Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This is an archive of past discussions about Adolf Hitler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ancestry -- More recent scholarship by Leonard Sax
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add this paragraph to the end of the Ancestry section --
More recent scholarship by Leonard Sax points out that many Jews lived in places without official sanction and demonstrated the existence of a settled Jewish community in Graz before the law formally permitted their residence, saying that "Contemporary historians have largely dismissed Frank’s claim, primarily on the grounds that there were purportedly no Jews living in Graz in 1836, when Hitler’s father Alois Schicklgruber was conceived. This consensus can be traced to a single historian, Nikolaus von Preradovich," a Nazi sympathizer, "who claimed that “not a single Jew” (kein einziger Jude) was living in Graz prior to 1856. No independent scholarship has confirmed Preradovich’s conjecture. In this paper, evidence is presented that there was in fact eine kleine, nun angesiedelte Gemeinde – “a small, now settled community” – of Jews living in Graz before 1850." And that "The hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Jewish, as claimed by Hans Frank, may fit the facts better than the alternative hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Johann Georg Hiedler or Johann Nepomuk Hiedler."[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Not done This article is about Hitler, not about the history of the Jews in Graz, and is therefore too much detail for this particular article. However the detail that Jewish residency was illegal in the area at the time is also too much detail, so I am taking that out. — Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
I take great issue with the line "spell being broken". It is completely idiotic to try to make hitler's reign sound cool like he's some sort of Harry Potter villain. I don't care if it's changed or not, it will always keep this article idiotic.Daedrich JJ flfmjg (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
That's merely what the sources are saying. We aren't going to change it because you find it to be idiotic. ― BlazeWolfTalkblaze__wolf15:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It's how some of his contemporaries responded: "Hitler's suicide was likened by contemporaries to a "spell" being broken". Demagogues often appear to 'mesmerise' those who follow them do they not? An uncritical state kept in place by a constant diet of propaganda.Pincrete (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
It is idiomatic. That being the case it might stylistically be better for it to expressly reference the sources using it - Fest/Speer in this case - rather than be in wikivoice. But I fail to see how it makes "Hitler's reign sound cool like he's some sort of Harry Potter villain". DeCausa (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Both sources specifically use the word "spell". Fest says that in multiple contemporary accounts, "certain phrases crop up releatedly...a 'spell' had been broken, a 'phansasmagoria' shatttered." I have added some attribution for Fest and a sentence from Speer page 617. — Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Use of "the" at the front of "historian" or other titles.
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion
@Nick-D:@K.e.coffman:@Kierzek:@GeneralizationsAreBad:@EyeTruth:@Beyond My Ken:@Diannaa:@Peacemaker67:@Nillurcheier: -- According to editor Keeper of Albion, eliminating "the" at the front of occupations is what this editor terms a "false title" and this editor further states that "there is an article about this on Wikipedia. It’s journalese and an Americanism." Then this same editor adds in their comment "Why don’t we go through the article and remove every "superfluous" ‘the’, or other words? Why don’t we rewrite the article in broken English to use as few words as possible?" First off, having written as a professional historian (PhD), I've seen many British, Australian, New Zealanders, Canadian, and American authors alike deliberately omit "the" for many, many years now. If this is somehow grammatically incorrect, please reference this to a reputable style manual. If true, this means the vast majority of the people who've been editing this page and scores of others are wrong and this editor, Keeper of Albion, is right.
On another note, this editor's wholly unnecessary and belligerently sardonic remark accompanying their second revert: "Why don’t we rewrite the article in broken English to use as few words as possible?" does not strike me as collaborative, constructive, or productive for that matter. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of some other contributors on this technical writing matter and concerning Keeper of Albion's behavior. Obenritter (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I refer to the false title, a grammatical construct whose origin is in American newspapers of the late-19th and 20th centuries. It was first used to conserve space on physical pages. It is an Americanism and it is journalese; it sensationalises text.
"The ancient Roman poet Virgil" and "the British television series House of Cards" are perfectly ordinary English sentences. Why do you suppose that the article ‘the’ ought to be removed from them? For what purpose?
We have no need to conserve space on pages, and the English Wikipedia is not an American news website.
Your complaint of my "behaviour" is not only irrelevant on this page (and should be taken elsewhere if you think it is appropriate), but is undermined by your rather obvious use of an unnecessary false title in your first sentence. There is no need for you to make it clear that I am an editor; it seems quite reasonable that I should conclude that you wrote it out of spite. Keeper of Albion (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
From the very Wikipage you reference, there is also the following observation: "Some usage writers condemn false titles, and others defend it. Its use was originally American, but it has become widely accepted in some other countries." Evidently, lots of other editors see no issue with it and use this convention all over the place. You simply fall into the category of people who dislike it, whereas I find the inclusion of "the" in such instances an unnecessary and superfluous addition. Contrary to your belief that "We have no need to conserve space on pages", this is not true for large pages like the one we're editing. We do need to write for concision and reduce character count where we can.
In this instance it's irrelevant though IMO as referring to someone as profession followed by name without 'the' is almost as common in UK as in US in my experience (eg musician Paul McCartney) and both 'burned' and 'burnt' are correct in UK, so we normally use the spelling variant that is more 'universally used', in this case 'burned'. Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Keeper of Albion, both burned and burnt are fine in British English while burned is the form in American English so, per MOS:COMMONALITY, "burned" it is. Some of your other changes, like linking Eastern Europe are against MOS:OVERLINK. As for using "the" or not, it reads fine either way but it's been without for a long while so leave it be, it's not worth edit warring over something so trivial. Valenciano (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Must agree with Obenritter and Valenciano as to this matter. Keeper of Albion your edits are unnecessary grammar changes and unneeded verbiage; frankly there is no reason to edit war over something so trivial. Kierzek (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I also agree with Obenritter, Valenciano and Kierzek that the changes made by Keeper of Albion are unnecessary and do not improve the article. They should be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Ditto everyone else. The 'the' addition seems clunky (I'm a UK English speaker btw). I also endorse comments about overlinking. If had never heard of a 'false title' before yesterday, but "former British prime minister, Gordon Brown", seems perfectly normal UK English to my ears. We all recognise it's a description, not a title even if occupying the place where a title might otherwise be. Pincrete (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Ancestry -- reduced edit request --- scholarship by Leonard Sax
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add this paragraph to the end of the Ancestry section --
More recent scholarship by Leonard Sax points out contemporary historians have largely dismissed Hitler's Jewish heritage based on "a single historian, Nikolaus von Preradovich" a Nazi sympathizer, and that "The hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Jewish, as claimed by Hans Frank, may fit the facts better than the alternative hypothesis that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Johann Georg Hiedler or Johann Nepomuk Hiedler." [1][2][3][4][5][6]98.46.117.2 (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
If you are referring to the DNA study published in the Daily Telegraph in 2010; the study was actually inconclusive. The haplogroup in question is found among some Jewish sects, but is much more common in North African Berber tribes with no trace of Jewish ancestry. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Hitler Ancestry section suggests that Hitler's father Alois was the son of one of the Hiedler brothers, and dismisses the Frankenberger thesis. The last entry in this section should be the latest research by Sax, which was just recently added to the Frankenberger thesis article. Sax shows that Jews were present but not registered in Graz at the time of Alois' conception.
"a claim that came to be known as the Frankenberger thesis. No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence, so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish." 98.46.117.2 (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
There's now two of us that object to adding this: myself and Moxy. We don't need to expand on the Frankenberger thesis in the Hitler article; we've already said that historians reject the thesis that Hitler was part Jewish; if people want more info on this topic they can go to Frankenberger thesis. — Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Then a compromise would be to remove the following text from the Ancestry section ...
"No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence, so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish." 67.173.189.111 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Why is the place of death listed as “Nazi Germany?” Is it not just Germany? I live in the United States where, at writing, a democrat is president. If I die today, is it appropriate to list my place of death as “Democrat United States?” Thank you. 216.193.129.252 (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I believe, it's WP editors that make that choice - a stylistic rather than factual one. Apart from anything else, RS would tend to say he died in Berlin, or more specifically in the 'Führerbunker', since by that stage in their narrative the sources will have established that the 'Führerbunker' was in Berlin in Germany. We've discussed this issue several times, but I can't remember when most recent was, or what was resolved. Personally, like the IP, I find it mildly annoying and potentially misleading.Pincrete (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I’m happy to have learned about the root of the choice. Like you, I find it just mildly annoying. It appeared to me to be somewhat inaccurate yet the page is locked from modification, so I thought that it must be intentional or else it wouldn’t have been locked-in that way. Again, I appreciate your response. 216.193.129.252 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Pincrete - it's become more of a WP convention than following RS. I really don't see the RS making a material distinction between Nazi Germany and Germany as the place of Hitler's death (or actauly any other event that happened between 1933 and 1945). It's one of those many nomenclature issues that WP editors tend to get worked up about. Bike sheds. DeCausa (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2024
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: The edit request template is not for starting a discussion on whether to add that category; that canmust be done without the template. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 15:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I'll keep that in mind next time I'm suggesting an edit on a protected article. This reply doesn't clarify whether or not the category should be added to this article. Do you believe there is enough historical debate to warrant this inclusion? Rylee Amelia (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Given the removal of (Category:Artists who died by suicide) and (Category:Austrian male painters), I don’t find a crucial need for (Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality). 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 19:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
We usually define an artist/painter/actor/writer etc as someone who has actually done these activities professionally. Hitler didn't at any point, therefore he is "not meaningfully an artist or painter". It is probably true that Churchill sold more paintings than AH, but we don't list him as an artist or painter since it was never a profession. That AH aspired to being a painter is probably one of the best known factoids about him.
I'm neutral about the "ambiguous" sexuality category, on the one hand there has been much speculation, on the other most historians simply think he was 'straight' albeit possessive etc.. Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Aren't you the one who made the edit request? Generally one would expect you to have sources that substantiate it, instead of expecting others to make your case for you. Remsense‥论19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2024
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to change where it says "Born in Austria-Hungary" Why? How is it not accurate? I'm pretty sure that 'Austria-Hungary' (or some variant), is the most common way to referto the state in which he was born in English. Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Mass murderer category
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Should we add categories of German or Austrian mass murderers for Hitler? This is a very heated topic but is it necessary here or is that reserved for those who were directly in charge of concentration camps? 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I would say not, as (technically) he did not personally kill anyone. It will just ass slowness and words without any real benefit. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
No, while he caused mass death, he left the dirty work to others. There are lots of people who did that, we don't call them "mass murderers" either. Acroterion(talk)15:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Well lets see, because some people actually take part in the killings, they do not just order them. Some people give direct orders as to who to kill, others give a direct order to kill. Different people have different histories. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
An anonymous person changed the date on the photo at the Commons on Dec 23/24. I have changed it back, because that's what this source says. April 20, 1945, was Hitler's last birthday and his last visit to the surface. He gave medals to several young soldiers. That's what we are seeing in the photo. This source has an incorrect date, because it shows the same event, which took place on Hitler's birthday, and was his last public appearance. Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
In fact, from the many photos I posted, Hitler's coat, Artur Axmman's stance, the bald man in the background, clearly showed that these photos were taken at the same place and time on March 20, 1945. Furkan1907 (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Now that I have a minute to get the books out, I can tell you that Beevor covers this in chapter 17 ("The Fuhrer's Last Birthday") of The Fall of Berlin 1945,. The description of Hitler meeting Hitler Youth is on page 251. "That afternoon, in the ruins of the Reich Chancellery garden, the Fuhrer worked his way slowly down a line of Hitler Youth, some of whom had received the Iron Cross for attacking Soviet tanks."Evans, in volume III (The Third Reich At War), describes that part of Hitler's final birthday on page 722. "Hitler emerged into the open briefly to review a small detachment of Hitler Youth in the Chancellery garden..." Diannaa (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
An anonymous person on Reddit is not a good a source for information on this topic. Richard J. Evans is the retired Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge, and Antony Beevor is a visiting professor at Birkbeck, University of London, and the University of Kent. Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Mark Felton Productions is a STRICTLY NON-POLITICAL history channel presenting films by leading military historian and author Dr. Mark Felton on a variety of fascinating historical subjects, with particular focus on WWII and the Cold War. Mark is a well-known British writer, the author of 22 non-fiction books, including bestsellers Zero Night and Castle of the Eagles, both currently being developed into movies in Hollywood. He has written extensively on Japanese war crimes, POW camps, Nazi war criminals, the Holocaust, famous escapes, Hitler and other Nazi leaders. In addition to writing, Mark also appears regularly in television documentaries around the world, including on The History Channel, Netflix, National Geographic, Quest, American Heroes Channel and RMC Decouverte. His books have formed the background to several TV and radio documentaries. More information about Mark can be found at: www.markfelton.co.uk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_FeltonFurkan1907 (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
One more source: Albert Speer was actually there in the Chancellery Garden that day, and he says it was on Hitler's birthday, April 20. Inside the Third Reich, page 598 of the 1971 paperback. Sometimes sources disagree on things; what we do in cases like that is go with consensus. So yeah, please drop it now, as consensus is against you this time. Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Felton's reputation far from of Beevor and even farther away from that of Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw; the latter who also writes the event occurred on Hitler's last birthday of 20 April 1945. See chapter 28 ("Extinction") of Hitler: A Biography, pp. 922–923. And as Diannaa states we must go with WP:RS consensus. Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The last German Newsreel appears to have been broadcast on 22 March 1945. There is a 100% chance that the image is from March 22, 1945. Furkan1907 (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
It is obvious that it could not have happened after March 22, 1945. I posted the Official German Newsreel. I was wondering if you are going to post a book source again without giving an answer to this? If you're going to insist, just reject the edit request. Furkan1907 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2025
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Section: "Entry into politics"
Sub-section: "Beer Hall Putsch and Landsberg Prison"
Paragraph 4
1st sentence
Original text:
"While at Landsberg, Hitler dictated most of the first volume of Mein Kampf (lit. 'My Struggle'); originally titled Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice) at first to his chauffeur, Emil Maurice, and then to his deputy, Rudolf Hess."
Suggested edit (shortened):
"… volume of Mein Kampf (lit. ‘My Struggle’; originally titled Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice)…" Kcbean (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi @Pincrete First, thanks for correcting the typo.
Second, I saw you tagged my citation with 'Failed Verification' (in this diff) with 'reason=No mention of incident in source'.
I'm going to remove that tag from this article, as well as the Wiedemann article, as I'm looking at the source right now, and it certainly has mention of the incident I described. If you need help locating it, I'm happy to help you. Please let me know if you have any questions. Delectopierre (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
The article appears to have been syndicated to various newspapers, but all digital library versions I could find were solely about the Nazi Embassy in Washington. If I'm wrong, apologies. Pincrete (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
See P2 Column 5 (counting furthest left column as #1) directly above subhead that says "CAPIAL CHAFF", alternatively it's a PP inline with an unrelated headline that says "Dear Neighbors! Did You Know That..."
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.
We do, and I don't know where you got the idea that we don't. Certainly not from any site guideline or other body of community consensus. We don't care about officialness, we care about representativeness and appropriateness—these simply happen to correspond with one another rather often for biographies. Remsense‥论06:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1216-0500-002, Adolf Hitler.jpg is the offical portrait. If you don't add it now remove "official portrait" from infobox and say "Hitler in 1938". DisneyGuy744 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree broadly with Remsense, the best (clearest and best representative) photo of the subject is what we should use, cropped or otherwise. There is no good reason that I know of why we would either use (or label) the photo 'official'. In context, what does it even mean? This is a portrait by AH's official personal photographer, but I doubt if it is the only officially used portrait from his time as leader. BTW, the photo is retouched anyway to remove scratches, so any notion that it is (or should be) in an unaltered form is 'for the birds' really.Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
ok join the conversation, let's talk. Why do you think the new image is bad. And if there was an image you liked better than the one that's on now would you be willing to change it? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Decisions of this type are not up to one or two people but would be decided in the usual way: consensus among interested editors. Here is an example of a previous infobox image discussion: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 55#Photograph dispute. As you can see, people get fairly specific about the merits and flaws of the available images. We have a limited selection of compatibly-licensed images and several of them have served as the infobox portrait in the past. They all have their pluses and minuses, and none of them are particularly good by today's standards. Diannaa (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
That's not true, I checked the way back machine. only 3 images have been used as the infobox image. A crappy one in like 2003 that doesn't even look like a real photo of hitler, one that zooms into his face and doesn't show his body, kinda like the one similar to the current Mussolini page, and the modern one that's been here for like 8 or 9 years. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
thats not my ip address lol. It makes sense why people are saying the George w Bush first paragraph is too long, I called it. But I swear that's not my ip address. And I am here to build an encyclopedia, that's why I'm making edits I think's best and discussing them, and instead of joining the discussion it looks like you're just trying to get me banned for no reason lol. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Btw I didn't change the image 3 times. It was the same image you wanted to keep, just different cropped versions. And how am I getting out of hand with the George w Bush talk page, haven't been there in like a day or two. That ip wasn't mine. You ignored me asking for you to participate in the talk page discussion. I need consensus from you since other editors didn't care to revert. How am I supposed to get consensus from you if you ignore me for hours and only reply to try and get me banned? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I am not surprised that nobody showed up to talk about this while the Superbowl was on TV, where I come from, a Super bowl is something made by Spode where a Sloane Ranger might keep fruit! But seriously, I have a slight preference for the (1938) pre-existing image and wouldn't object to it being cropped slightly more to head and shoulders. The newer (semi-profile) is OK, but I see no advantage to it. Both seem to show more of the tunic than the man, so slight cropping would work for me. Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Can we have File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S33882, Adolf Hitler retouched.jpg as there's no white mark on his face and it's cleaned up. Or crop the one we have right now? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The current one gives a full face pose without shadow, nor turned to the side, but as I wrote in 2013, I believe the photo (File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S33882), a/k/a Adolf Hitler (and using the improved retouched.jpg) is less of a propaganda pose than the current portrait photo of Hitler, circa 1938 a/k/a File: Hitler portrait crop.jpg. DisneyGuy744, my main point above was that you needed to obtain a consensus, which you did not have for a change of photo. With that said, I have stated my points as to each photo herein. Kierzek (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@Boneless Pizza! what's wrong with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S33882? you say i need consensus, yet you never came to discuss except when you wrote a message trying to get me banned for no reason. how am i supposed to get consensus from you? seems like 90% of editors on this discussion don't care. the other guy who said i need consensus, Kierzek, also doesn't care. he just said his problem with me changing the image yesterday was consensus. and the last guy who reverted my edit reverted a cropped version of the current image that doesn't show hitler's arms because he said it was low quality, but doesn't have a problem with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S33882, only the cropped image of the current image. @Diannaa can i add File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S33882 or Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S33882 Adolf Hitler retouched.jpg to the infobox? i can't get consensus from boneless pizza because he doesn't wanna show up. pincrete says the new image i wanna add is ok. you said you personally don't care deeply which image we use. the other guy doesn't care, and the other guy just won't show up. i've got consenus from everyone except boneless pizza who won't show up and remsense who stopped participating after the first message. can i add the new image? i perfer that one because it just makes the page look nicer and got consensus from everyone editor participating now DisneyGuy744 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't look like anybody is in favor of changing the image, so that means consensus is against a change at this time. I don't think it matters much which one we use; they all have their flaws.Diannaa (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
what do you mean we haven't reached consensus, Diannaa? the definition of consensus means "a general agreement", pincrete says the new image I wanna add is ok even though he prefers the 1938 image should be kept just cropped, he still said the 1937 image is ok too. you said you personally don't care and all images of hitler have flaws so i guess that means you think the image looks ok compared to the other one. Kierzek said there's flaws with both images so it looks like he doesn't care if we change it or not just like you. like i said from the beginning 90% of editors seem to care very little or not at all, the ones who seriously oppose refuses to communicate and join the discussion, so it looks like we've reached consensus. Kierzek said in his most recent message "my main point above was that you needed to obtain a consensus, which you did not have for a change of photo." did you catch that? he said "needed" not "need". he can also see we have enough of a general agreement and consensus now. the agreement being "both images have flaws, so it doesn't matter" except me i think the 1937 is way better and more professional looking, therefore it looks like if the editor that opposes doesn't join the discussion, well he isn't involved and we've reached an agreement where it doesn't matter if the image is changed or not so i can change it. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
DisneyGuy744:Please do not put words in my mouth. I said you need consensus, which you did not have and the fact is you still don’t have it. There is no difference in what I said. You needed it then and you need it now. If you keep disrupting and edit warring over this, you will face the possibility of being blocked. I see you’ve not been editing very long, I would suggest you read and follow WP:BRD. Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
My suggestion is that since you got reverted four times when you did change it, that you shouldn't now change it unless you have consensus to do so. The fact that the person you were edit warring with decided to go away and do something more productive with his time does not mean it's now okay for you to change the image without agreement that it needs to be changed and which image to change it to. My opinion is that it doesn't need to be changed, since all the available images have their flaws. So I think we should keep the image that's there now. Diannaa (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I got reverted 4 times, 3 times from the editor who just disappeared, so since he's not discussing he's basically out of the conversation, and one time by another guy because I added a low quality image of the 1938 picture, but the guy who made the 4th revert didn't have a problem with the 1937 picture and didn't revert that. Also, Can you please tell me how the 1937 image has flaws. There's a clean image you showed earlier with no white Marks on Adolf's face. You think we should keep the image we have now. If you give me permission, we have a general agreement from everyone that "it doesn't matter" so I can do it. And remember the word "consensus" means a general agreement so I can change it if the consensus is "it doesn't matter". Can you please give me permission or give your reasons why the cropped 1937 image File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S33882 is flawed. If you give permission or say you don't care, I will have full consensus. The current image just looks so unprofessional and it's been bothering me for the last 3 years. It's the reason I made a Wikipedia account 5 months ago in the first place. To reach 500 edits and change it. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are arguing as though we have to prove that your preference is wrong, otherwise you are entitled to change. It's the other way round, you have to convince that your preference is an improvement. I may have only a fairly marginal preference for the pre-existing image, and wouldn't get upset if the majority had the opposite opinion, but I still clearly defended the pre-existing image. At the moment It doesn't look like anybody is in favor of changing the image, so that means consensus is against a change, it doesn't mean that we haven't strongly opposed, so we should keep you happy by making a change that you obviously have strong feelings about. For myself, my opinion is based on a preference for a full-on-face portrait, mainly of the face/head/shoulders. Photographic quality, state of preservation, lighting, attire all seem much the same in both photos. Pincrete (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Pincrete, I'm not arguing as though you have to prove that my preference is wrong, I've been saying it looked like we had a "general agreement" (which is the definition of consensus) that "it does not matter if I change it because both images are flawed" even though i don't see how the 1937 image is flawed. in the 1938 image however, Adolf's left arm looks bigger than the other one, his big elbow makes his arm looked bent, and it looks like there's like a piece of paper in the middle of his arm, it just looks so unprofessional, like it doesn't even look like a real picture. I can't believe it is. Maybe that's why you even want to crop it, but when i tried to crop it after boneless pizza kept getting mad about the 1937 image (he still won't join the discussion but says i need consensus from him) an editor undid the cropped 1938 image you're suggesting. and that editor hasn't joined the discussion but i bet he'll revert again. my preference is an improvement. Why? if you had no idea who Hitler was, if he was just a random guy and not a dictator, or became a businessman instead, and if you were showed the 1938 photo and the 1937 photo, you can't deny you will say the 1937 image looks way more professional. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I just read your message that said so we should keep you happy by making a change that you obviously have strong feelings about. i completly read over that message. cool i'm changing the image right now. thanks, Pincrete. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
P.S. DisneyGuy744, don't ping me any more please. It's distacting, and the page is on my watchlist. I will come when I have time. Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I did. read Pincrete's last message. he said so we should keep you happy by making a change that you obviously have strong feelings about. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Pincrete is one person. You need more users saying the image is a improvement to change a longstanding edit like that infobox photo. Yedaman54 (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
well can i ask you, do you think the image is an improvement, do you hate the new image, do you not care, would you be willing to change the image if you don't like the 1937 picture but find a better one that you like. what's your opinon. because right now it seems most people don't care. and Picrete thinks cropping the 1938 image like i did is a good idea too. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I think that the "official" portrait should stay as it seems that the picture has existed for a while without issue. Also I cannot speak for Picrete but I would be mindful of putting "words in their mouth" when supporting your argument. Yedaman54 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Following up on what I said in the message above I am unsure if Pincrete actually gave you "permission" per say as he states "It doesn't look like anybody is in favor of changing the image, so that means consensus is against a change". Yedaman54 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
It's not the "official" portrait. I don't know who put that there. And that's another reason why the image should be changed, it's been there forever. Some have tried to change it over the years but got reverted. If something's been on a page for 40 years, and there's no flaws with the new image, at least none you can point out, why does this talk page discussion even exist considering how only one person strongly opposes but refuses to join the discussion while the others don't care or lean towards the 1938 image just cropping it more like I did a few days ago DisneyGuy744 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
In my personal opinion i think we should crop the 1938 image. I dont like the 1937 image. But I do agree with Nick or DisneyGuy that the 1938 image looks bad. I agree with Pincrete that cropping it more is the way forward HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I like the 1937 image, but cropping it is fine I guess. That would get rid of all the problems I have with the 1938 image, even though I like the 1937 better. So now we got a few votes for cropping it, count me in I guess. Dianaa, do you support cropping it? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Ok so Diannaa is out. 3 people have come to a general agreement that the 1938 image should be trimmed. Me, HumansRightsIsCool, and Pincrete. Remsense didn't participate. Boneless Pizza didn't participate, Yedaman said it should stay as is. Don't know if he's still in the conversation though. Dianaa officially left the conversation so it looks like her vote doesn't matter anymore. Kierzek said there's flaws with both images so it looks like he doesn't care if we change it or not. And the rest of the editors don't care. I'll give it another 12-24 hours to see if other editors also wanna give their thoughts. If not, it looks like we have a general agreement. Hahaha watch if I make the change because I have consensus now, and then an editor who wasn't involved in the discussion just says "I'll revert that because you don't have consensus from me", then the general agreement is just broken and the discussion restarts hahaha. Have that feeling but let's see. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, and the associated edit reason "Pincrete said we can change it". Firstly I am just one person and have no authority to give you permission. Secondly, I said no such thing, rather I fairly clearly said the opposite. My (slight perhaps) preference for the 1938 image is clear. You also selectively quote me twice in a way that indicates you either can't or aren't willing to understand fairly simple English. You seem determined to prove that you are either unable to understand, or you are simply trolling. Let me be even more explicit, I am NOT in favour of the change of image you propose. AFAI can see nor is anyone else. Like Diannaa, I don't intend to engage further, I have made my opinion clear and am unlikely to change it. Please don't misuse my name again to justify going against consensus.
Dianaa officially left the conversation so it looks like her vote doesn't matter anymore, isn't how it works. If you aren't able to understand why, you really shouldn't be here IMO! Pincrete (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Ok Pincrete. First off how is discussing edits and doing what I think's best for the encyclopedia trolling. Second off sorry for misunderstanding your message giving me permission, it was morning and I was still trying to fully wake up and process everything. I apologize for acting extremely unprofessional. Third off I don't know why Diannaa left. I mean you guys leave and say this thread is a waste of time in response to me trying to end the thread as early as possible even though I do put some blame on myself for being a little too rushy. Now it's impossible to get her consensus because she took herself out of the conversation. Question. You said the current 1938 image should stay in your last message. Are you still in favor of cropping the current image? Because the people still participating all of us say the image should be cropped where it only shows Hitler's head and shoulders kinda like how the Mussolini and Eva Braun pages are. Even though I preferred the 1937 image, in case you don't know another guy joined in and said crop the 1938 image. So I guess I'm ok with that too. If you vote to crop it, all the people who participated who haven't tooken themselves out of the conversation have all came to the same agreement. If you vote no I guess I have to move on and I guess I wasted 5 months of trying to hit 500 edits for no reason since changing the image on this page is a major reason why I made this account. Since Diana left you make or break the consensus since your vote is unclear from your last message and everyone is saying crop it now. I know you said you weren't gonna reply, but I wanna make sure I got consensus from everybody or if I don't. Either way God bless you and thank you for spending your time here, I know you didn't want to do so god bless you and sorry for acting like a jerk earlier. even if you break the consensus I still appreciate your time and hope for the best. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
People don't have to continue to post in the thread for their opinions to be taken into account in the consensus-building process. A lot of times people will give their opinion and then move on to other activities. That doesn't mean they no longer get a voice or that their opinion doesn't matter just because they have not posted in response to your every thought or suggestion. Diannaa (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
The current image is fine as is. The image that you wanted to replace it with was fine too, but Hitler wasn't facing the front direction, so that's subjectively a no for me. However, the current consensus seems to be cropped version of 1938 image, and I agree on that one too. Colorized version would be fine too imo maybe even better. Don't know if this image was in a discussion before.
Hey Diannaa, didn't expect you to come back. I had surgery and then slept all day so I was gone for a while, but yeah the painting looks nice, but Hitler is a modern political figure, for important political people who lived 500 years ago, like George Washington, paintings are a must, but Hitler is a modern figure and there's tons of real photos of him. If we're not using paintings for Joseph Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, tsar Nicholas the second, Mussolini, Marx, FDR, or any other historical political figures from around the time Hitler Was alive, why use a painting for him. The 1937 image is the best image for this page, but since the current consensus is leaning towards cropping the 1938 image even more, I guess I vote for that too. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Bro I just realized Kazama16 said "However, the current consensus seems to be cropped version of 1938 image, and I agree with that one too". We officially have 4 or 5 votes for that now. Diannaa and the new guy who wants the painting seem to be the only ones participating who oppose. If the consensus keeps going in this direction and ultimately doesn't turn around, which Cropped Version are you guys suggesting, because there's multiple different cropped images of this portrait. The one currently on this page is a cropped version. Haha. Are you guys talking about cropping the image where it only shows Hitler's head and shoulders, like how the Eva Braun and Mussolini pages are, or are you saying crop it a little bit more but not a lot. I might be reading you wrong, because everyone is different and thinks differently so just asking in case. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Looks good. I'll wait for a day or two to see if the consensus changes. If not and more people vote for the cropped 1938 image, or if the number stays the same, I'll ask to change it. At that point the consensus is pretty clear to me but I don't wanna upset anyone again in case people wanna keep discussing for some reason. Hey new guy, if your still here, I know you want the painting, but would you rather have the cropped 1938 image or keep the page the same. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Ok so you and Diaanna are the only ones who oppose. I'm also kinda new so I don't know what to do if 4 or 5 people say crop it more and 2 people oppose. Do we keep it since some oppose, or do we change it since the majority say crop it. I'm going to check Wikipedia's rules to see if it mentions a situation like this. If it does but I can't find it let me know. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Ok Wikipedia's rules state The quality of arguments is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. I stated why I don't like the current image, one arm looks bigger than the other, Hitler's shoulder or elbow is so big it makes his arm look bent, and I don't know what's between Hitler's arms, is that a piece of paper or what. I explained how I think the portrait looks unprofessional. Can't really think of a quality argument the opposing side made. So it looks like it's going to get changed unless the opposing side comes up with a quality argument to keep it according to Wikipedia's guidelines. I'll give it about 24 hours. If nothing happens, I'll ask to change it since the consensus is clear at that point. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Ive been thinking and I think that we should change it. I see no reason not to, and I don't think it has been changed in quite sometime. I also don't really see importance of this, but I am also a new user who doesn't understand yet. SpooklesMan (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
you're changing your vote? now SpooklesMan is on our side. I don't even have to ask to change it the consensus is super clear, but i'll wait for about 12 hours is case diannaa wants to add something since she's the only one who opposes now. if not, i'll change it. also, this thread really isn't that important to anyone except me. even though everyone's saying change it, it doesn't seem like people care as much as me, even though they're saying change it. So thanks for your time SpooklesMan even though you don't care that much. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Ok Diaanna's last edit on another page was about 2 hours ago, long after I wrote my last message seeing if she wants to add anything. Everyone else participating voted to crop the 1938 image (assuming Pincrete didn't change his vote) so I guess this thread is officially closed. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
This images is of very low quality is there not one of better quality that's not all fuzzy and blurry for those of us with large monitors? Moxy🍁02:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
We came to the consensus that we crop the 1938 image more, but only one suggested which cropped version we use. You're free to change it to which ever cropped version you want since we didn't really discuss that on this thread, but it can't be the one I just changed since we all came to the agreement to remove that one DisneyGuy744 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, Moxy is right about the quality. If it is cleaned up, then I think it will be fine. I could probably clean it my self, but I am not going to work on it tonight because it is late where I live. SpooklesMan (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
I do not see any consensus to use a cropped photo in the above discussion. My opposition to the cropped image can be added onto that of other editors above, since it is excessively blurry. Discussions like these need to be conducted with much less off-topic posting, haste, bludgeoning, and flawed vote counting. I suggest a simple RfC if this issue persists, since the above discussion is supremely unclear and hard-to-follow for the reasons mentioned. — Goszei (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
There is consensus to crop the 1938 image and what do you mean the voting was flawed? Before I closed this discussion I voted for it, HumansRightsIsCool voted for it, Pincrete voted for it, SpooklesMan voted for it, and kiezerak said he was ok with it. I know the image is blurry, can someone please clean it up or use a different cropped image that's not blurry since we didn't really discuss which Cropped image we should use just that we should definitely crop it more. Also before saying "there is no consensus" please read the previous messages closer even if it is long and confusing DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
You're not going to get a clear crop from that image; it's too small. It doesn't really look all that blurry until you add it to articlespace. Then it looks terrible. Unprofessional even. I am logging off now; it's late here and I have work in the morning. Diannaa (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Just cleaned this image up. What do you guys think?
One of the alternative crops shows enough tunic to make it clear he is wearing a be-medalled uniform. That gives context IMO, otherwise this cleaned-up head and shoulders looks OK to me, but I don't know how well it would look in article space (or why that's different). Pincrete (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
@HumansRightsIsCool, Your licensing is wrong; the original was donated to us by the Bundesarchiv in 2008 and you have to use the same licensing. The original image is File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1216-0500-002, Adolf Hitler.jpg. Please copy all the licensing and the infobox data from there. You need to note on File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1216-0500-002, Adolf Hitler.jpg that you have created a new extracted image, and you need to note on your new image that it is extracted from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1216-0500-002, Adolf Hitler.jpg. You also should rename the image to a more descriptive name, assuming you have renaming rights at the Commons. If you don't, you should request a rename. Diannaa (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
To Goszei what did the new image do to his mustache and tie pin. To Pincrete I wish I could test the new image on this article but I got my extended confirmed edit privileges taken away months and months ago for gaming the system when I had no idea that was against Wikipedia rules. To Diaanna I thought you were asleep. And I don't know anything about licensing or copyright laws. I'm just trying to help find a solution to this conflict HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
His moustache looks sparse and unevenly cut. Compare that to how it looks in the uncropped portrait, or how it looks close up in File:Adolf Hitler cropped restored 3x4.jpg. That image also depicts his tie pin, which I think is also in the 1938 portrait, though it is hard to tell for sure; the AI obviously wasn't able to extrapolate that. AI upscaling is bad for the encyclopedia because it necessarily contains hallucinatory artifacts like this. — Goszei (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Your focusing on tiny details that don't matter, like how DisneyGuy744 was focusing on tiny details that bothered him. Instead of everyone focusing on tiny details, let's try to come up with a solution. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
What I pointed out are only the most articulatable manifestations of the problem with using AI upscales. This image is a fabrication that makes up significant parts of Hitler's face. That is enough not to use it. The evident solution here is to use the waist-up crop or find another image. — Goszei (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
we're not changing the image. we're keeping the 1938 one. people voted to crop it more, but now people are saying it's two blurry. what if we just uncrop the image. i'm tired of this. we're using File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H1216-0500-002, Adolf Hitler.jpg. give me 12 hours or so. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2025 (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.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2025
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the introduction, in the "Died" Part, instead of just Berlin, Germany... Führerbunker, Berlin, Germany; would be more appropriate. Lion-power-25 (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
For quite a long time, we (consciously) haven't linked the more obvious terms in the infobox (inluding Berlin). There has also been some debate about using 'Nazi Germany' there as though it were a place (as opposed to being shorthand for a place during a particular regime). I'll go with consensus on this, but tend to think we overlink in general. There are so many 'difficult' or important historical and other concepts to link to in this article that linking the country and its capital in the infobox seems extraneous. Does anyone looking at this, fairly dense, infobox really need extra info about Berlin in order to 'get an overview' of Hitler?
A case can be made that his military/political allegiance was specifically to Nazi Germany, and linking could be useful, whereas his place of death was simply Berlin, capital of Germany. The history of the city or its regime at the time of death doesn't add anything relevant to knowing where he died IMO. Pincrete (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2025
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think the video file of Hitler at Berchtesgaden under the 'In propaganda' section needs to be fixed or replaced as its not showing any video - at least on my end. 148.252.145.137 (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2025 Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change all occurrences of "anti-Semitism" to "antisemitism", "anti-Semitic" to "antisemitic", etc., (except perhaps where it is used in an exact quote). There are about 7 uses. AndyBloch (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
The policy appears to have changed fairly drastically only a week ago as a result of a very local discussion on the MOS talkpage.
I acknowledge that the previous policy was fairly fuzzy in its details, although the 'no consensus' part is clear and unambiguous. The presence or absence of the hyphen should be based on usage (I believe unhyphenated is more normal in US), not on 'prescriptive edict' from editors or orgs. As I argue below, the anti-hyphen argument is largely semantic, based on the absence of 'S/semitism' as something to meaningfully be opposed to and the questionable origins of the term. So what? Hysteria isn't a malady of the womb, but words mean what their accepted usage shows them to mean. Pincrete (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Per what is typical, my main priority here is preventing policing of one form over another not anchored in policy. Remsense‥论07:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe that it is still the case that the hyphenated form is still preferred in UK English, in which hyphens are more used and in which this article is written. The hyphenated form certainly used to be the more common form.Pincrete (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Mmmmmm?? I haven't looked at all of these, but of those I have, several are either advocacy articles (proscriptively arguing that the hyphenated form is just wrong) and/or by an American (Snyder). The very fact that a UK site needs to argue the case that the hyphen is wrong, in itself implies that the hyphenated form is common (if not prevalent). Nothing I saw was descriptively analysing which form is actually normal in UK usage.
A very long time ago, maybe over 10 years ago, I vaguely recall a lengthy discussion on WP about this issue. I don't remember the details but my impression was that UK still at that time favoured the hyphen, whereas US was less likely to use it (for 'ideological', as well as 'usage' reasons). That was also when I first came across the 'ideological' argument that the hyphen is simply wrong (briefly, because there is no such thing as 'Semitism'), rather than being merely a stylistic choice (like other hyphen choices where UK/US usage often differs eg co-workers/coworkers).
Personally I think this argument nonsense, people don't explore the root/etymology/structure of terms in ordinary use, especially if doing so does nothing to enlighten. An average Westerner is likely to have absorbed that anti-semitism/antisemitism is prejudice against Jews, long before they ever find out what 'Semite' does, did, or doesn't mean. I also fail to see how removing the hyphen 'neutralises' the antisomething structure. Calling someone an 'antifascist' still strongly implies they are against fascism. I find the 'hyphen-wrong' argument as absurd in its own way as the argument I last heard in the early 1970s made by a famously pro-Palestinian UK activist that she couldn't possibly be antisemitic, since Palestinians are a Semitic people. Both arguments are merely semantic, rather than rooted in what words actually mean in common usage.
I have no reason to doubt the claim made by several sites that 'anti-semitism' as a term was originally coined to give a faux-respectability to what might more clearly be called Judaeo-phobia or some other more explicit description, as I believe is the case in German, but we are where we are and this is the standard English term to describe prejudice against/antipathy toward Jewish people. Pincrete (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2025
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Adolf Hitler: Died 30th April 1945 *Berlin Germany*Bold text
What do you even mean by this, is there any source for this claim or even specifics of what you take issue with? wiglett (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
National Socilaist Party
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The lead mentions twice that six million people were killed. One of these occurrences should be deleted, I would propose the second one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be a summary of the remainder of the article, this fact is only mentioned once there. Making it more verbose is the opposite of summary style. PhotographyEdits (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
One of the uses is the briefest of mentions in the opening paragraph, the overview of AH's 'achievements'. The second is part of the impact of 'racial ideology' at the end of the lead. I don't find the repeat intrusive, don't see how one could adequately cover either topic without mention of this 'key fact' and therefore agree with Diannaa. Finding circomlocutive language to avoid the repetition might even lead to the text being more verbose, but what language do you suggest? Simply removing one or other wouldn't work IMO. Pincrete (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Here is a detailed rationale for my opinion: Many people only read the first paragraph, so it needs to be mentioned there. And it's included in the last paragraph of the lead in the summary of all the people that got killed directly and indirectly by the regime, so we need it there as well. — Diannaa🍁(talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As the article says (with a citation): "While news of Hitler's death spread quickly, a death certificate was not issued until 1956, after a lengthy investigation to collect testimony from 42 witnesses. Hitler's death was entered as an assumption of death based on this testimony." Meters (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
A discussion to move "20 July plot"to"Hitler assassination attempt of 20 July 1944" is in progress. More opinions are needed. -- 00:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
1935 video
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago39 comments9 people in discussion
I understand Diannaa’s first reversion of my edit in the Ancestry section: I should have been unambiguous, concise, leaving no speculative opening in the phrasing or citation. These issues I corrected on the second pass which is why I don’t understand Slatersteven’s second revert. If the Frankenberger case is dismissed as spurious (which echoes in Ullrich: that stands as the current standard’s judgment) then why is that issue elaborated here but the non-spurious evidence legally documented interfamilial relations is not allowed a single line with more than adequate citation attached to the statement? If this can’t be mentioned, should the entire section be removed as spurious and irrelevant?
To say that this is legally established is water-tight—to claim that it is otherwise than legally established would be false. That there is speculation that questions the legally established narrative: this may be so, but that’s outside the constraint of expectation on this page as I understood from Diannaa’s revert of the first edit.
I understand that this is a strictly patrolled page, and for excellent reasons. Leaving the several paragraph length exposition and dismissal of the Frankenberger thesis in place, but suppressing the parish record and notarized document on legal parentage indicating interfamilial relations—this I don’t understand. I actually am of the opinion that both could or perhaps should be maintained, but if not shouldn’t the whole issue be demoted to a subpage or merged with the family tree page? I wonder what Diannaa’s opinion might be on this. I would be just as interested in hearing why Slatersteven applied the second revert. ThomasMikael (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I’m sorry does RS refer research? I cited Volker Ullrich, and Wolfgang Zdral (who is cited by Ullrich) as well as the facsimile documents which they cited. Was my mistake to over cite? ThomasMikael (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Effectively the line and citations compresses p. 14-16 in Ullrich v. 1 (Ascent 1889-1939), also citing the secondary sources that he cites (Kershaw, Maser, Zdral) as well as the facsimile sources of primary documents that he cites. If Ullrich is not a reliable secondary, then who is? Is the inclusion of the sources the problem here and I should have just stuck with a single citation to Ullrich? ThomasMikael (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
“That means, if the notarized declaration of 1876 was correct, that Alois and Klara were second cousins; and if Johann Nepomuk was actually Alois’s true father, Alois would have been Klara’s uncle.”
In the same paragraph it says:
“The local pastor refused to marry the two because they were so closely related. Alois Hitler this had to petition the local bishop’s seat in Linz for a special dispensation and, after some back and forth, it was granted.” Page 16.
This is after a three page set up weighing everything out, that dispatches the Frankenberger theory introduced by Han Frank then turns to the verified and unambiguous fact of the interfamilial relations in Hitler’s family tree. Maser and Zdral are heavily inclined towards Nepomuk as the father. Ullrich is neutral in his consideration of the two Hiedler’s—the second paragraph of the chapter seems to lean toward J.G. Hiedler but here he provides no citation and seems to be reproducing the official mythos. He indicates openness to the theory of J.N. by discussing it at length and providing a dozen citations in that area. But Ullrich does not even suggest during his presentation of the evidence that it might not have been one of those two candidates. The preponderance of secondary sources Ullrich cites are Zdral and Maser. Maser is the more serious scholar and introduces Nepomuk as a candidate into mainline scholarship. Maser is unequivocal and persuasive on this point, incidentally. Ullrich includes several of the secondaries these two cite which include the facsimiles of documents. I cited these as well: Sigmund and Jetzinger. Zdral also includes the facsimiles in the page range cited. Zdral essentially elaborates and expands upon Maser’s argument that Johann Hiedler is not the father, and is conveniently long dead by the time the question came up. Maria Schickelgruber would scarcely have been motivated to conceal his identity at the time of drawing up the birth certificate but may well have had incentive to conceal Nepomuk’s identity since he was a married man. But Ullrich leaves the question open, between the two brothers. The episode ends on a note that confirms (by way of the pastor and the special dispensation which is required for the approval, the note that it was not immediately granted upon request etc.). The legal documents verify the relationship. To avoid going into a long and unnecessary weighing of the factors it seemed most concise to say this was ‘legally established’ since…it is legally established and notarized. We don’t have to go out on a limb weighing speculative truth claims. The first clause I included ‘the theory about Frankenberger tends to distract from etc.’ is justified on the basis that in the past Frankenberger tends to come up and much ink has been spilled about it, whereas the interfamilial relations (prior to Maser) were scarcely mentioned. Ullrich devotes one paragraph to Frankenberger and three pages (to five pages if we include the beginning of the chapter before argument and citation start) to the above described issue. Given space constraints most of this seems unnecessary to say. But given the fact that the Frankenberger theory is given space on the main page it seems necessary and indicated to include a line about this. ThomasMikael (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I should have said: “verified and unambiguous according to the notarized legal documents” above instead of”verified and unambiguous facts.” The claim is a documentary claim not an absolute truth claim—like most of the substance of historical fact. ThomasMikael (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you again for your time and attention, and I apologize if this seems belabored and unnecessary. I could see that in the larger view but not from the point of view that includes an ancestry section on the main page (which is fine, if his actual ancestry and its complication are acknowledged). ThomasMikael (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict× 2) Here's my problems with your edits: Second cousins can legally marry in many countries, including Germany. So to use the word "incest" for the relationship between Klara and Alois is incorrect. You've introduced someone named "Johan Nepomuk" into the narrative without explaining who he is or why his existence makes it incest for Klara and Alois to marry. Regardless, the "if...then" structure of the last sentence makes the whole thing speculation. The second version is no better. "he may himself have been the product of incest himself...": We can't include unsourced claims such as that, not even enclosed in a citation. The Frankenberger thesis actually has an article, which is likely why the hypothesis was considered notable enough to include. — Diannaa🍁(talk) 20:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I assume that you must be pulling a typo from inside of a footnote from the first version. The second version mentions neither of the Hiedler brothers in the main text, which reads:
“The claim about Hitler’s Jewish heritage distracts from a separate aberration in Hitler’s lineage, established by legal documents, that Alois Hitler was either his wife’s cousin once-removed or her half-uncle, 23 years her senior.”
It linked out to the family page for those who wished to pursue greater detail and provided an array of both primary and secondary sources in case investigation of reference seemed necessary to a reader.
I was careful not to use the word ‘incest’ in the second version for the reason that you’ve stated. I thought it was a notable detail since it was new information to me when I read the Vollker Ullrich volume. It gives the issue of the non-existent Jewish grandfather a different spin in that context. Maser and Zdral are notably convinced that Alois and Klara are half-uncle/half-niece. Considering Hitler’s noted fondness of his niece Geli Raubal, the paper trail on the consanguinity of the parents struck me as a psychologically telling dimension of his past. But I said nothing about all that on the page, given that doing so would be speculation. I went with Ullrich’s open version of the case that does not choose between second cousin and half-uncle since Ullrich is the current biographical standard. There does actually happen to be a page on Hitler’s family, but it’s true that the insinuation of the Jewish grandfather has greater currency as a widely broadcast legend vs. the odd facts of his actual family background that are a little aberrant. It’s not illegal to marry the half-sibling-of-a-parent in the state of New York, as I understand it from a search, and it may not be elsewhere. But I do think that as a datapoint that sheds light on his family dynamics, it could be considered unusual and therefore relevant to characterization regardless. Of course it may have been the other Hiedler, J.G. who was the father. In that he is merely her step-cousin and also her second cousin, being the son of her great-uncle. At any rate Fest said this question would ‘peter out’ due to the vagaries and meanness of Hitler’s origins and I suppose he’s proven right.
With that said, I apologize if this was a waste of time and thank you again for your time and attention. I cede the issue, given that I’ve stated my argument and you’ve responded with your judgment. The edit was in good faith, and I assume that it’s exclusion is also in good faith. ThomasMikael (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I think the historical fact that Jews were expelled from Styria (so obviously Graz too) until after Adolf Hitler’s father Alois was born should be mentioned in the Ancestry section.--QueenCoatsie (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
And by 1753 limited numbers were allowed limited stays (but not permanent residence). So again we go back to "so what does this tell us about Hitler?". Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Nothing and neither does it disprove that Jews were officially barred from the area. They were only allowed in the market areas and not permanent residence. Also, Alois was born in 1837! Historians have long used the evidence that Jews weren’t allowed in the area to dismiss the Frankenberger thesis. 5.133.46.237 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Do you not think it would make it more clearer to readers? Especially considering the Frankenberger thesis isn’t even mentioned in the article too. The mention of historians dismissing that thesis and why (because Jews were barred from the area until well after his father had been born) should be included in the article to explain why historians dismiss such claims. QueenCoatsie (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
The Frankenberger thesis is mentioned and wikilinked in the ancrestry section. If people want more information on why historians dismiss this hypothesis they can click on the link for more info.— Diannaa🍁(talk) 13:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
The article states that historians dismiss his grandfather was Jewish because no mention of that name exists, but it is not only because of that but because Jews were expelled from that area too until well after his father had been born. QueenCoatsie (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
You ruined my day. Your arrogance, aggression, ignorance, bigotry and chauvinism are out of place. You are a troll. I will block you. Kaltenbrunner7 (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments5 people in discussion
Hitler’s birth certificate says his given name is “Adolphus” which is obviously a Latinization of Adolf. I know this practice was common when Latin was the lingua franca of Europe, but I believe it was only used as a stand-in when publishing things in Latin, not the person’s name legally in any way.
I’m also aware of a naming convention in the Netherlands today where given names are in their Latinized form legally like on documents, but in daily life they use the regular Dutch form. So “Wilhelmus” on paper but “Willem” in common usage. (Dutch_name#Given_names)
Did a similar thing exist in 19th century Hapsburg Austria? If not, why is his given name written the Latinized way on the certificate? (If he lived a few centuries earlier, I would chalk it up to “all documents were in Latin because the meaning has been preserved” but everything else is in German) Was his first name legally Adolphus or Adolf? And should the article mention that or mention the naming conventions of the time? 216.145.95.179 (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
MAybe, but that has nothing to do with Durch names or discussing 19thC naming conventions. If you have an RS saoiyng his birth name was different, represent it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Giblin, James Cross (2002). The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. United States: Clarion Books. ISBN 978-0-39590-371-1
19th C naming conventions have everything to do with this 19th C name. It means the difference between the first sentence and early life section saying he was born Adolphus, or saying that was his first name his entire life. I had faith that editors whom know more on it than I, or those who know what various RS say on it, could weigh in. 75.131.51.123 (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Can someone with access to the book confirm it says his birth name was Adolphus. I have seen internet discussions about this, but no RS confirming it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Giblin says his name was Adolphus on his baptismal certificate. I don't know about his birth certificate or even if there was one. It was indeed a practice to register baptisms using Latinized forms of names. I know this because my family history has similar example registered in Vienna at around the same time, and that person never used the Latinized version again as far as I know. I don't think a baptismal registration is enough to say that it was his "real" name, though nothing stops us from reporting it as what his baptismal certificate says. Zerotalk12:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I can see snippets in Google view. It does not say his birth certificate used "Adolphus". What it says is "Christened Adolphus Hitler, he was his parents' fourth child..." on page 4. Toland states on page 8 of the paperback edition that the baptismal registry says "Adolphus Hitler". A baptismal registry is not a legal document and not a substitute for a birth certificate issued by a government body. — Diannaa🍁(talk) 13:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Spiegel has a copy here (image #5). They describe it as a "baptismal certificate and birth certificate" and notes it was "issued retroactively on November 12, 1924, by the parish office of Braunau am Inn." So the document was issued 35 years after Hither's birth in 1889. I am not prepared to put any significance to this document as I question whether it accurately describes what happened at a baptism 35 years prior. — Diannaa🍁(talk) 15:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Kershaw 1998 cites the document via Hitler Archive for very specifics on his birthplace (p. 56). Giblin cites Kershaw for the chapter including “christened Adolphus Hitler” so that’s likely the full pedigree of the claim. Its legitimacy is reasonably called into question given it was issued 35 years later, but it seems to be the legal documentation of the birth+baptism, and the only one we know that’s mentioned in RS so far. 75.131.51.123 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Dictator of Nazi Germany?
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments7 people in discussion
I know that this one is one of those perennial questions, whether we refer to Germany during the Nazi era as a distinct state or place, I cannot remember what the consensus has been, but think it has varied with context.
A couple of times here and more recently the opening phrasing Dictator of Nazi Germany has been changed to Dictator of Germany, which is factually more correct, but removes the opportunity of an early link to Nazi Germany.
Since Nazi Germany and the period of Hitler's dictatorship are almost synonymous, it seems especially clumsy to effectively be saying that "Hitler was dictator of Germany throughout the period of Hitler's dictatorship". This is a bit of a trade-off between exactitude and accessability. Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Can't word "Germany" can be wiki-piped to Nazi Germany? My own feeling about it is that "dictator of Nazi Germany" is like "president of Republican America", which is a phrase that is out there but we wouldn't use it for NPOV reasons. Zerotalk06:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Not sure I'd agree with this - "Nazi Germany" is the common term to refer to this period of German history, which couldn't be said for "Republican America". I don't think it'd be a NPOV issue given that Germany was defined by Nazi rule at the time. — Czello(music)06:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
'Nazi Germany' is shorthand for 'Germany during the Nazi era', I agree that it is in fairly common use to imply a place as much as an era, but logically, our sentence is equivalent to 'Emperor of Imperial Rome' and is clumsy IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
"Nazi Germany" is allowed because there are lots of sources using it that way. But there are also lots of sources that just say "Germany". DeCausa's idea is a good compromise. Zerotalk07:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Germany, during the Nazi era would be more correct. Nazi Germany was not the name of the country, but was the government during that timeframe. I agree with the change. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Hitler was not dictator throughout the period of NAZI rule. There is a strong hint of anachronism in trying to treat the whole 1933-45 period as being the same. The NAZI govt altered over time as did the way it was perceived by others. Labelling the country as NAZI rather than just Germany also hints of trying to excuse current Germany for what the country did in the past. I have never liked the way wikipedia does this too. The swastika flag was the German flag, not the NAZI German flag, as it is labelled by wikipedia. A country's govt does not usually create a different country. What next? Should we start describing Syria during a certain period as Assad Syria? And as for sources, we should eliminate all but the best quality sources and then read them carefully and in context. I think we would find that many of them are not so liberal when it comes to labelling Germany 1933-45 as NAZI Germany. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Should we start describing Syria during a certain period as Assad Syria? We do do that, see Ba'athist Syria. A country's govt does not usually create a different country. It usually does when the fundamental structure of the country's rule, particularly its governmental system, changes. You're unlikley to find many historians who consider the German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, and modern Germany to be one continuous entity. Hitler was not dictator throughout the period of NAZI rule. Regardless of the exact terminology we use in the article, it is rather absurd to suggest he wasn't a dictator. He is usually seen as being unambiguously a dictator from the Enabling Act onwards. — Czello(music)09:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the Syria article. The first lines say "Ba'athist Syria, officially the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR),[a] was the Syrian state between 1963 to 2024 under the one-party rule of the Syrian regional branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. From 1971 until its collapse in 2024, it was ruled by the Assad family, and was therefore commonly referred to as the Assad regime." Do we say 'Nazi Germany was Germany between 1933 and 1945?", in other words it is Germany. Ba'athist Syria was the name of the state of Syria, just as the third reich was the name of Germany, so the country itself has not changed. The last sentence is illogical - a regime is the governing body, not the state. Therefore, this article about Syria has also got itself muddled up by trying to create a different country based solely on who governs it at any specific point in time or what its official name is. I think it is not at all absurd to say Hitler was not a dictator in 1933-34 and possibly too not until Hinderberg's death. There are not many levels of being a dictator, you are one or you are not. Unless you assume power through force or some other non-democratic means, there is usually a transition period to becoming a true dictator, which seems to be what happened with Hitler, short though that transition period was. I think sources will confirm this.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
A well-known anecdote, which is probably true, was that during the Eichmann trial the Israeli prime-minister Ben-Gurion instructed the prosecutor and others to always say "Nazi Germany" and not just "Germany". This was to not sour ongoing negotiations with Germany. Zerotalk11:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments12 people in discussion
Hi Roger 8 Roger. I don't see any basis in removing the category for far-right politician. This seems very much a WP:SKYISBLUE matter. Here are some sources though:
Yeah, this utterly uncontroversial. We even have a FAQ about this at Talk:Nazi Party/FAQ so this is a completely settled issue. In fact, it is the sort of obviously bad edit that would earn a new user a warning template. I have reverted it. Any attempt to redo that change, whoever does it, can be reverted as vandalism and appropriate warnings issued at the reverter's discretion. This is far too important an article for us to indulge any nonsense. DanielRigal (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
I think there are always issues when using words such as 'far (left/right)' because it almost always involves a level of personal opinion. Nazi-ism was fairly unique in having several traits peculiar only to itself and to its time in history. There are numerous similar opinions. I randomly looked at link 7 (of 28) on the FAQ page referred to above to find editors with similar views to mine. Labelling Nazi-ism as far right is not at all as clear as the sky is blue. As I had not seen any of the lengthy discussions about this, I reverted the category, and re-reverted simply because no explanation or reference was given as to why it should stay. (To avoid any false assumptions, I did not mean 'national socialism' was socialism/left wing, it was national socialism.) Although I agree, nazi-ism is right wing, I think it is safer to leave it at that without adding the word 'far', which opens a can of worms. However, we are bound by RSSs and what they say. I would always question anything other than top academic sources, meaning some of the sources mentioned above should be used with care (ABC, NYT). It appears there is not a totally uniform description of Nazi-ism as being far right. I note that with describing battle results in the infobox, the consensus is to avoid the word 'decisive' because, just like 'far' it involves a level of personal opinion. Some of the somewhat dramatic language used above is not particularly helpful. The bottom line is, we can use 'far-right' if that is the description used by a significant majority of top-quality independent RSSs, not because it is the consensus of editors. (In this case, they should be the same anyway). I have briefly looked at the Britannica article . Fairly balanced in my opinion with no mention of far right, or even just right wing. It focuses on the Nazi party being just that, the nazi party with its own ideology. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Although I agree, nazi-ism is right wing, I think it is safer to leave it at that without adding the word 'far', which opens a can of worms. Nope. It's WP:BLUE. You really are flogging a dead horse there.. Just put Hitler and far right in Google Books. Not every source is going to necessarily add the "far" ...because it's a statement of the obvious. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with DeCausa on one point at least, the one about the horse. Germany 1936-39 vs Russia 2003-2025 - is Putin far-right? I'm trying to find differences. Just saying.. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Roger, yes, Putin is far-right. That's just one of many reasons why Trump likes him and other brutal far-right dictators. He envies Putin's power and actions. They are close allies, with what has been described by Jonathan Chait as a subservient and collusive asset/handler alliance. He described their meeting at the 2018 Helsinki summit as a meeting between Trump, a Russian-intelligence "asset", meeting Putin, his "handler". So they are both far-right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
The furthest far righters in the alt-right movement sure think he's one of them. That's not a reliable source but it's telling. A somewhat similar saying I see: "if racists think you're also a racist, you probably are."--A. B.(talk • contribs • global count)12:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree that lumping together comtemporary far-right leaders with convicted Nazis is a bit problematic to say the least. Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Returning to this because of continued contributions. I note what appears to be a false use of the left-right spectrum, making it a straight line. The Horseshoe theory is much better and if used for the nazis would be much more accurate IMO. It would account for clear similarities in the policies between Hitler and Stalin (and Putin). To me, this is all self-evident which explains my concern about labelling nazi-ism simply as far-right without any other clarification. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the horseshoe theory is a much better way to understand it, but the left-right spectrum is still good, as it describes the diverging direction of those beliefs and policies. They just happen to share something once one gets to their extreme forms; even though they still disagree in many fundamental ways, they end up sharing a desire to control others, and their extremist leaders will both use force to do it. Their moderate leaders do not believe in such use of control and force. Moderates on both sides are more reasonable people.
It used to be that members of both the Democratic and Republican parties spanned wide in their beliefs, and some overlapped with each other at the center, and the Democrats still do that. Since the advent of the Tea Party and MAGA, the number of Republicans who still overlap with the center make up a tiny group, with many voting for Democrats as never-Trumpers, while there is a big gap between MAGA and the center. MAGA is far-right and radical, espousing alliance with Russia and foreign right-wing dictators, all of whom are enemies of America. They also espouse the abandonment of voting as a way to choose their leaders. They espouse the use of censorship, violence, force, racism, xenophobia, extreme nationalism, etc.
For Republicans, but not Democrats, the Overton Window (the range of policies and ideas that are considered acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time) has shifted far to the right. People who formerly would never dream of informing on their neighbor for being a critic of the president, are now doing it. People who formerly would not advocate the sudden kidnapping of ordinary citizens, naturalized citizens, and green card holders, along with illegal immigrants, and sending them, without due process or any legal rights, to foreign prison camps, are doing it.
We live in strange times, and the history of the rise of the Nazis in Germany is very instructive, especially since Stephen Miller and Trump have studied and admire Hitler. This article is about Hitler and his influence, which is far from dead. Will America see slavery again? Will it see gulags and death camps? If the current opposition fails, that could happen, and is indeed already starting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Here is a link to a related discussion in May 2025 about the classification of the Chinese Communist Party - far left or not. The decision was made to leave the relevant part of the ibx empty, with similar arguments against calling the CCP far-left. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
The trouble is that while L-R is traditionally mainly about economic issues, including extent of central control of economy, extent of govt provision of services to the citizen etc, it also at the edges incorporates issues of nationalism and nativism. The L-R distinction is unclear sometimes, as with modern China which shows elements of Maoist centralised policy control and planning, along with a high degree of capitalism.
Imperfect though it is, the L-R distinction remains one of the main indicators of political position, but I think we can all agree that dictators of all persuasions share much in common. Pincrete (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
This is getting too generic for this talk page. Questions there may be over MAGA, Putin, CCP, Stalin etc etc, but there is no debate about Hitler. DeCausa (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinions Helper201 and User:TarnishedPath. I had a few spare minutes, so let's take a look at the sources you, and others, attach so much importance to.
1. An excerpt from a book, that is not properly referenced. The term far-right refers to other groups in the early post-WW1 period, not to the Nazi party nor to Hitler. The only connection is ‘’Further indications of the relatively late development of Hitler’s far right political ideas exist.’’ This confirms the Nazi party was not far-right for most of its existence.
2.USA Today is a tabloid low quality source. Andreas Wirsching, the institute's director, (The Institute of Contemporary History of Munich) said in a statement that concerns that the book's re-publication would promote or serve Hitler's far-right Nazi ideology have proven to be unfounded and that it instead has fostered mature debate about authoritarian ideologies. This reports what one person said. It is therefore not a secondary source.
3. ‘’Like many of his class, Edward was instinctively sympathetic to Hitler’s far-right regime.’’ Only mention in an opinion piece by an author promoting his own book. Not a secondary source, no matter the quality of the publisher or the author.
4. ‘’Ferry, frontman of 1970s band Roxy Music, reportedly praised the style of Adolf Hitler's far-right regime in the 1930s and 1940s in an interview with German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.’’ The only mention in and by this ABC music section article, without an author, of ‘far-right’. It also confirms the later period when this description applies. Hardly a reliable secondary source.
5. ‘’Traditionally, it focuses on the memory of the 6 million Jews assassinated by Adolf Hitler’s far-right Nazi regime.’’ The only, skirting, mention in this very short article in the magazine section, again without an author. Not a good secondary source despite the publisher.
So we really have no sources worth using, not five. The five mentions are either not about the nazi party; somebody's personal opinion, who is also not an expert and/or not named; or the sources give scant, passing, mention of 'far-right' that does not qualify them as usable. You might find in useful to look at WP:RSS and other helpful pages. Use of, and mis-use of, sources is fundamental to the quality of Wikipedia: I think on that point we can all agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2025
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose per MOS:NAME and on the grounds that it's rather uncommon to use the full name of a person repeatedly in a text, which would explain why "Hitler" brings up more hits than "Adolf Hitler". That is not grounds to move the article "per COMMONNAME", which is the policy I infer you're citing. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk | contribs) 01:11, 23 October 2025 (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.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2025
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This isn't strictly necessary but even though the Holocaust is linked in the lede, the page for genocide is not. I assume most people reading this page already know what genocide is but it could be helpful for someone's understanding to link it at some point, maybe here: "Under Hitler's leadership and racist ideology, the Nazi regime was responsible for the genocide of an estimated six million Jews and millions of other victims, whom he and his followers deemed..." Delukiel (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Removing dictator from the lead without consensus or counter-sources
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I can understand the grammatical argument above that "people don't personally invade countries, countries do" (paraphrasing), but what exactly is the policy-based reason for removing "dictator" from the lead? Which high-quality reliable sourcesdo not describe Hitler as a dictator from 1933 onward? The previous discussion on the matter ended without any changes or non-binding agreement because the editor raising the issue was blocked for being a sockpuppet of an LTA, one of dozens they had at the time. Yue🌙17:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The gist I'm getting from proponents of excluding "dictator" is it doesn't make sense to call Hitler a dictator from 1933 onwards because he initially served as chancellor, having been appointed through democratic processes. This doesn't make sense because the aforementioned Enabling Act was passed that year, but if we're going just by technicalities from the very start and very end, then the end detail is wrong too because Karl Dönitz briefly served as Hitler's successor after Hitler killed himself. However, the sources cited in this article do not make those technical distinctions because that's stupid. Despite what reliable sources state, Wikipedia shouldn't state Hitler was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945 because technically he wasn't for a few months in 1933?
I'm not even going to address the argument the LTA made in the archived discussion because it wasn't even an attempt at policy-based reasoning (paraphrasing, "Hitler didn't call himself a dictator so Wikipedia calling him a dictator is biased"). Yue🌙00:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Can we add Kanye's song to Hitler's legacy?
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Months ago, Kanye West released a song titled 'Heil Hitler' which serves as both the title and the chorus. Is it possible to cite this song as an aspect of Hitler's modern legacy? WordsAreNotViolence (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
I am not going to edit the main article but my pet peeve is saying things like "Hitler invaded Poland" instead of "Germany invaded Poland"; likewise Hitler did not "start WW2" Britain did, when it declared war on Germany, turning a regional war into a general European conflict. The fact that Britain had an alliance with Poland does not change anything, one does not get to blame the other guy by declaring an alliance. Nor am I saying that Britain was wrong to start the war but simply that they did start it. Bonzana (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I do not know if you are trolling or not. Clearly WWII started due to Hitler invading Poland. Britain declared war afterwards. That is stuff you learn in primary school history class, so it is quite jarring reading this now. Plasticwonder (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@user:Bonzana, you are quite correct to raise this point - sloppy expressions and casual language abound in Wikipedia, including sections on history. Such language is learned in primary school but has no place in an encyclopedia. The section you refer to says this: "Adolf Hitler[a] (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany during the Nazi period from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[c] becoming the chancellor in 1933 and then taking the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934.[d] His invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 marked the outbreak of the Second World War." It doesn't say the invasion started WWII. It doesn't say Hitler started WWII, but it does say 'his invasion of Poland' which should be changed. It also strongly implies he was dictator from 1933, which he wasn't (this has been raised before and, I thought, corrected.) However, the text does not specifically say 'dictator from 1933' so strictly speaking it is not wrong. I suggest you change the wording to make it clear Poland was invaded by Germany, to be followed shortly thereafter by the Soviet Union. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I am neither ignorant of the topic nor am I trolling. I resent such a suggestion even. It is not trolling to object to phrasing things by saying that leaders of countries launch invasions themselves as if they were the nation. Nor is it trolling to suggest that the conflict became a European war only when Britain declared war. Had Britain not honored its treaty the conflict would have remained a local war between Germany and Poland. The fact that Britain chose to declare war is a decision they made. It was not a decision that Hitler made to have Germany fight Britain, he hoped, and expected, that Britain might stay out and let Germany conquer Poland. Here is the thing: it is propaganda to frame the conflict as all Hitler's fault, and that he was intentionally launching a world war by personally invading Poland. One might feel that Britain was justified in declaring war, but that does not make Hitler responsible for Britain's choice. Its akin to saying "He made me hit him" which is never an excuse in courts of law, but seems to be accepted by people who like denigrating Hitler. Finally, I am not a Hitler supporter. I do not condone his atrocities and I am not raising the issues I raised to support him. I raise them because the bias goes the other way. Bonzana (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The lead says Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 marked the outbreak of the Second World War, which is correct. Was there some other line in the article you were objecting to? --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I am not in favor of using that image. The original image is here. The image has been altered to change it from sepia tones to black and white. Also, I don't think the license is correct; it's not clear how finna.fi obtained the rights to the photo and is in a position to release it under a CC-by 4.0 license. I am going to nominate the image for deletion at the Commons.— Diannaa🍁(talk) 19:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I corrected image, in my opinion, black and white colors looks better. Yup, sure, nominate it, cause we need to inform Finnish Archive about that photo uploading. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I prefer the current image. The proposed image is clearly an airbrushed artistic recreation of Hitler rather than a real-life photograph of him. Emiya1980 (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Even if that's the case, one looks significantly more airbrushed than the other. While I am not against including a high-resolution picture of the man, visibly touched-up representations designed to lionize him should be avoided as the lead image. Emiya1980 (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
No. There is no such policy, guideline, or consensus. We state facts in wikivoice when there is widespread consensus as to their truth in reliable sources. I cannot contemplate that a single serious historian or political scientist would argue that Hitler is not a dictator. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Committed suicide vs. died by suicide
Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Consistency with respect to modern language. Many articles use "died by suicide" now, and this should be consistent across all articles. Minion595 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The use of "died by suicide" is relatively common in US I believe and is becoming more used in UK. Personally I find it both both euphemistic and unnecessary. It implies something passive that simply happened to the individual, which might be apt for someone suffering from extreme depression, or similar condition, but is inapt in other circumstances, such as Hitler's, which as Kierzec says below, was a choice by him to avoid his having to 'face the music'.
I presume the objection is to the associations of the word 'commit', which in this usage is commonly used for crimes (commit a burglary) or 'sins' (commit adultery) - though there are plenty of other uses of the word, as any committed Christian, anyone committed to their work or family or anyone committed to prison will tell you.
The phrase is also unnecessary, Goering and the Goebbels took poisin to end their lives, others employed othe means to kill themselves. There are already several other ways to record this event neutrally and factually.
I believe our policy is to take no definitive position on this and retain whatever the existing language is. Therefore, "committed" is fine. — Czello(music)22:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Committed is fine. There is no prohibition against it in modern times. It’s an act, which he chose to commit. Does not need to be changed and there’s no consensus to change it. Kierzek (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The policy in MOS:SUICIDE states: "The phrase committed suicide is neither recommended nor banned." It is a stylistic choice. Since it is not banned, my view is that the status quo should be upheld. The policy neither mandates nor advocates "consistency" in this instance. Historybuff0105 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Kallmann syndrome
Latest comment: 10 months ago10 comments5 people in discussion
This stuff should be removed as it lacks any strong evidence and has way more evidence against it, someone with Kallmann syndrome doesn’t grow a full moustache (look at a picture of him during WW1), grow body hair or have a very deep voice. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that he lacked a sense of smell, in fact eyewitness accounts assert that he reacted to things such as tobacco smoke, he also had a sexual relationship with Eva Braun and his height was average. This is just one of many post-war stories used to attack him, which only serves to make people doubt actually true important information rather than false medical condition speculation and baseless childish claims. BathTubJesus (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I have full blown Kallmann Syndrome with five symptoms. Couple of things here, first of all Kallmann Syndrome has a spectrum of symptoms. It would be more correct to say that some of his symptoms align with full blown Kallmann Syndrome. He was probably a carrier of Kallmann Syndrome with not all the symptoms. The phenotypic traits exhibited in Kallmann Syndrome exist along a fairly broad spectrum, with varying degrees of hypogonadism and anosmia. The hypogonadism and anosmia are the most two critical parts. If he had anosmia and some sexual/endocrine issues stemming from his genetics you can safely say he had Kallmann Syndrome. But this is unclear, however he did have a one copy of a gene associated with known Kallmann Syndrome cases. Whereas you need two "bad copies" for the full thing, as I understand it.
--It's insulting to suggest that people with Kallmann Syndrome couldn't have sexual relationships. Also I reacted to tobacco smoke when I have full blown anosmia and no olfactory bulbs because it irritates your nostrils. Same thing with a few other very strong odors, they tickle your nose a lot and then you sneeze and you think of it as "smell" because you have no reference points. Also my voice began to masculinize with fairly low testosterone levels, his father Alois was shown to have a big beard even when he was pretty old, so it's a bit of a mixed mag.
No it wouldn’t, he exhibited no symptoms, that’s my point. He wasn’t, there’s no evidence other than some "analysts" word. He didn’t have hypogonadism, given his lengthy and happy relationship with Eva Braun. He also didn’t have asnosmia, he is recorded as reacting to smells, such as animal smells, if smelling smoke isn’t enough for you, obviously choking on smoke is different to smelling it and it’s residue. Sure it’s not impossible for them to have sexual relations but it’s far less likely and extremely unlikely to last so long without any problems. It’s only possible now for people with the syndrome to masculinise because of hormone therapy, which didn’t exist in Hitler’s time. It should be omitted entirely or at the very least the tiny bit of shaky evidence should be coupled with the mountain of evidence against it. Appreciate your input though, fair points. BathTubJesus (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@~2025-34377-19, thank you for sharing some of your experiences with us. @BathTubJesus, The Guardian states that "The researchers also found robust evidence – the deletion of a letter from a gene called PROK2 – that Hitler had some form of a well-known but rare genetic disorder known as Kallmann syndrome". Our article currently reports that "he likely suffered from Kallmann syndrome" and does not categorically state that it was present and does not speculate about which symptoms, if any, he may have exhibited. — Diannaa🍁(talk) 20:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The Guardian is not a trustworthy source, nor is that robust evidence anyhow, it’s an 80 year old dried up bloodstain that’s probably been touched by multiple people and for all we know they’re talking nonsense, but the most important factor is he showed NO symptoms of the syndrome. That’s the thing, he likely didn’t suffer from Kallmann syndrome, as other than the words of some analyst, there’s no evidence, no symptoms, nothing, in fact he showed completely normal signs of puberty development, a functional sense of smell and a healthy sex life, what sense does it make to side with one piece of flimsy evidence in favour at best over a mountain of evidence against, other than personal bias? BathTubJesus (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The Guardian is not a trustworthy source? It is a review of a TV documentary and the Gdn can be wholly relied on to accurately report the contents of the documentary being reviewed (or to issue a correction if wrong, which it regularly does for even trivial errors).
The real doubt, IF there is any, (which I'm not competent to assess), is that the research has not as yet been peer reviewed. Peer review may well amend, qualify, if not negate, the wilder reported conclusions of the research. Pincrete (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Whether or not it is, is certainly debatable (it’s a partisan news agency), but the rest of what I’m saying is not, stop avoiding the mountain of evidence against the fact and focusing on other things. BathTubJesus (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
This DW which also covers the TV documentary says the following: "While such assessments and the new medical findings can help us to better understand Hitler's psychology, it's not scientifically legitimate to link individual behaviors solely on the basis of genetic analyses and the polygenic risk score (PRS) tests used to estimate the genetic risk for a particular disease". I'm inclined to agree with that assessment, particularly since both The Guardian and DW suggest that even the documentary itself seems skeptical of calling this "likely". Could we not simply say that he may have suffered from Kallmann syndrome and strike the speculation on symptoms he might have suffered as a result? RexUrsorum (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago13 comments5 people in discussion
It is impossible to prove by DNA that someone has no Jewish ancestry. It is only possible to prove that someone doesn't have markers that are more common in Jews than in non-Jews. This is basic genetics. Popular documentaries like to simplify things like this, but we don't have the same requirements. Yes, I know all about following sources, but if someone notices the journal article which is supposed to be in the works please be sure to report it. Zerotalk08:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Not wholey true DNA tests can't directly identify Jewish ancestry, but can trace maternal lines via mtDNA. So if he lacks those markers, that does not prove he is not Jewish, but iotsm a very good sign he is not. Thus we go by what RS say, as they will hacve likely also checked other signs (like having a known Jewish ancestor). Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
This particular test was not done with maternal mDNA, but by matching with a male line relative. Turi King, the geneticist who performed the test, states that it's not possible that Hitler had Jewish ancestry through his father, or the DNA would not have matched.[1] Turi King is the geneticist who confirmed the body found in 2015 in Leicester was Richard III. The Times of Israel describes the evidence as "definitive".[2] She told The Guardian that a scientific paper has been submitted but it's not yet published.[3] All the sources I have checked say categorically that Hitler had no Jewish ancestry, so we should go with that, at least until proven otherwise. — Diannaa🍁(talk) 13:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Now I understand better with the extra information in the CNN story. Hitler was not a descendant of the Jew who was alleged his paternal ancestor, because he was descended from someone in his official male line. It wasn't about so-called Jewish DNA markers. However, "he had no Jewish ancestry through his father" is too strong as almost everyone on Earth has Jewish ancestry through both their parents and DNA cannot disprove that. It would be better to just write that DNA proved Hans Frank's story to be false. Zerotalk13:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Please provide a source (or better yet, multiple sources) for your statement that"almost everyone on Earth has Jewish ancestry through both their parents". — Diannaa🍁(talk) 14:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
(Wrote this earlier but forgot to click "publish":) Also, there are plenty of sources that report what is scientifically possible, namely that what was investigated and disproved was the story about a Jewish grandfather. Impossible claims of "no Jewish ancestry" are just journalistic sloppiness. The more scientific the source, the more precise, for example this at ZME Science: "On the subject of ancestry, the researchers also tackled a long-running rumor: the dictator’s alleged Jewish grandfather. For decades, speculation about Hitler’s paternal line circulated in political debates and propaganda. The DNA analysis shut that door, noting that his Y chromosome perfectly matched a known male-line relative of Austrian-German descent.". Zerotalk01:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Regarding your question, there is literature about common ancestry. You and I each have 240=1,099,511,627,776 ancestors 40 generations ago (about 1100 years), which of course only makes sense if many of them were the same person. What is the chance that your 1,099,511,627,776 and my 1,099,511,627,776 don't have a single person in common? If you are native of South America and I am an Australian aborigine, it is possible, but if we both have ancestors from parts of the world where there was population mixing, even at a very low rate, it is near impossible. It is even more impossible for one person, such as my non-Jewish self, to have no ancestor in common with any living Jew. Zerotalk01:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Turi King, the geneticist who performed the test, told CNN: "That DNA match not only confirmed that this is Hitler’s DNA but also confirms that that story of human Jewish ancestry through his father is just simply not true."[1] — Diannaa🍁(talk) 02:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm a Russell's teapot sort of sceptic, I need evidence of some kind to give any credence to a conjecture, rather than feeling obliged to disprove everything mooted as possible and AFAIK, there really never has been any evidence about Alois' supposed ancestry any more than there has been about Elvis' continued existence.
King's specific conclusion about Alois' ancestry seems pretty indisputable. Regarding the more sweeping conclusions being made about this research though, I'll leave the quibbles about the nature of DNA profiling to others more expert than I, but you don't need to be a DNA expert to know that there is no such thing as 'Jewish DNA', there may be DNA characteristics shared by nearly all Jewish people, but that isn't quite the same thing. Apart from any other consideration, there always has been conversion to the religion and inter-marriage (historically, comparatively, very rare I'm sure).
This is a quibble on my part, Alois' supposed Jewish ancestry always was highlyhighly implausible, and it is definitely possible to now confirm that the 'Hitler had recent Jewish blood' conjecture belongs with the flat earth theory. But, AFAI understand things, it simply isn't possible to prove that an individual has NO links to an entire racial group, whether that be Jews or any others. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Right, and "also confirms that that story of human Jewish ancestry through his father is just simply not true" is exactly what I wrote. The "story" King refers to is the one about the supposed grandfather. There simply is no other story about Jewish ancestry. Meanwhile, I'm one of those editors who doesn't like articles to contain statements that are manifestly false. Zerotalk06:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
A more precise statement of what was proved is that the DNA firmly established Hitler's paternal ancestry back to the most recent male ancestor he shared with the relative he was compared to. I don't know how many generations that was, but presumably it will be stated in the forthcoming academic article. All we can definitely infer from the released snippets is that the number of generations was sufficient to eliminate the Jewish grandfather theory. Zerotalk12:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
All we can definitely infer from the released snippets is that the number of generations was sufficient to eliminate the Jewish grandfather theory. Thanks for that clarification. I couldn't understand how the DNA comparison had been done. Pincrete (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following two sentences immediately follow the Mein Kampf circulation figures and seem out of place there. It should at least be in its own paragraph if not moved elsewhere --
Shortly before Hitler was eligible for parole, the Bavarian government attempted to have him deported to Austria. The Austrian federal chancellor rejected the request on the specious grounds that his service in the German Army made his Austrian citizenship void. In response, Hitler formally renounced his Austrian citizenship on 7 April 1925.~2025-37288-84 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2026
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the first paragraph of the "Childhood and education" section, there is the sentence "There Hitler acquired the distinctive lower Bavarian dialect, rather than Austrian German, which marked his speech throughout his life." A comma should be added after "There". Jlunbeck (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The official name of Hitler's party is NSDAP or in full Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. The name "Nazi Party" is not an official name, nor has the term become established in colloquial speech as a synonym for the NSDAP. So why is it used in the introduction chapter here? Is it meant to avoid the official name and thereby to avoid the terms sozialistisch and Arbeiter? ~2025-39982-80 (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
no, but it is the common one. That is why it is used, not because we want to hide the fact that it contains any words (like National, I.E. nationalist). Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
nor has the term become established in colloquial speech as a synonym for the NSDAP — What? Of course it has. What else would it be? Loytra✨03:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
WikiProject Conservatism
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The Nazi Party article being part of WikiProject Conservatism, but Hitler not being, feels inconsistent. Why wouldn't a member/leader of a conservative movement be labelled conservative? Or had this just gone unnoticed? Roast (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Roast, I don't know how far-right the Conservatism project reaches, but the anomaly to my eyes would seem to be including the Nazi Party, rather than omitting Hitler.Pincrete (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Pincrete The project includes far-right topics like David Duke and the article for Far-right politics (I admit that I edited the latter, but that was to change its importance; it was applied to the project prior). For this, not including Hitler seems like an oversight. Roast (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
@Pincrete I added the WikiProject. I also pointed to this discussion on the WikiProject talk page for more opinions, but that talk page looks rarely visited. Roast (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
About the central description
Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The article's central description says "dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945, main instigator of World War II and leader of the Holocaust (1889–1945)". In my ears, "leader of the Holocaust" sounds like he was leading a political movement. Perhaps this should be changed to "orchestrator of the Holocaust" or something along those lines? Oakchris1955 (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I tend to be against it here just because it has already been used ("main instigator of World War II") and I think this kind of repetition should be avoid as much as possible in article descriptions. Then again, it is probably better than "leader of the Holocaust" Oakchris1955 (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
The article doesn't say either "main instigator of World War II" nor "leader of the Holocaust". It says "Germany's invasion of Poland … under his leadership marked the outbreak of the Second World War" and later "Hitler was closely involved in … the perpetration of the Holocaust".
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
As the position of Fuhrer was established by Hitller and abolished after his death, it should be made to say position established instead of showing the presidents that came after, when it shows who succeeded and preceded him. ~2026-17811-72 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
So the 1st section in the infobox, "Führer of Germany" ought to be dropped. Further, as the OP noted, that title had no predecessor of successor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
"Führer" was Hitler's title as head of state of Germany; that section should not be dropped in any way. It may be debated whether to continue referring to his predecessor and successor, even if both held the title of "President", or to cite it as "Office established" and "Office abolished", but obviously his status as head of state between 1934 and 1945 cannot be omitted. Personally, I believe that even if the specific title attributed to the German head of state before August 2, 1934, and after April 30, 1945, was different, it is by no means superfluous to mention the previous and subsequent heads of state, since the succession of heads of state is a relevant fact among those who hold that position. For example, in Wilhelm II, his succession is mentioned as Monarchy abolished Friedrich Ebert (as President of the Weimar Republic). In other words, the two options can be combined. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2026
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Adolf Hitler has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
His full/birth name is "supposedly" Adolphus Hitler if that's the official case. If it's not, then its wrong. However, if it is correct, then needs to be included in the Wikipedia page. UltraAtom (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
To keep it simple: it’s just a different translation of the same name, the same as with Willem/Wilhelm or Louis/Lewis or Jean/Jan. No need to change it. ContextCreator (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
Influences
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't think the article does justice to the influence Frederick the Great and Richard Wagner had on Hitler. He compared himself with the former throughout the war, having kept a painting of Frederick in the Reich Chancellery and later the Führerbunker. In the final weeks of the war, Goebbels read aloud to him from Carlyle's History of Friedrich II of Prussia, and Hitler explicitly modelled his refusal to surrender on Frederick's recovery during the Seven Years' War. He was infatuated by Wagner as a young man as we know from Kubizek's memoirs. Kershaw talks at length throughout his biography about how Wagnerian themes shaped Hitler's personality. Hitler patronized the Bayreuth Festival regularly and kept a close relationship with the Wagner family. Other authors have also written on this influence, like Joachim Köhler. JDiala (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Talking about Hitler
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
so Hitler was born in Germany and in 1945 he grows up and he becomes president and he start war 1 an war 2 an 3 and in the Nazis. ~2026-27753-71 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
The other problem is that the sentence implies that the Holocaust included non-Jewish victims. But there's consensus on The Holocaust article that the Holocaust was only Jews. JDiala (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
"Concurrent Nazi persecutions killed millions of other non-Jewish civilians and prisoners of war (POWs); the term Holocaust is sometimes used to include the murder and persecution of non-Jewish groups, such as the Romani and Soviet POWs.". So it is not in fact a given, and Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
I thought the same as you, until i saw "millions of other victims" and the article the hyperlink led to. I only have a problem with this being so brief; it could be changed to not mean purely the Holocaust in such a case. MazurTutejszy (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
Brevity is necessarily the primary objective, given the vast amount of relevant info and the fact that this is the article about the man himself, rather than the events. It was felt important to mention the 6 million and millions of others in the opening para of the lead, but I believe it does so very concisely at present with an apt level of detail for this context. Pincrete (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Is it fair if i add "tens" before "of millions"? It helps provide a fair amount of clarity that also is not too drawn-out, while "millions" is more vague than it should be MazurTutejszy (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Is it fair if i add "tens" before "of millions"? (of victims), it depends of course how one defines 'victims', but the related page says "Taking into account all of the victims of persecution, the Nazis systematically murdered an estimated six million Jews and millions of others during the war. Donald Niewyk suggests that the broadest definition, including Soviet civilian deaths, would produce a total of 17 million victims". So i don't think it apt to add 'tens of'. If all deaths were counted, I believe the total would come out in the low 'tens of', but that would be a very broad definition of 'victim'. Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough, though one could argue that all victims of the war technically come from Hitler's decisions ...
I agree with the reasons set forth by Pincrete and Diannaa. We don’t want to add in speculation and conjecture with an ever broadening definition of people that could be or might be included. Kierzek (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
What do you mean? Even with basic estimates, you receive a number of 10,000,000+. Murders of non-Jewish civilians in the countries of Eastern Europe (Poland, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece) measure in the several millions (Poles - 3,000,000+, Soviets - 9,000,000+, Greeks - 300,000+, Czechoslovaks - 50,000+, Serbs - tens of thousands). Additional numbers pertaining to religious and political victims within Germany, numbers of Gypsies and disabled people killed, as well as further amounts, rise the total to be very clearly higher above 10 million. There is no speculation about these crimes, thus i hope that i am not encountering someone who benefits from whitewashing crimes. I place my words with the highest kindness and understanding. MazurTutejszy (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
What has been stated above speaks for itself and to make a personal accusation as you have above is not only wrong, but highly uncalled for. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
It is not a personal accusation, it is a personal hope. I very much hope that that is not the case, and i do not believe it is, however the judgement of someone who calls to lower the death counts does not provide the best assumptions. Once again, i write my words with the highest kindness and understanding of the other person. MazurTutejszy (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Press mention
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Not done This article is about Hitler, not about the history of the Jews in Graz, and is therefore too much detail for this particular article. However the detail that Jewish residency was illegal in the area at the time is also too much detail, so I am taking that out. — Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Failed Austrian Painter has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 11 § Failed Austrian Painter until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2024 (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. Annh07 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done I think User:Remsense misread this, as the cited MOS guideline prefers the non-hyphenated version, as requested. — Goszei (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Already done: The page already says "Died: 30 April 1945 (aged 56) Berlin, Nazi Germany". --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}