Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler

Implication from Mark Felton video

Is there any way we can include the info from this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IKXjw2S81I) into the possibilities of his grave? Or is this more appropriate for the Conspiracies about Hitler page. Tangost1 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Mark Felton has an article if you want to cite speculative bouquets (14:20). Worse claims exist. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2026

DEATH DATE APRIL 20TH 1945 ~2026-12188-57 (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done please provide a reliable source. lp0 on fire () 11:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2026

Please change DEATH DATE APRIL 30TH 1945 to April 20th 1945 ~2026-12188-57 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources present in the article make clear the date is 30 April. —C.Fred (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

"Committed" Suicide

Recently, user Editor510 changed committed suicide on this page citing MOS:SUICIDE. This particular MOS is specifically for Medical Related articles and not historical scholarship. To this end, I explained on that editor's Talk Page that for historians, a person "commits" suicide. The argument that "commit suicide" is linguistically inaccurate typically rests on the claim that "commit" carries inherent moral or legal opprobrium (which was the basis of the edit summary). This implies wrongdoing, as in "commit a crime" or "commit a sin" — and that its application to suicide therefore stigmatizes the act and, by extension, those who die by it or those at risk. The counter-argument for its linguistic accuracy is straightforward and rests on the etymology and semantic range of "commit" rather than on its most common colloquial associations. "Commit" derives from the Latin committere—meaning to bring together, to entrust, to perpetrate—and in English carries a broad range of uses that have nothing inherently pejorative about them: one commits to a course of action, commits resources, commits oneself to a relationship or a position. The core semantic content is of decisive, intentional action--the bringing about of something through deliberate agency.

On this reading, "commit suicide" is linguistically sound precisely because it captures the element of intentional agency that distinguishes suicide from accidental death or homicide. To "commit" an act is to be its author in a meaningful sense, and suicide—whatever its moral or medical valence—is by definition a self-directed act. The phrase encodes that distinction accurately. The stigma argument, while well-intentioned and clinically motivated, conflates a word's semantic content with its most frequent contextual associations. That "commit" often co-occurs with crimes in common usage does not make criminality part of its meaning. Instead, it makes it a pragmatic implicature, which is a different and weaker claim. Language reform on those grounds substitutes associative discomfort for semantic analysis. Thoughts from others? Obenritter (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Editor510 and the style guides cited at MOS:SUICIDE that "committed suicide" carries a strong implication of a criminal act and primarily makes sense in that context. If I understand Obenritter's view correctly, it's that the word is associated with how "committed" the individual was when performing the act. That's a personal and colloquial interpretation, substituting the meaning of the adjective committed for the past-tense of the crime-associated verb commit (same spelling). UpdateNerd (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

UpdateNerd – Committing suicide is a violent act against the self for starters. Under those auspices, it is a crime against one's very own person. Secondly, you've missed the point about the Latin etymological roots of the word "commit", which is by no means a "personal" or a "colloquial interpretation". This is semantic analysis and the euphemistic approach being applied by terms like "died by suicide" does not make this any clearer in English. The attempt to neutralize the vocabulary doesn't actually change the ontological reality of the act. In German, the word is Selbstmord (to murder the self) so when we compare "committed suicide," or "died by suicide," the underlying phenomenon is the same: a person has directed lethal violence at themselves. Sanitizing the language doesn't alter that fact; it arguably just obscures it. BTW, on the very MOS page (which is explicitly directed at medical related articles and not historical ones like the page in question) it even states, "The phrase committed suicide is neither recommended nor banned on the English Wikipedia". Also "Committed suicide" preserves the agentive, volitional character of the act — and in these cases, that agency matters historically. These were calculated final acts, often timed to avoid capture, justice, and accountability. Himmler's cyanide capsule, Goebbels poisoning his own children before killing himself and his wife, Hitler's death in the Führerbunker—these were not deaths that happened to these men. They were deliberate evasions of consequence. The language should reflect that. Soliciting the opinions of other editors who know this subject and edit these scholarly domains: @Nick-D: @K.e.coffman: @Kierzek: @GeneralizationsAreBad: @EyeTruth: @Beyond My Ken: @Diannaa: @Peacemaker67: @Nillurcheier: @Xenomorph 001:--Obenritter (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed over the last few years. My opinion has not changed. First, as an attorney, I can tell you that the word "commit" is not a "colloquial" term as alleged by UpdateNerd. Secondly, Obenritter is correct the wording states specifically the action taken. The word "commit" should not be limited in an obtuse way. The person in question choose to commit a specific voluntarily act. Third, to change "committed suicide" goes against the 2021 RFC mentioned at MOS:SUICIDE, as noted above. Footnote: Since other past interested editors have now been pinged by Obenritter, should add @Pincrete:, as well. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Vague gesturing to historians (one of which says "ended his life") despite per the 2021 RFC's not tendentiously revert should likely be considered WP:SQS in favor of presenting suicide or self-harm as a "solution" to any problem. This is romanticizing and unencyclopaedic. Lumbering in thought (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Briefly I concur with nearly everything said by Obenritter & Kierzek. I'm sure that the origins of the expression 'commit suicide' lie in suicide historically being illegal and/or immoral (one also 'commits adultery', even in places where to do so has been a 'sin', but never been a crime). However the origins of words and expressions do not relate directly to their usage, otherwise we would ban the word 'hysteria', which comes from the Greek for 'womb', which hysterical behaviour was thought to be a malady of. Personally I don't have a problem with the expression 'commit suicide', and in the cases of the leading Nazis, any kind of euphemistic rendering would seem totally inapt. They all made conscious decisions rather than 'face the consequences', heaven forbid that we imply that they broke laws. Pincrete (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Well said, Pincrete. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

While an etymological fallacy and rejection of semantic essentialism are cited, there doesn't seem to be any real citing of Wikipedia unless vague gesturing to historians (one of which says "ended his life") despite per the 2021 RFC's not tendentiously revert is counted, other than mischaracterizing what was being debated as Medical Related i.e. medicalizing an action i.e. "medical aid in dying" while leaving unaddressed that there was no law on the books to meet the Wikipedia-recommended [avoiding] whiff of criminality semantics standard. Reading from OP et al more broadly, I hasten to point out presenting suicide or self-harm as a "solution" to any problem. This is romanticizing and unencyclopaedic. Lumbering in thought (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Lumbering in thought, can we have precision, please, rather than misapplied labels. The argument was never diachronic; it was never "the Latin root controls the modern meaning," which is indeed the textbook etymological fallacy you're gesturing toward. The Latin was background, nothing more—the actual claim rested on the current, live semantic range of "commit" in synchronic English usage, which is defined as commit to a cause, commit resources, commit oneself to a person. That a word's connotation in one frequent collocation ("commit a crime") doesn't exhaust its denotation elsewhere isn't essentialism, rejected or otherwise. Instead, it's ordinary lexical semantics, and naming it a fallacy while supplying none of your own in its place shifts the burden of argument onto everyone but yourself.

On "no real citing of Wikipedia": the guideline you're invoking states, in its own text, that "committed suicide" is "neither recommended nor banned" — a passage three editors above have now quoted directly and you have yet to engage with. The 2021 RfC settled that this phrasing is permitted, not proscribed; a stylistic preference is not license to revert against that standing consensus, however many shortcuts it arrives dressed in. Speaking of which — WP:SQS, offered without gloss or quoted text, is exactly the "vague gesturing" you accuse others of. If it supports your position, quote it. An uncited shortcut persuades no one, and it fails the very evidentiary standard you're demanding of historians.

On criminality: the "whiff of criminality" guidance concerns connotation where none is warranted, not a mandate to launder history. Suicide was a criminal offense at English common law (felo de se) well into living memory; more to the point, Himmler, Goebbels, and Hitler weren't merely ending their lives, but were all evading a specific, active, lawful process of accountability closing in on them at that exact hour. "Committed" preserves that agency and that evasion, where a softer verb erases both.

Lastly, the romanticization clause you've now quoted twice concerns presenting suicide as a solution to a problem, i.e., glorification, not word choice. "Committed" is the less romantic option on the table, vice "died by," "passed," "ended his life" which are the softer, more sympathetic constructions. If anyone here risks the euphemistic drift MOS:SUICIDE actually warns against, it isn't the side using the blunter verb. Four editors—Kierzek, Pincrete, Diannaa, and I—have weighed in against the change, on both linguistic and policy grounds; three individuals—Editor510, UpdateNerd, and now yourself—have weighed in for it, thus far without engaging the guideline's own textual content. That's the consensus as it presently stands. It astonishes me that people want to soften language surrounding the self-destructive actions of the arguably the most sinister Nazi figure of all—let alone that of his immediate leadership coterie—and in my estimation borders on apologism. As Pincrete made clear, heaven forbid that anyone suggests Hitler "committed" a crime of any sort, even against himself when he shot himself in the head while biting on a cyanide capsule.--Obenritter (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Section move from Philippe Charlier

I discovered a while back that the entry for Philippe Charlier, the pathologist who worked on the identification of Hitler's dental remains in 2017, is mostly about that research of his, not about him as a person. Nobody responded to my talk page entry flagging the page as unbalanced but I do believe that the section on Hitler's dental remains should be merged into Death of Adolf Hitler#Aftermath (where some but not all details about Charlier's work are already mentioned) to remove redundancy.

I'm lacking the editing permissions to go through with all steps of the WP:SECMOVE procedure so I decided to start by opening a discussion here! Palaeontolawgist (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Almost all the content on the Hitler's dental remains that we see in Charlier's article is already present in this article. So I don't think this is a good candidate for a move or merge. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Palaeontolawgist, thank you for your interest, and I did not see your prior post on this matter. I also appreciate Diannaa taking the time to review the matter. If there’s not anything of substance to transfer over, then as she states, moving or merging material, which is already stated or covered would be redundant. And therefore not an ideal candidate for same. Kierzek (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)