Talk:Jean-Marie Loret

message: submitted, translation of "Jean Loret" article from the German Wikipedia site.  Translator's notes to follow.--Rex Bachmann 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rex, "Feldwebel" is indeed roughly equal to Staff Sergeant. Obviously, ranks change over time, and the ranks used by Continental armies have never been exact equivalents to British Commonwealth or American military ranks. Your matching is close enough !... Engr105th 16:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The version from German Wikipedia

message: 1) Under the Bio heading, the second, fifth and sixth paragraphs are tedious to read, in my opinion. The information is there, but it is not in a normal English format.
2) There is a recent book entitled "The Hidden Hitler" by Lothat Machtan that attempts to make a case for Hitler's homosexuality. (By the way, I've read this books and some reviews of it, and I think it is terrible scholarship. Machtan takes info out of context, engages in unsupported speculation, etc).  Now, Hitler could of course have been homosexual, or bisexual, and it wouldn't prevent him from also fathering a child in is younger years. But Machtan's book alleges a long-term relationship Hitler had with another soldier/courier, while this article discusses a woman Hitler kept over time while in France...This leaves us with a situation of one Wiki article about a book arguing for a gay Hitler, and another article (this one) talking about Hitler offspring as a randy young soldier. And the two articles make no acknowledgement of one another and take mutually exclusive trails in the Hitler story...Clearly far more scholarly research is needed regarding Hitler's family and his sexuality.
3) I am also suspicious of this topic due to references I see to 1970s interviews and research. Remember, the 70s brought us a veritable explosion of UFO "sightings" and "research", Chariots of the Gods and other von 
Daniken-esque books, pseudo-scientific junk research...as well as some just plain intellectual nonsense. Therefore, if the story about Jean Loret has its scholarly roots in the 1970s, I cannot help but wonder about the 'provenance' of the story: its documentation as distinct from heresay evidence and "interviews" from the 70s. This article makes reference to Loret possibly assisting the SS - are there SS or French records that can be looked at?
Hitler offspring is a tantalizing subject. I'd like to see it go further in the way of either proving (as far as can be done) or debunking the myth (if that's what it really is).....Engr105th 16:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few points about this tantalizing article... 

message: E 1b1b1, is Meditid haplogroup wich has different subdivisions; 'E 1b1b1 c1' is one of the 26 different subdivisions. About 25% of Ashkenazis belong to this haplogroup, but it does not mean that all the memebers of this haplogroup are Ashkenazi.
For instance, if a shirt(ASHKENAZI) has 25% cotton(E 1B1B1 C1), it does not mean that the whole world's cotton (E 1B1B1 C1) is part of that shirt (ASHKENAZI).
As a result, if Hitler had E 1b1b1 as his haplogroup, it does not prove that he was a Jewish.
--Alborztv (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  E 1b1b1 

message: The wikipedia article claims that le Point reported new developments in 2012. Actually, the studies that are mentioned in this article are not new studies - they are the very same studies that were ordered by Loret decades ago. Suggesting that there is new information supporting the claim that Loret is Hitler's son is misleading. Also, there is no mention of a future reedition of Loret's book in Le Point's article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edouard d'Erasme (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You've placed a  tag on the page, but the parts that were actually misleading have been corrected by my previous edit. The subsection was previously titled "Genetic Evidence", revering to a Belgium study from 2009 and a French article from 2012. However, neither of them provide any kind of scientific evidence. I've read Mulders research, wich is written in my native language. Mulders clearly mentions that he collected DNA material from postcard stamps. No where does he mention that he collected DNA from the Loret family, however the Wikipedia article did claim that Mulders wrote this. Mulders does not mention comparing the postcard material to DNA from the Loret family. We could assume that Jean-Marie Loret licked the stamps himself (but that would be original research). Mulders could have easily verified if the stamps DNA belonged to Jean-Marie Loret. Sadly the Mulders article does not mention if the Loret family refused to provide DNA material or if Mulders simply did not ask for samples.The study from 2009 is a recent, since there has not been any discussion since 1985. However, you are right about the French newspaper article not mentioning any new evidence. It clearly states that their 'evidence' is from the seventies. It also does not mention plans to publish a revised version of Loret’s book. Both the Telegraph and National post do claim there will be a new book, but these journalists also write that the French paper claims to have new evidence. They write that this is the reason for a revised edition. Are these English articles reliable? I would not object to removing them since they seem to be an erroneous interpretation of the French article.I will try to fix this, please let me know what you think. 143.176.60.141 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on the French article from Le Point 

message: This article needs really good sourcing for every claim it makes. We at least need a source on everything said here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need better sourcing