Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 34

message: Fellow Wikipedians: Once again we seem to be falling into the trap of trying to reach a conclusion instead of presenting the evidence. In other words, we are fighting over whether we should write "Hitler was a Christian" or "Hitler was not a Christian", when what we should be doing is presenting the incontrovertible facts and allowing the user to make up their mind. We have a certain number of facts (Hitler was brought up Catholic, proclaimed his Christianity in later life but didn't practise Catholicism). Let's just use those. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spot on.--shtove 18:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Let the reader decide. And keep the link to the nobeliefs site, so the reader can decide on that evidence, too. Drogo Underburrow 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree, as well. We should stick to stating the established historical facts, ie. that Hitler was baptized a Roman Catholic and confirmed (at age 15), never formally or publicly left the Catholic Church, and continued to profess his Christianity and Catholicism his whole life. However, in later in life stopped attending mass, and was in this way at least not a practicing Catholic. I think the text as it stands now gives a good job as presenting the facts. The link should be allowed so readers can look at the argument and evidence for themselves. Giovanni33 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree about the site. The site is horrible, and we must be able to find a better one that says the same thing. It presents wildly unsubstantiated allegations. Some of the evidence it uses to 'support' its view of Hitler's Christianity are about the equivalent of saying that George W Bush is a communist because he once drank vodka! DJ Clayworth 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a better one to replace it with, one that makes the same argument, then replacing it would be great. What I object to strongly is replacing it with nothing, or with something that doesn't do a better job of making the SAME argument. The real issue here, in my opinion, is that people opposed to this site, oppose it for what it says, not how it says it. I'm sorry, but I don't buy the argument that people are objecting to the quality of the site. If that was their concern, they would find a better site, not simply delete this one. I suspect that someone will now replace it with a site that makes an entirely different argument, and claim its the same one. I see no evidence of good faith in this dispute. I see Christians who don't like the message looking for reasons to oppose this site. Drogo Underburrow 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If there was a better site that presented the same arguments I would be happy to make a link to it. However since this is the best site we've found that makes the case, doesn't it call the whole of its case into question? I can find a whole lot of lousy sites claiming that aliens have taken over the White House, but I don't include them in the White House article because 'they are the best sites we have that talk about the theory'. DJ Clayworth 18:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way I would have no problem with linking to the book review that User:Bytwerk cites above. DJ Clayworth 18:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do; the review doesn't mention Hitler. But I ordered the book, and plan on putting what it says about Hitler, into the Hitler article; and I expect User:Bytwerk to back me up if other editors try to remove what the book says. Drogo Underburrow 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. So you have no idea what the book actually says, haven't read it, have no idea what sources are used, but you are so convinced of the book's veracity you have already made up your mind what it says and how you will use it to push your POV in this article?  Did I just read that right?Michael Dorosh 18:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are laboring under several misconceptions. The book is an academic one, so it counts as a legitimate source for the Hitler article.  The author is a historian writing in his field. Another notable historian, in the same specialty, reviewed the book, and found it scholarly. NPOV is about reporting what secondary sources say. This is a valid secondary source. NPOV is not about deciding what is true and false, and putting the truth in the article. That is not being NPOV, that is being POV, just the opposite. So wether the book is true or not, is not for us to judge. It belongs in Wikipedia because its the view of a scholar in the field. I don't need to have any idea beforehand what the book says about Hitler, and I don't. Whatever it says, I'm putting in, cause that is the NPOV way. I'm adding it as the views of this scholar, not as truth being asserted. This is how the entire Hitler article should be. The idea that NPOV is optional, or not about presenting all views without saying who is right and wrong, is mistaken. As to pushing my POV in the article, that is exactly something I don't want to do. Drogo Underburrow 19:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Present the evidence