, mein guter Herr!

One will note in this translation, which attempts to faithfully, but coherently, reproduce the original, there is a factual discrepancy on the year of Charlotte Labjoie's demise. On the one hand, it speaks of her deathbed confession to her son in 1948 of his father's identity, while, on the other, the first paragraph of the biography states that she died in 1951. Either the woman took a mighty loooonnnnnnnng time to croak, or there's something screwy with the numbers. Well, I just translates 'em. I don't write 'em, so all matters of substance should be taken up with the German authors.

Speaking of whom, if this is little article to be translated into French, or into any other third language, for that matter, needless to say---why do I need to say this?---the German original should be the basis of all such translations, not a secondary English-language source.

Rex Bachmann140.247.125.171 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

E 1b1b1

E 1b1b1, is Meditid haplogroup wich has different subdivisions; 'E 1b1b1 c1' is one of the 26 different subdivisions. About 25% of Ashkenazis belong to this haplogroup, but it does not mean that all the memebers of this haplogroup are Ashkenazi.

For instance, if a shirt(ASHKENAZI) has 25% cotton(E 1B1B1 C1), it does not mean that the whole world's cotton (E 1B1B1 C1) is part of that shirt (ASHKENAZI).

As a result, if Hitler had E 1b1b1 as his haplogroup, it does not prove that he was a Jewish.

--Alborztv (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We dont use "haplogroup" or other happo things here. we use race and ethnic genetic variations and not pseudo science here. though if there is from any RS that says so about his heritage then feel free to list them, as long as they are real genetic science and not a emotional fabrication such as "haplogroups" 79.138.2.2 (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Was this 'unproven' science back in 2012 or something? If you "don't use pseudo science here" then why is there an incredibly expansive article on the subject of 'Haplogroups' which - to my perusal - isn't suggesting any overt controversy regarding the legitimacy of the subject? For the life of me, I can not understand why every bit of World War 2 has to become some politicized mish-mash of competing narratives. It's ridiculous, and this article is the magnum opus of ridiculousness. To be perfectly honest, I feel this article needs some serious scrubbing because the hyenas of agenda have certainly picked this bloated corpse over more than once over the years. I don't frequent this site in an editing manner, I don't know how I would even begin to civilize this article and I can count the amount of times I've even looked at the 'Talk' section of an article on one hand - but the fact I'm adding this to that tally should indicate how idiotic this entire article seemed to me. Not the subject, the subject has merit, but there's obviously been too many cooks in this kitchen - all looking to whip up disparate and mutually exclusive dishes - too few of which include the phrase 'truth' or 'scrutiny' in their names. - A Concerned Skeptic.

A note on the French article from Le Point

The wikipedia article claims that le Point reported new developments in 2012. Actually, the studies that are mentioned in this article are not new studies - they are the very same studies that were ordered by Loret decades ago. Suggesting that there is new information supporting the claim that Loret is Hitler's son is misleading. Also, there is no mention of a future reedition of Loret's book in Le Point's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edouard d'Erasme (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You've placed a {{misleading}} tag on the page, but the parts that were actually misleading have been corrected by my previous edit. The subsection was previously titled "Genetic Evidence", revering to a Belgium study from 2009 and a French article from 2012. However, neither of them provide any kind of scientific evidence. I've read Mulders research, wich is written in my native language. Mulders clearly mentions that he collected DNA material from postcard stamps. No where does he mention that he collected DNA from the Loret family, however the Wikipedia article did claim that Mulders wrote this. Mulders does not mention comparing the postcard material to DNA from the Loret family. We could assume that Jean-Marie Loret licked the stamps himself (but that would be original research). Mulders could have easily verified if the stamps DNA belonged to Jean-Marie Loret. Sadly the Mulders article does not mention if the Loret family refused to provide DNA material or if Mulders simply did not ask for samples.

The study from 2009 is a recent, since there has not been any discussion since 1985. However, you are right about the French newspaper article not mentioning any new evidence. It clearly states that their 'evidence' is from the seventies. It also does not mention plans to publish a revised version of Loret’s book. Both the Telegraph and National post do claim there will be a new book, but these journalists also write that the French paper claims to have new evidence. They write that this is the reason for a revised edition. Are these English articles reliable? I would not object to removing them since they seem to be an erroneous interpretation of the French article.

I will try to fix this, please let me know what you think. 143.176.60.141 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reworded this to clean up a MOS:WTW violation (using "however" to make two statements that were not linked seem linked), and that the studies were enlisted by Loret (which should make it clear that these are well before the 2012 date of publication, given that he died in 1985). If anyone can find a date for the studies (the mid-1970s date given in the source doesn't have to apply to the studies unless my translation is wrong), that'd be better to replace (or supplement) that they were enlisted by Loret. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We need better sourcing

This article needs really good sourcing for every claim it makes. We at least need a source on everything said here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)