Talk:Hans Litten

message: The article states, "From Sonnenberg he passed to the notorious Sachsenhausen, where his treatment was later described by an eyewitness to his mother." Perhaps someone could describe this treatment in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaldi99 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in there now. Marrante (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Description

message: If that is the case, the article makes no effort to demonstrate it.
He is a Lutheran with a Lutheran mother. So, prima facie, he is definitely not Jewish.
He takes some interest in his father's family background. So? That does not change his religion.
Varlaam (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC identifies him as a Jew. The sources included in the wiki article seems to me quite good though. I wonder what are Wikipedia policies when news agencies like BBC get something wrong utterly wrong. --Dia^ (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the word Jewish is used both for religion and, particularly by the Nazis, for ethnicity. Hans Litten fell into the Nazi definition through his father, so as the Nazis considered him to be a Jew the BBC are not entirely wrong. It would have been clearer to use more words to say "classified by the Nazis as a Jew".  Jim Craigie (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but where is written that the Nazis classified him ad Jew? The Nuremberg Laws were promulgated in 1935, and even the Civil Service Law did not come in to power until April 1933. By that time he was already in jail. --Dia^ (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the BBC documentary Hans Litten vs Adolf Hitler: To Stop A Tyrant it is repeatedly stated that Hans Litten was Jewish, so this is presumably the opinion of both Benjamin Carter Hett, the programmes's historical advisor and author of Crossing Hitler, and Mark Hayhurst, the programmes's writer and producer. This documentary says that Hans Litten converted back to Judaism. Prof Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (english translation), described as Litten biographer, also refers to him as Jewish. Finally Dr Dirk Riedel, historian of Dachau, states that Hans Litten had to sew on a yellow star before his mother visited him there in 1938.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Craigie (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Litten's religious affiliation was not set in stone. He was baptized, but learned Hebrew in school. He had Jewish friends and investigated Judaism, in part in rebellion against his father, who had left it. Maternal birth, not Nazi classification is what defines someone as a Jew, though others may find it politically expedient to latch onto this or that label. Litten was ignored for decades because he didn't fit comfortably into western or communist propaganda. Arguing over whether or not he was a Jew is just as silly. He was a humanitarian more than anything. In addition, some may be interested in Hett's translation mistakes, typical of a newbie (speaking from personal experience here) mentioned in this review by a German journalist who also writes in (impeccable) English. Marrante (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A further note: Litten's father had a Jewish father, but his mother was the sister of Ludwig Lichtheim, who does not seem to have been Jewish, which would put the claim that Hans Litten was Jewish on even shakier ground. Marrante (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understood there are two parties. The one that says that since he felt "Jew" he was a Jew. The other party (and many of his contemporary friends) say that to be a "Jew" you need to be born from a Jewish mother. I think we should explain both positions in the article avoiding to take parts or "set it in stone" (in other words I would not put his religion affiliation in his bio-card in the article). Or are there some specific policies in Wikipedia? --Dia^ (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My position is that the whole discussion is a distracting sideshow that detracts from the real reason Litten is important. I only added the detail about his father and grandmother because I just learned about it and thought it was relevant, but if it re-ignites the debate, I'm sorry I mentioned it. Litten was a humanist. His religious background was of little consequence and had nothing to do with the reason he was arrested by the Gestapo or treated the way he was at Dachau. That he wore a yellow star was hardly significant, but emblematic of his status for the Nazis. That they had even a quasi-legitimate excuse to make him wear it must have been for the Nazis icing on the cake. The prize was having Litten their prisoner. Marrante (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you perceive this discussion as a "distracting sideshow".  I find factual discussions such as this one always constructive, because the tone is constructive. I agree with you that his religion had little to do with his arrest and his treatment by the Nazis but, from what Stefanie Schüler-Springorum writes, it seems that to Litten himself his affiliation with the Jewish religion was not a "sideshow". If in an article we should write just the bare facts that make someone encyclopedic, we should delete most information about private life and religious affiliation. Litten is a figure that surely deserve more attention and recognition than he had got so far. Apart from that,  Jew and humanism are not necessary conflicting with each other, there is such a thing as Humanistic Judaism. --Dia^ (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Litten wasn't Jewish by descent (his mother wasn't Jewish), he wasn't Jewish by faith or practice (he was Lutheran), and he wasn't Jewish by ethnicity (he was predominantly German) -- ipso facto, he was Jewish.  Thanks for clearing that up. Bricology (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewish" 

message: Was he forgotten after the war (until 2011, if the lead is to be believed) or is the German lawyers' association named after him and gives a regular award named in his honour? The claim that he was forgotten until 2011 is sourced to a BBC-published source dating to 2011, which hardly seems like a reliable third-party source for the claim that the BBC saved an unsung hero from the ash-heap of history... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself regarding Litten's legacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hans Litten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718195804/http://www.anwaltsblatt.de/archiv2/pdf/jahrgang_98/02-98.pdf to http://www.anwaltsblatt.de/archiv2/pdf/jahrgang_98/02-98.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hans Litten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810162059/http://www.cft.org.uk/takenatmidnight to http://www.cft.org.uk/takenatmidnight
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this historically accurate? It seems more in keeping with modern definitions of progressivism and not what it meant in the early 20th century, certainly not in America but I think not in Germany as well. I'm not familiar enough with early 20th century German politics to suggest an alternative, unfortunately. It's clear that he's on the left but not communist or even particularly socialist. Is there a better term to describe his political views as they would have been seen at the time, and if not can we get a source for why Progressive is appropriate? Throwaway85 (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization as Progressive in lede 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion