Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 41

message: I heard on the History Channel the other day that a relative of Hitler volunteered for service on the Eastern Front, was a Signal Corps officer and was eventually captured and killed by the Russians.  I was wondering if anyone knew this guy's name?
It's Heinz Hitler, I made a page for him and add him to the list of Hitler's relatives. Ingsoc 12:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler Relative 

message: I've noticed the portrait of Hitler being changed a few times. I prefer the military one, personally since Hitler was first and formost a militarist. But why does it keep changing?Giovanni33 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: apparently the lisencing terms were unclear. Agathoclea 07:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was on commons before, then it got deleted from commons because it didn't cite a source.  Then it was re-uploaded here under GFDL - which is definitely not the correct license, I found a source but there is no clear copyright info there.  If someone wants to try to figure out how to fix this, have a look at: .  The image hasn't been deleted yet, but will probably be deleted soon - so I replaced it with another image so that the page doesn't end up with a broken image yet again.  I have no preference for the currrent image, if someone can find something nicer feel free to replace it.--Konstable 02:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: picture

message: German is my Second language and Main Kampf translates "My Fight". Thought I'd change it. User:Lucky foot
Dear Lucky,
you are right but also wrong. Indeed "Fight" would be the more common and closer translation, but "struggle" is also correct and it captures the whole range of connotations better than the mere "fight". Str1977 (smile back) 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Name Change

message: In regard to Klaus Scholder, I have reposted a sentence that had been deleted before for lack of a reference. Now, there is a reference, the scan of which can be found here:  Having done that I have deleted the whole paragraph, since this controversy requires a detailed treatment which cannot be attained in this overview article. Str1977 (smile back) 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholder

message: Is the section entitled "Teppichfresser" really worth including in the article, especially under its own section? It adds virtually nothing to the article in terms of encyclopedic sustenance, not to mention there being dozens of anecdotes about Hitler (of which this is not the most important). I think it ought to be removed or included elsewhere in a related article. A.G. Pinkwater 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Got added 21/22 June together with a number of other entries which got reverted. And seems part of a series of articles promoting the author of the book which where created/edited at the same time. see The Treaty of Guarantee, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, "Teppichfresser!", The Collapse of the Third Republic and William L. Shirer. -- Agathoclea 21:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teppichfresser 

message: We've already got two dubious links on Hitler's religious views, one saying he was a Christian, the other that he wasn't. Now comes someone adding a link to freemasonry [dot] org which adds nothing new, and is a remarkably badly designed site as well. It should not stay. Bytwerk 12:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Links Again 

message: Of course this article is going to be subject to biased editorialising, and unfortunately it has been inserted in a big way while partially veiled by copyvios of books about Hitler.  has made this series of edits which are unacceptably anti-Hitler for the Wikipedia article, and someone needs to weed the good from the large sections of POV. Thanks. Harro5 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I reverted him, I also removed the POV tag. He's on thin ice, I would not be surprised if he's blocked soon. Next time, just revert him. --Golbez 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining the POV tag

message: How can Golbez rationally argue that I have a POV problem by making a judgment about Josef Mengele and Hitler vis a vis the deliberate destruction of Germany and sadistic medical experiments?  How can Golbez claim I am distorting The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.  If that work has no POV problem, and I cite it directly and accurately, how can I be accused of a POV problem? Pistolpierre 05:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, CITE it - but don't PASTE ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS from it. What part of that don't you understand? It's been pointed out repeatedly. As for POV, you said, quote: "Shirer wrote of the evil and sadistic Nazi medical experiments carried out by people such as Karl Gebhardt, Fritz Fischer, August Hirt, and Sigmund Rascher are as appalling as the "Final Solution"." No, Shirer wrote about experiments that he may have called evil or sadistic, but he did not write about evil and sadistic experiments; that was outside quotes, and therefore, it was a POV statement from you. --Golbez 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golbez is prone to overreaction

message: I find it hard to believe that the legacy section made no mention of the Nazi medical experiments or Hitler's final orders to destroy Germany.
The first time I read the introduction it had no mention of Hitler having been inbred.  Golbez accuses me of vandalism for mentioning this FACT.  His mother and father were second cousins.  If that is not incestous, then why were his parents required to get an episcopal dispensation for their marriage? Pistolpierre 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think they should be included then add them. Just be sure to cite your sources. Sheesh. But adding the supposedly incestuous relationship to a section header was beyond the pale. --Golbez 06:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous "legacy" section, sloppy introduction, obvious "vandalism"

message: :Yes, CITE it - but don't PASTE ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS from it. What part of that don't you understand? It's been pointed out repeatedly. As for POV, you said, quote: "Shirer wrote of the evil and sadistic Nazi medical experiments carried out by people such as Karl Gebhardt, Fritz Fischer, August Hirt, and Sigmund Rascher are as appalling as the "Final Solution"." No, Shirer wrote about experiments that he may have called evil or sadistic, but he did not write about evil and sadistic experiments; that was outside quotes, and therefore, it was a POV statement from you. --Golbez 06:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You admitted it yourself: "how can you rationally argue that making a judgment..." We don't make judgments here. Period. Read WP:NPOV. --Golbez 06:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golbez, appeaser of Mengele

message: You admitted it yourself: "how can you rationally argue that making a judgment..." We don't make judgments here. Period. Read 
When the Hitler article speaks of the evil of Nazi ideology is that not a judgment?  Isn't the Wikipedia article describing a judgment of the evil inherent in Nazi Germany?  Are you kidding me?  If your goal is to prevent me from including facts about Mengele in Hitler's "legacy" section, I am going to make a POV statement...You should not be a Wikipedia administrator.  
Pistolpierre 11:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the article say the ideology is evil? --Golbez 11:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't count when you add it, dear. --Golbez 11:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You can't be serious

message: Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil.
Oh my, Wikipedia has included a veiled POV statement, the end must be near.  People actually think that Nazism is evil?  I think this needs to be cited.  This should be stricken from the article by Golbez. Pistolpierre 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "have been regarded as" != "is evil". and we won't be hearing from this chap again. --Golbez 12:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golbez can't read

message: Please stop periodically coming here trying to remove the # of Jews killed. If this continues, higher dispute resolution will be required, but rest assured, you will not get your way. --Golbez 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it's extremely poor form and veering on simple lying to make a controversial edit on the 27th with only a "see talk page" summary, when your last edit to the talk page was on the 24th. This shows deception and a lack of willingness to compromise. Please, just stop. --Golbez 18:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think so. --Golbez 22:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haham 

message: Surely, considering the recent spate of vandals by IP's, this should be Semi-Protected...? --Killfest2 09:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protect? 

message: Cant we find something more representative...stately? Here he looks like a backroom revolutionary from the 1920s, though it might be from 33 or 34. 83.5.213.97 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one that had been there forever is much better. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible photo 

message: WP is a free encyclopedia, and if you chose not to register, you can edit as IP.
Nice theory. Does anybody really read the IP edits, or are they all deleted without any other thought? I chose not to register.
In Legacy, it is said that Bavaria (to be more precise, the minister of the finance there) holds the copyright on "Mein Kampf". This is contested; furthermore, there is "Hitler's second book", published by Weinberg from the US, did not have "copyright problems".
It is said that in Germany, it is illegal to display swastikas. Also wrong. There was a popular T-Shirt in the 90s with a swastika being thrown into a trashcan; there also are swastikas galore on the cover of Turtledove's book "In the presence of mine enemies". It is true that in the young federal republic, period photos were edited to delete the swastikas; this is no longer the case. It is forbidden to show symbols of the dictature (also the SS runes, and so on...) uncommented or to glorify the Nazis (like, eg, the english prince some years ago). To display a swastika for demonstration purposes, as a symbol of other cultures (indian mythology, kanji ethymology, .......), or in a way that it is clear you do NOT sympathize with the Nazis, is possible. (eg, Swastika in trashcan, or the TIME-like austrian newspaper "profil" had a series with a swastika in a crosshairs as its symbol).
Some time ago, I got the information about Hitlers family and what happened to them. I wrote it into the wikipedia to have it handy and to share it with other people. Obviously, it got reverted; as I wanted to check something today, the information was no longer in the article.
Perhaps you could write what kind of contribution is wished by the wikipedia, and what not. But please, correct the abovementioned factual errors regardless of the criteria. --85.181.29.81 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits in "Legacy"