# Talk:Adolf Hitler

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. Zerotalk 08:38, 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. 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". She told The Guardian that a scientific paper has been submitted but it's not yet published. 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. Zerotalk 13:39, 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.". Zerotalk 01:39, 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. Zerotalk 01:39, 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." — 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 highly highly 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. Zerotalk 06:55, 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. Zerotalk 12:25, 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)
I went with "disproved the Frankenberger thesis", which is supported by the currently cited source. Thanks for looking into this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I suggest to put this image. 

 Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:14, 14 November 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)
Support, pending copyright confirmation. It has better lighting and a much higher resolution depiction of his face. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:39, 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)
Emiya, both photographs were taken by Heinrich Hoffman, official Hitler's photographer. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 09:37, 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)
Why? You could just mention that the image has been altered, like in Martin Bormann’s lead picture. BathTubJesus (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Howdy. Wasn't it agreed to not use dictator in the lead of this bio, or any other bio? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 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)

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.
Agree it could be reworded though to more accurately reference some of this, possibly in the "health of Hitler" article. ~2025-34377-19 (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
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)
I have changed it to say "he had genetic markers for Kallmann syndrome".— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I would be fine with may have, if all the evidence to the contrary was also included. BathTubJesus (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

All instances of "committed suicide" should be replaced by "died by suicide" for consistency purposes. Minion595 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Since there are no instances of "died by suicide", the article is already consistent on that point.Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
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.
But as others point out, WP doesn't either require or outlaw any specific form of words to describe suicide. Pincrete (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
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)