Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism/Archive 2

message: *I rewrote the intro, because as it stood, the writing was weak, and it didn't give an overview of the contents of the page, which is what an intro should do. The current intro is now very accurate, and gives a fair summary of what Hitler thought and said, and the problems with the anecdotal evidence and lack of a definition.
*I deleted that he said he was an ovo-lacto vegetarian, because it means the same as vegetarian, and there's no evidence Hitler ever used the term. We shouldn't put words in the sources' mouths.
*I changed the headers to evidence for, and evidence against. Please don't change these back to historical support versus myth. The article, including the headers, shouldn't come down on one side or the other, but should simply describe what the sources say, for and against.
*There's a confusion of primary and secondary sources throughout the article. We mention Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw, and Colin Spencer, as though they're separate sources, without exploring who they are using as sources. They could be using each other, for all we know. I've deleted Colin Spencer, because he was tacked on at the end, and is almost certainly just copying from some of those already mentioned.
*Also, some of the citations were poor. For example, "From 1937 onwards, Hitler described himself as a vegetarian ... and predicted "the world of the future will be vegetarian" linked to a footnote that said "Hitler's Table Talk: 1941-1944", but without saying who said the words "the world of the future will be vegetarian," so I added another quote, made clear who said them and described how they were recorded, and linked to an online source, as well as retaining the footnote. Harvard referencing is easier for the reader than footnotes, in my view, but I didn't change them.
*I've also tried to improve the writing and the flow, and to make it more of a narrative and less of a list of "he said, she said".
*I've added an image of Hitler with his dog and a quote saying he loves animals.
*In general, the reverting is not improving the article, in my view, in terms of content, flow, or quality of writing, so please don't revert my edits, or delete anything unless it's factually incorrect, but please build on it instead. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edits sound good...but one thing. The quote "the world of the future will be vegetarian" is a direct quote from Hitler, as transcribed in Hitler's Table Talk (translated by Hugh Trevor-Roper). I thought that was pretty clear. Babajobu 12:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the fact that it isn't a recording. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it was recorded. Then transcribed. Babajobu 12:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was not recorded. Hitler refused to allow himself to be recorded and two stenographers were used, after which Martin Bormann altered the transcripts.  So claiming that anything from "Table Talk" is a direct quote from Hitler is false. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a good source on whether the conversations were recorded or not? The online source I found says they were, but we should look for another one. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I, too, had read that it was recorded. We apparently also need to explore the possibility that Martin Bormann altered the transcript in an insidious effort to make it unflattering to the vegetarian movement. Babajobu 12:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is Trevor-Roper, the translator of  "Hitler's Table Talk" (1953).  --Viriditas  | Talk 13:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Slimvirgin's rewrite of the intro is good and I think we should use it. I'd have liked to have the/a year for when he stopped (or considerably cut down) eating meat in there somewhere (1931), though, as I think it's important to get through that it wasn't a lifelong thing of his. Shanes 12:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shanes, I added that. Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Wyss, you're out of order here. My version is better than the one that was up there. If there are errors in it, correct them, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the very least we should reincorporate a good chunk of the changes SlimVirgin made. (though I wasn't crazy about the intro) Babajobu 12:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Babajobu, please build on my version rather than deleting chunks and reverting, because I really do think this version reads better than the previous one, which had almost no narrative flow. What don't you like about this intro? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  SlimVirgin, i didn't delete anything you'd written, or revert anything you'd written. I'll tell you what I didn't like about the intro shortly, gotta run for a bit. Babajobu 13:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see; that was a miscommunication. I was saying that if we were going to accept the revert, we should at least reincorporate many of your changes. Babajobu 13:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I do think the explicit listing of all the meat products he reprortadly ate is going a bit too much in detail for an intro. Could we shorten it to simply say meat products? Shanes 12:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We could, but isn't it better to list the things the witnesses say he ate occasionally? We shouldn't paraphrase when we can use their words, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shanes, I've made the list of meats invisible in the intro until we decide which is better. I prefer the list because it's more informative. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, you make all these mistakes and I'm out of order. I forgot, we're trying to show AH might have possibly in some way kinda sorta maybe ate a docking shopping list of red meat when the documented historical record clearly shows he was a declared vegetarian and abstaining from eating meat by 40 or 41 at the latest. Did you hear my scream? ;) Wyss 13:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What mistakes? Please make a list of them and post them here, and I'll correct them myself. I think this version shows very clearly that he called himself a veggie, but there's some doubt as to what he meant by it and how rigidly he stuck to it. I don't see the problem with that. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Please read through it, Wyss, and make a brief note here of any factual errors you see, and I'll be happy to correct them myself. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation for my copy edit/rewrite

message: I guess I'm the only one, but I'm not at all happy about the way this article tries to be a listing of "evidence" for and agsinst Hitler being a vegetarian. As I told Wyss, I think we should just state what he ate, what he and other people said about it, and let it be up to the reader whether they consider Hitler to have been a vegetarian or not. It's the wikipedia way of doing it. We could maybe have a section at the end stating the definition and general opinions of what it means for someone to be a vegetarian (now and then), but not make this whole article structured with "Evidence for" and "Evidence against". An encyclopedia shouldn't try to prove anything.
And as I said in a section further up here, I think the use of the term "evidence for" is wrong. You can't prove that anybody didn't eat meat. It's trying to prove a negative. Shanes 13:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think the "for" and "against" thing is rather dreadful, especially considering there's not much debate in the documented record (rather than websites and WP talk pages). I thought "historical support" and "was it a myth" were better but even that was too much for Shanes. Any ideas for some hard core neutral headers? Wyss 13:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article should be written chronologically, in effect eliminating for and against arguments.  This is why I've asked the contributors to help develop a sourced timeline on talk. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, Shanes. I don't think we should split this into two sections. The first copy edit I did yesterday got rid of the sections, but Wyss reverted, so I tried at least to make them balance each other in terms of NPOV, rather than saying "historical support" and "myth", or whatever they were, which seemed to undermine the second one. Would you prefer no headers, or just different ones, and if the latter, do you have suggestions? SlimVirgin (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely want section headers. I think maybe a section named and discussing "Hitler's diet" would be good. My original first draft to sections had one named "Diet and motivations", but it could perhaps even be split in two different ones. First one where we discuss why he cut down on meat (his niece death etc) with Hitlers own quotes on why he didn't like to eat meat. And then a diet section where we semi-chronologically write about his diet and how it evolved (with quotes and references and all that). I also originally had a section labeled "myth or fact", but I don't think that was a good name. We could instead put a "Controvercy" section (or some such name) at the end where we discuss all this that make it so hard for us to agree on whether it's correct to call him a vegetarian. What it meant to be one back then, both formally (I guess the formal definition was the same as now?), but also what the general public and Hitler's opinion on what it meant to be one back then was. We don't need to conclude with anything. Shanes 14:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with a chronological writing, V, because it would lack narrative flow. The article has to be readable. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But I like your idea of developing a sourced timeline on talk. That could go into the article as its own section even. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  No offense, but I personally dislike inline timelines.  As with most biographies, the connecting narrative develops on its own, propelling the reader from origin to endpoint.  It's up to the writers to connect the dots in an interesting way, so I think it could be done successfully.  It doesn't really matter how we do it, just as long as we are working together instead of against each other. I think that once the facts are in place, sections tend to bud off and grow. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm asking everyone to help so we don't have revert wars. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's that evidence word again... 

message: The article has only three citations of AH eating meat: Lucas (early 30s), Hess (ref to point of Geli's suicide onward) and NYT ("a slice of ham" in 1937 - did the journo even see AH eating ham? What was his source?). The Payne citation seems spurious because it makes no mention of source or chronology (the German sausage and beer references are likely conflated with stories from Munich in the 20s) and the allegation regarding Goebbels is unsupported by anything I've ever read or heard on the topic. Care should be taken to balance the article's use of these meager references. Wyss 16:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Payne's claims have been substantiated by other biographers using the same primary sources.  The problem is really in the chronology. That's going to take quite a bit of detective work. --Viriditas  | Talk 09:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another shufti at sources

message: The article seems reasonably NPOV and complete as it currently stands; however, what it desperately lacks is a narrative flow.  It's very difficult to read; none of the paragraphs are particularly well integrated with any others - they might as well be bullet points.  While it has improved in this over its previous incarnations, I think the article would benefit from some copyediting which keeps in mind that it is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and not just a dry list of citations. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but any copy edit to introduce narrative flow is likely to be reverted. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we've settled on the content details quite yet but no worries, it'll happen and I'm sure a smooth flow will follow. Wyss 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pretty new article, so I'd say give it time.  I had  a look at the history and there seems to be many reverts.  Just chill, get all the content in and then work the article with some possible vegetarian wikilove. - Hahnchen 03:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current issues with the article 

message: Please post below the specific facts believed to be in dispute before re-posting the tag. Wyss 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated why I added the tag  one minute after I posted the template.  --Viriditas  | Talk 11:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute tag

message: So, the dispute is on whether to include that Hitler's doctor injected glyconorm in him. May I sugest that we do include it, but not in the intro? I think it's an interesting piece of trivia, and not completely irrelevant to mention in this article. To me it doesn't exclude him as a vegetarian, but the readers can decide that for themselves. So we mention it, but not in the intro. Is that an acceptable compromise and can we drop the disputed tag then? Shanes 13:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about the lead section, as that's bound to change over time.  As long as the original paragraph (detailing the injections) is added back in, I would accept the removal of the disputed tag at this juncture. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with removing the injections from the lead. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That makes sense. Good edit.  --Viriditas  | Talk 13:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler's injections 

message: There are no references to AH having eaten meat during these years, and a single reference to having eaten meat shortly before his suicide in 1945. Wyss 15:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced of that statement.  I've found a number of references of meat-eating during those years, however I'm currently working on dates. --Viriditas  | Talk 23:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1938-1944 inclusive

message: I've removed mention of Table Talk from the lead as it is a controversial document whose authenticity is suspect. It does not belong in the lead and is already mentioned in the article and I've preserved the former lead text in the body.  --Viriditas  | Talk 23:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a disputed second-hand source that was transcribed and edited.  It is properly labeled an extraneous source and doesn't belong in the lead. BTW, David Irving considers Table Talk to be an authoritative source. --Viriditas  | Talk 02:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to consider it authoritative, I see very few AH sources that way. With AH, corraboration is everything, else qualify, qualify.  Wyss 03:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Table Talk

message: While I found Doyle's comment amusing, I did not originallly include it in the article as it appears to be an innocent error on Doyle's part.  This is obvious when the statement is read in context.  Perhaps Doyle doesn't know what a vegan is, or wasn't familiar with Hitler's overall diet (Hitler loved "eggs served in all the hundred and one recipes of a Viennese cookbook", Bayles. "He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed," Degrelle) but I don't think it's a good idea to focus on errors in the article, and Doyle's opinion is not what is at stake here, but the medical diaries of Morell.  As such, the statement should be removed.  Mr. Doyle's email address is cited in the paper, so it would be very easy to contact him for clarification.  --Viriditas  | Talk 23:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So when you don't agree with a source, it's an innocent or sloppy error, but when you do agree, it's clearly right? I know you won't accept that assertion but that's how it seems to me. Anyway, most of these citations (either emphasising AH's vegetarianism or emphasising AH's meat eating) seem to have errors and some sort of corraboration is likely indicated. Doyle is an OBE, a detailed and documented source published by a med school and should stay, unless we can start picking and choosing and/or commenting in the article, in which case I have something to say about the sloppy and unscholarly NYT and Payne quotes. Once more, chronology is everything here. Wyss 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making arguments about me and stick to the article.  What I agree with or disagree with is not at stake.  Doyle makes a number of errors, including calling Hitler a vegan and a "tee-tolar".  We know that both are false.  Arguing that Doyle's medical credentials allow him to make historical judgements is a clear appeal to authority.  The error should be removed from the article, not promoted.  The paper is included in the article due to the medical nature of Morell's diaries, not for Doyle's historical opinion.  Please stop making these silly, fallacious arguments.  --Viriditas  | Talk 01:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegan

message: The sentence construction of Doyle  (search for daily) separates the tonic injections from the adjective daily. Wyss 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Doyle is quoting Trevor-Roper: "...daily replacements of iodine, vitamins and calcium, as well as heart and liver extract."  We know that the heart and liver extract injection contained the vitamins. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It was only one of many commercial preparations containing vitamins. The sentence construction has a comma and as well as separating the two. However, I truly don't care too much about using the daily, either way it sounds to me like it was almost so at least. Wyss 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily

message: These are only quick summaries, not meant to be complete or exhaustively explained.
*Fuchs - Someone served him a meat meal? Who? What's his source? Sounds like he didn't know. Fuchs is not considered a major biographer of AH. I know this story about meat in the bunker has been floating around since the 50s. How do we separate it from all the other swirling post war "smears"?
:I've quoted the primary source in the timeline section above. --Viriditas  | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw it. Michael Musmanno officially investigated AH's death for the U.S. government. What was his source for this? Who served the meat? What was it? How do we know it wasn't a witness trying to curry favour and stay out of prison (or avoid hanging)? Wyss 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You fail to see the contradictions.  Based on Doyle's own paper, it would have been impossible for Hitler to have been a vegan.  Vegans don't take heart, liver, adrenal, and other animal extracts, for one thing.  Doyle's claims about Hitler's alcohol use are also in error.  But you see, this has no bearing on his anaylsis of the medical diaries, since Doyle was only summarizing what he had heard or read (i.e. repeating historical myths).  --Viriditas  | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken when you say I fail to see the contradictions. Reread what I said? Wyss 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm still working on that. --Viriditas  | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Wyss 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what your objection is here, nor do I see a reference to anti-Semitism.  Hitler's inner circle was fond of ham, and there are documented accounts of ham sandwiches being made inside the bunker.  --Viriditas  | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the ham reference (but imagine he did see ham on his visit). What meat eaters were eating around AH is not relevant to his vegetarianism btw. Wyss 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Historians have several problems with Junge's recollections, so she is not as reliable as you make her out to be.  (She did make ham sandwiches).  I'll look into the timeframe here, so thanks for bringing that up.  -Viriditas  | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mostly they don't like how she said she didn't know about the death camps. Maybe she didn't- lots of women associated with ranking Nazis said they didn't know about it. Since they were hanging lots of people after the war and villifying others for decades even for their associations, maybe she did know, but there's no evidence she did (I know this is off topic, except as a discussion of her credibility). Wyss 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is important to document its use as part of the historical record.  As for whether or not it "affects" the question of his vegetarian or vegan diet, I think the evidence speaks for itself. --Viriditas  | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a question of interpretation but truly I don't have a problem with it being mentioned in the text, it happened. Wyss 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source problems