Talk:Adolf Hitler

Wrong

I hope whoever referenced Hitler as the "Ultimate PWNDER" will stop changing difference pages that mention Hitler. It's just silly, and makes light of a very serious discussiong. Thank you. 606-2-610

See Also

In the 'see also' section, the first item is 'list of coupled cousins'. That is ridiculous. Of all the many articles relating to Hitler and his deeds, that list is surely not one of the most important; the reader gains nothing by it. Moreover, the nature of his relationship with his cousin is ultimately speculative, as the article on Hitler as well as the article on his cousin state clearly. I cannot edit the article, but surely to God that link should be removed?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.255.61 (talk) 08:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Hitler as Hero

some people in this world consider Hitler as a her we should add that topic in this article.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because that would be totally POV and unencyclopedic. Zazaban (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have heard about people considering "Hitler a her." A little known fringe theory holds that Hitler was a women. Just kidding, actually this is pretty funny coming from Farazilu who has accused myself and others of following an agenda of hate. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but he probably doesn't see nazism as an agenda of hate. I don't know how he would reason that, but he managed to reason that having pictures of somebody on a website was. Zazaban (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think i don't has to remind you the Wikipedia is not censored and you need to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Wikipedia being not censored does not mean that anything goes. Zazaban (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But in other topic you are practicing absolute other theory? --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am. Removing the images would be favoritism towards muslims. Zazaban (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not request to remove them i requested to move them on a separate article and just give a link in see also section as Wikipedia did with holocaust article --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to work this to death but "Some people in this world consider Hitler as a her" just really cracked me up. Someone who was clearly trying to stir things up by saying something controversial and elevating about one of the worst people in history, and yet it totally came out going the other way. I realize it's just a language barrier or typo, but still. Ha. Equazcion•✗/C • 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I thought you actually meant a her not a hero...woops! that is really funny though! I was like "Wow, who would consider Hitler as a her?" Oh my gosh, that was funny. Now I understand though.--8thwonderoftheworld (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• A quick Google search shows many articles about Hitler as a hero. Here are a few: [1]

[2] [3]

• I do think a section could be created about this phenomenon, though not in the way that the original poster may have intended. The section should clearly show that some with anti-Semitic agendas, or seriously misinformed, have this view, and the danger it poses to society if we forget what he actually accomplished. I won't be creating this content myself, as I find the subject distasteful, but I don't think the section idea should be rejected out ofhand. Jeffpw (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Jeffpw. Zazaban, NPOV is the wrong policy to use to justify not including this information. Remember that NPOV requires the presenting of both sides without casting a value judgement towards either side (no matter how clear cut a case is, such as this one), in this case the vast majority of people who despise Hitler, but also the minority of those who think Hitler was a nice guy with great ideas. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree as well, if there's information for Hitler being a hero from reliable sources (WP:RS), it can be included but as other people said, its a minority view and would get a much small coverage as compared to the rest of the article.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was no hero and no additions stating he was one should be added. Ofcourse in his own time and by his own people he was looked upon as a hero and a saviour of Germany and the German people. His popularity in 1930's Germany can hardly be overestimated. 145.7.182.14 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He was my hero dammit! Seriously though, if Billy Bruce deserves to be featured then so does ol' Adolf. Also, why are there no citations in the opening paragraphs, or are these claims of murdering political opponents just taken for granted? This is serious mother (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured status is not awarded based on the topic of the article, but the quality of the article. As for 145's post above, you're missing the point. The thing is, some people do think Hitler was a hero. Therefore, this needs to be documented in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I seem to be getting the feeling that this could be the best article on wikipedia and still wouldn't get featured. This is serious mother (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the last FA candidate, the issue was primarily not enough sources for a subject (33) of this notoriety. The article now has 102 sources, which is a great deal better. If you like, you can always nominate it again, although I might suggest nominating it for Good Article status first; it never hurts to have GA status when trying for FA. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to include a Hitler as hero section. As it states at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." The view of Hitler as a hero is not a significant view; as such, it does not rise to being mentioned in this article (and is, in fact, a laughable idea). In addition, the references given on this talk page to support this view are not reliable sources, giving another strike against the idea. Finally, I agree that this whole discussion was started as an attempt to stir up trouble, so let's stop feeding the trolls and forget about this idiotic idea.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on the minority view. The person who started this section has been blocked now for trolling and other disruptive edits. It was an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the censorship policy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire debate of whether or not Hitler was, or was not a hero should not matter. The fact is MANY people believed him to be one, not withstanding his racially charged policies. I don't think anyone here is saying he IS a hero. Then again, perhaps your definition of hero is not neutral, or unbiased? His actions in restoring the German economy are certainly heroic, and we in America claim that similar actions by FDR helped restore the American economy. I've heard many speeches at liberal arts colleges - Wheaton College, MA, B.U., MA, Georgetown, D.C., where students have given speeches on why Hitler has herioc qualities. That said - labeling Hitler as a Hero, or even giving a section on those who believe he is a hero would cause unnecessary conflict. Eh, I gave up on Wikipedia as a realistic source of information despite the editors here. As having my bachelor's in History, I realize that Wikipedia is a useful source for basic information, but most of the data is wrong, or incomplete. This page contains many assumptions about hitler, just because I eat beef and veggies and pork- and someone approved that article, doesn't mean its there and not dead. Many academics are quack jobs too you know. I should realize this, I'm one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.18.76 (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this section can be added here as an early German version. Isn't that why his best soldiers used the SS insignia? Super-something? ;O)

Seriously though, obviously no-one who considers Hitelr a "hero" had lived through German armed forces trampling through Europe, and conversely lived through the Allied determination to remove him and the Nazis from power. Nazis did put a lot of people back to work, but so did Roosevelt. Roosevelt however did not encourage the conquest of South America for more "living space", or the extermination of Mormons, or the looting of Montreal (after annexation of Canada). And yet, Roosevelt is seen as a hero by many people in and outside the United States given he had the determination to pursue his goals to the day he died while Hitler took th easy way out, and took many people with him (and a dog). I'd say that was a coward's way out, and that is no "hero". [[Hero|Heroes] save lives, and defend something good.

On the other hand I may have this completely wrong, and the discussion is that Hitrel is actually the real manifestation of the fictional character, and the whole thing is a spelling mistake :o) --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The SS comes from Schutzstaffel, meaning "protective squadron", just like the SA comes from Sturmabteilung, meaning "storm troopers". I think the point is that some people actually do admire Hitler, and think what he did/tried to do was a great thing. However distasteful or anathemic to our concepts of morality/whatever it may be, these views should be at least mentioned. It doesn't require a separate section; what's stated in the "Legacy" section is really all that's required for this topic. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Parsecboy here...the facts are, both in 1930s Germany and now, people believed that Hitler was acting for the good of all, and removing a plague from the world, and I'm pretty sure he did too. Whilst its pretty apparent he was nothing more than an antisemitic bastard, its worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.7.100 (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Adolf or Adolph?

How do you spell his first name? I've seen both, but want to know the right way. Thanks.--8thwonderoftheworld (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You've seen it spelt both ways? That's interesting... all my history text books spells it "Adolf" I've never seen otherwise. ~Hyung Qing Hong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.13.247 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways to and was wondering the same thing.JDog Powers (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) It's JDog again and I've seen it spelled "Adolph" at Abelard.org “The psychology and development of Adolph Hitler Schicklgruber” Abelard.org date site was made: 24 January 2004 date accessed 30 January 2008 and The "spell check" for Microsoft Works Word Processor (R) and just wonder witch way is right. Thanks! JDog Powers (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'Adolph' is a more typical early 20th century British & American spelling of the name Adolf. You can find either/or in Allied writings of the WWII era. However, Hitler's given name is usually not spelled with a 'ph' in modern texts. --67.149.150.252 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Though I have to admit the idea is quite funny, I'm afraid Hitler was not born in "anus", as it says in the article. The German article states that he was born in Braunau am Inn.

I'm somewhat concerned...

...that page protected from editing has vandalized text. That means someone who has access to the page (which I don't, so I can't even correct it) has been vandalizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.71.69 (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's protected to prevent anonymous users from vandalizing the page. You might note that the 3 instances of vandalism that have occurred thus far today have been reverted literally the same minute it was posted. I appreciate your concern for the article; if you would like to help remove vandalism, you can always create an account. Also, new comments should go to the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created an account. I guess it waits a while before it lets me edit. Nevertheless, I am very disturbed that on such a high-profile page, the opening sentence reads "Adolf da gay Hitler fucked his ma and da up da arse and is also the current grandfather of ryan swalesy (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was a German politician, who became the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party and was appointed as the Chancellor of Germany in 1933." It's been that way for hours, not minutes, (since 13:30 GMT, edit made by "Snowolf") and nobody has changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiethewitch (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it takes 4 days for new accounts to be able to edit semi-protected articles. The text was reverted the same minute it was vandalized. It was vandalized at 13:30, and then reverted literally the same minute. You might want to refresh your browser. Hit "Alt+F5" to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It must be a bug. If you look on the page logged in as a user, then it shows the latest version, BUT if you log out then it shows the vandalized version... --ChristianKarlsson.se (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's really strange. I wonder where we could report this problem. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up at WP:AN here. I hope we get this issue resolved. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Yay admin's noticeboard :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychology

Seems to me the first section has to be the one on Hitlrs psychological profile. Much of what he became, and what he did stemmed from the psychosis created during his childhood and formative years, and influenced him to the day of his death--mrg3105mrg3105 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever heard definitively that Hitler was psychotic. I've read that he was likely meth-addled (but even that isn't certain), especially after the war progressed and turned for the worse, but never clinically crazy. Also, we'd have to have some pretty strong sources to back up any assertions about Hitler's mental state, and since I've never heard about any official examinations while he was alive, I doubt we could go much further than "psychologist so and so suggests Hitler might've been paranoid delusional/multiple personality disorder/whatever.", and that's it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how does one psycho-analyse a dictator at the dawn of psychology as a discipline, during a war? However, his history with his parents, and his behaviour as reported by Wehrmacht officers and others would suggest suppressed psychosis in the modern understanding of the word. Still, a good section of his psychology would be a start.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that because an official psycho-analysis was never done, there is nothing we could say with certainty; only that specific doctors/historians/whatever believe he was psychotic. Again, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Stating that someone was psychotic (whether it's Hitler or not) in the absence of an official psycho-analysis is an exceptional claim. Really, the only thing I see coming from this discussion (unless you or others can provide a plethora of sources, of course) is a single line being added to Adolf_Hitler#Health_and_sexuality, along the lines of "respected people A, B, and C believe that Hitler displayed symptoms similar to mental disorder D. Sourced, of course. Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Won't be me--mrg3105mrg3105 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then until someone else volunteers, the point is moot. Parsecboy (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Chillingly"

Under 'Oratory and Rallies' their is a reference to Leni Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" which asserts that this film "chillingly" presents the 1934 Nuremberg Rally. This is POV. Some people might find that it "magically" or "charmingly" or "frighteningly" presents the rally. I'm sure that the film's creator had no desire for it to be perceived as "chilling" to her target audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.236.98 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Influence of Luther?

Where's the evidence that Hitler, during his "Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich," was even aware of Luther's Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (on the Jews and their lies)? No doubt he was aware later, when Luther's polemical treatise came to the attention of prominent Nazis who put an original printing of it on display at party rallies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard David Ramsey (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Most Likely

In this paragraph in the article: Hitler claimed his educational slump was a rebellion against his father they were often fishing in a broomcottom and lookslike som idiots both of them!!!!!, who wanted the boy to follow him in a career as a customs official; Hitler wanted to become a painter instead. This explanation is further supported by Hitler's later description of himself as a misunderstood artist. However, after Alois died on 3 January 1903, Hitler's schoolwork did not improve. At age 16, Hitler dropped out of high school without a degree.

Someone had better edit this out. It just degrades the quality of this article! --165.21.154.13 (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

hitler's religeon

There is something here implies to me that Hitler was Muslim by saying that he admired the religon greatly and Liked it'd nonexsistant views. As there is no evidence aside from a book refrence that can't be verified, I think it should be removed as it is offensive and it sends out a bad image of the religeon of Islam. In fact Hitler killed many muslims in the holocaust. If you have ever seen modern pictures of aushwitz You can see a momorial for the Muslims that died there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Still Mufti Husseini of Jerusalem was a frequent guest of Hitlers during the war and in fact helped him form an almost all muslim SS division, the SS Handzhar. Both Hitler and Himmler also stated that it was a pity that it was not islam that was the dominant religion in germany since, in Himmlers and Hitler opinion, islam made much better soldiers. Also, most people consider Adolf Hitler either to be an atheist or a catholic, still you don't see them complaining about that being offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.114.213 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It "can't be verified"? Try going to your library and finding the book, and read the relevant pages. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, at all. Just because you think something is offensive is no reason to remove valid information. Parsecboy (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)