Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism/Archive 1

message: I moved the definition from the 2nd paragraph to the end of the article. It's not very well-placed right now, either, but I felt it was placed way too early in the article, and the reason for the definition wasn't explained, giving it a weird, jarring, disembodied feel. Babajobu 23:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it had a weird, jarring feel, Babajobu, is that it was original research. Readers can go to the article on vegetarianism if they need a definition. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Doesn't the New York Times quote disprove the earlier assertion that by the 30s the term "vegetarianism" had a "modern definition"? Babajobu 11:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to, but I put little faith in contemporary newspaper accounts of that era unless they're supported elsewhere: Journalists back then were at least a sloppy as they are now. Wyss 23:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brittanica definition of vegetarianism

message: I'm very glad someone finally created an article with this topic. In the past, whenever Hitler's eating habits got brought up in any other article, militant vegetarians stuck up on Godwin's Law would immediately start an edit war, despite the fact that not a single source I've read on Hitler (including two entire book articles I personally wrote for Wiki) disputes it. --L. 18:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear IP, we've already discussed this on this talkpage. It's certainly true that lard, tallow, gelatin, rennet, cochineal, et cetera are avoided by many modern-day vegetarians (but not by many others). But this was exceedingly uncommon in mid-20th century, when veggie-ism tended to have a simpler, "don't eat meat" interpretation. In other words, neither Einstein nor Hitler nor other self-described veggies of the era thought to avoid cheese curdled with rennet, and so on. So unless we're going to impose the more vigorous of today's veggie standards on all vegetarians of yore, then we can't really do it for Hitler alone. Regards, Babajobu 13:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent, well-needed article

message: The AH article is already too long and has many sub-articles. Wyss 02:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to put that notion out of its misery, this article should not be merged with Adolf Hitler. Babajobu 11:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Adolf Hitler]]?

message: Readers are urged to ponder our all-too-human tendancy to resist the notion that someone who could have been responsible for something so monstrous and horrifying as the Holocaust could simultaneously do sensible stuff like avoid tobacco, meat and for the most part, alcohol. Wyss 03:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that WP editing requires adherence to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.  Your assertion that Hitler was doing "sensible stuff" by "avoid[ing] ... meat and for the most part, alcohol" bespeaks a pretty strong bias... Tomer TALK 16:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please don't conflate

message: The only problem with the quote discussing alleged fabrication of Hitler's vegetarianism is that will really require us to add a quote from one of the biographies asserting Hitler's staunch vegetarianism and ideological committment to a meat-free diet. Babajobu 12:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter.  I'm going to be moving all quotes to Wikiquote and paraphrasing. --Viriditas  | Talk 06:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lengthy extracts from books

message: I'm having a hard time buying the part that says the Gestapo cracked down on vegetarian publications. Himmler, head of the SS, was a proselytizing vegetarian and tried to institute of a vegetarian diet among high-ranking members of the SS. It seems bizarre that the Gestapo, which I think by 1935 had essentially merged with the SS and thus been under Himmler's command, would have been at the same time trying to stamp out vegetarianism. Babajobu 16:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we need some sourcing if we're going to allow that paragraph to stay in. The one link provided isn't even clear on whether the closing down of societies weren't the same restrictions to which all other "lifestyle" movement groups in Germany were subjected at the time. And it doesn't refer at all to most of the claims made in the paragraph. I'll leave it for a day or so, but if there's no sourcing by then then I'm going to move that paragraph to the talk page. Babajobu 16:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read in the past, I'd say it's mostly accurate. AH felt threatened by any organized group he didn't control and after he consolidated his authoritarian control through the emergency powers provision in the constitution moved to eliminate essentially all political and social action groups which might conceivably be capable of drawing political power away from the National Socialists. Although he enthusiastically and publicly advocated a vegetarian diet, he was a canny and ruthless politician who had no use for an independent organization which might later be less than 100% cooperative (and so on). Wyss 21:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi persecution of vegetarians

message: One sentence says Lucas "worked as a cook at a Hamburg hotel during the late 1930s", but a few sentence later the acrticle states "by the late 1930s Lucas was in London" and uses that to justify what appears to be pure original research claiming that Lucas likely served Hitler meat in the early, rather than late, 1930s. Can this please be reconciled? Jayjg (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are any sources for that, I think it's the editor's supposition. It should go. But I don't think it would be original research to mention that her experience with Hitler may have preceded his vegetarian days. Babajobu 20:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, someone had changed the Hamburg reference to "late 1930s," a common error on many vegetarian websites I've seen. Wyss 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucas contradiction 

message: Right now we start the article with:
:"There is conflicting evidence for the vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler."
I believe it's wrong to use the word "evidence" here. There simply can't be conflicting evidence, since there never can be any evidence for anybody being a vegetarian. What are the evidence for that, say, Mahatma Gandhi never ate meat? It's trying to prove a negative. 
Historians saying something, isn't an evidence for anything. And it's of course not meant to be evidence either, we just quote them and let the reader decide. So I believe it's wrong to use the word here.
I'd rather we rewrote that sentence and instead used another word. I must say I myself much prefered the original opening of "The vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler is accepted by...", but if "accepted" is too POV, then we could find something else. Is changing "accepted" for "cited", "stated" or "referenced" maybe acceptable? Or what about this:
: The vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler is refered to in most biographies on Adolf Hitler, but has been the subject of some controversy.
Is that ok? Then we avoid the "most historians" statement, too, which strictly isn't true (most historians write about other subjects than Hitler, but maybe that's a given). Shanes 21:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With me, yes (except it repeats his name). I was uncomfortable with the "evidence" word the moment I saw it. I was responsible for the original wording Shanes refers to (without the "e" word) and think the opening sentence should plainly explain that most of AH's biographers do "accept" (or whatever) his vegetarianism. Wyss 21:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your new version is better. I repeated his name because I saw it as a chance to get his name wikifyed early. I'm a nut about geting a link to the main article early in a sub-article, but it's probably just a sickness of mine ;-). Shanes 22:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like OCWD (obsessive-compulsive wikification disorder). I don't know of any successful therapies though. :) Wyss 22:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No sarcasm intended.  Please stop trying to control Wikipedia articles.  I discussed this change before I made the edit, and then you reverted me with an edit summary asking me to discuss the change.  Now, unless you can state exactly what your problem is with my edit, I suggest you stop blanket reverting my edits across four articles at this time.  I'm going to ask you one more time to stop pushing your POV and edit warring. --Viriditas  | Talk 05:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits aren't supported by the documented record. Let's wait for some input from some other editors, ok? Wyss 05:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific.  What part of my edit isn't supported by the documented record?  Please clarify your statement.  It seems that you are pushing your POV in violation of the NPOV policy. Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.  Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. --Viriditas  | Talk 05:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Thomas Fuchs and other historians/biographers have all said the same thing.  Berry hasn't done what you accuse him of doing.--Viriditas  | Talk 13:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "evidence" word 

message: Given some comments made elsewhere, the greenhouse photo was neither taken nor used for propaganda purposes. It's a still from personal 16mm colour home movie footage taken by Eva Braun (who had a lifelong interest in photography) and didn't turn up publicly until after the war (indeed, it would have been bad propaganda for them to publish pics of AH's private greenhouse when most Germans had to put up with severe food rationing). Wyss 22:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be used for propaganda purposes on this page.  There's no evidence it has anything whatsoever to do with Hitler's diet. --Viriditas  | Talk 13:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenhouse image

message: Looks like this book is a good resource, if anyone has access to it: Animals In The Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust, by Boria Sax Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., (370 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10017), 2000. 206 pages, paperback. $19.95. Supposedly it's pretty NPOV. Babajobu 00:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good book

message: Wyss, please don't revert all the changes I made just because of the Robert Payne quote in the intro. If you feel he's not a reputable source, by all means remove that quote and return it to the myth section (though if he's quoted in one section, he should be quotable in any), but I feel the other changes to the intro need to stay, because most of the sources quoted do in fact say that he continued to eat meat, just not very often, which means he wasn't a vegetarian. Also, I'd like to change the title, if no one minds, as the current one begs the question. Something like "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" would be more accurate, or "Was Hitler a vegetarian?" SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Allegedly"... "supposedly"... these are weasel words, cheats. Meanwhile people are conflating definitions, ignoring AH's major biographers and even the cites in the article, all the while falling into the old disinformation and "cartoon of evil" trap I suppose most people learning to write about this genocidal sociopath must wade through first. Wyss 07:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by the cartoon of evil trap, Wyss, and words like "allegedly" are important when something is in doubt; not cheat-type words at all (not when used appropriately). I removed the Payne quote from the intro, as you said on my talk page that he isn't highly thought of. I've also removed the two headers "historical support" and the myth one, because some of the quotes in the "historical support" section showed that he wasn't a vegetarian e.g. John Toland quoting Frau Hess, who said he never ate meat again after his niece's death, except for liver dumpings. ;-) And Robert Proctor, who said he ate meat on occasion. It would be interesting to know exactly what Joachim Fest and Ian Kershaw say. As the section contains contradictory evidence, I've called it "contradictory evidence" and merged it with the next section, which contained similar material. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wyss, I reverted your new intro, because you're asserting as fact something that the first sentence claims is documented by contradictory evidence. "Alleged" is the correct word here, because it's not established. And you can't say: "his reduction of meat consumption after 1931 may have been gradual until his more or less complete abstaintion [sic] during the 1940s until his suicide," when the biographers you're quoting are saying he continued to eat liver dumplings and dishes of meat. We can't come down on one side or the other in this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Have you read this talk page? Anyway you're mistaken but I'm sure other editors will come along soon enough and clean up the mess you've made (sorry, I take it back). You've driven me off (that's my problem, not yours, though). Wyss 08:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting 

message: This article was based on a blatantly PoV dispute section in the List of vegetarians article. I've discussed some of these sources. Let's discuss some more. 
*Source: Bee Wilson, food historian and writer for the Guardian cited and linked in the article (which describes AH as a complete creep btw)... His diet thereafter (1931) was free of flesh, Wyss 15:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I much preferred the previous intro, and I reverted to it, but then wondered whether I'd already restored parts of it too much, so I reverted myself in case I'd violated 3RR. But I think Shanes' compromise intro should be restored. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself must say I trust Wyss knowledge on the matter, and don't think words as "considerable" really was fair to use on the really sparse anectodes on him eating meat-products. Remember, this is Hitler, and the total amount of anectodes and stories on him from everybody who ever had anything to do with him is really enormous. If 3-4 people claim they've seen him eat a meat-prodct once, it's definitely worth mentioning in the intro, but calling it "considerable anecdotal evidence" is stretching it. But my version was sort of a compromise, to at least have an intro that was somewhat in the middle. But I think the one we have now is more acurate. I want to have the year when he stopped (well, almost or whatever) eating meat, as we should state there that it wasn't a lifelong thing of his. Shanes 16:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: My informal impression is that by around 1940 or 41 he was, in practical terms, abstaining for whatever reasons he had in his head. He seems to have drastically reduced his consumption around 1931, then more or less gradually tapered off whatever little of it was left. Wyss 16:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's look at the sources

message: It's definitely encylopedic, and there's clearly a large team of editors working on it. A great advert for Wikipedia :) Adambisset 02:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What an obscure article!

message: I think the paragraphs on this issue are totally irrelevant. Even today most vegetarians will take pills with gelatin capsules, or B12 vitamins derived from slaughterhouse byproducts, and it would be even rarer to meet one who was unwilling to take, say, insulin injections because they are derived from hog pancreas. They still consider themselves vegetarian because they see vegetarianism as an issue of the food you eat. This was universal among vegetarians in the 1930s, when veggie standards were less rigorous. I don't see how it can be seen as evidence of the "mythical" nature of Hitler's vegetarianism. Babajobu 11:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything irrelevant about the medical history and medical evidence regarding Hitler's dietary supplements in an article about vegetarianism.  Your argument apepars to be a gross generalization.  Do you have evidence that "most vegetarians" will take pills with gelatin capsules, or B12 vitamins derived from slaughterhouse byproducts?  Vegetarianism is certainly an issue regarding the food you eat, and supplements are part of your diet.  Perhaps you aren't aware that vegetable-based pills (vegicap, cellulose, magnesium stearate) are easily available, as is B12 in the chemically synthesized form of cyanocobalamin.  The information is not intended to "prove" anything but to provide information on Hitler's overall diet, which is what this article is all about.  You may want to study the issue a little closer and do some research, as I notice in the edit history that you have questioned the historical validity of the persecution of vegetarians during Hitler's reign, as well as the food faddism (such as the raw food diet) that was popular at the time. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm well aware that you can get vegetarian vitamins, and capsule-free pills, because I take them. I look for the vegan society emblem on the bottle before I get the pills. Today, some vegetarians are careful about this stuff. In Hitler's time, I don't know of any who were. I can tell you this: if this stuff disqualifies you from being a vegetarian, then Albert Einstein was never a veggie for a day in his life. And that's when we're still talking about things you stick in your mouth. I know of no vegetarians today who query the doctor on the origin of injections they receive, surgical materials that are used on them, et cetera. I don't believe anyone from pre-1960 on the "list of vegetarians" did so, either. So why is it relevant in the case of Hitler? Babajobu 12:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as vegetarian persecution, I questioned then what I still question: were vegetarians simply subject to the same persecution as all other organized lifestyle groups in Nazi Germany? I suspect the answer is yes. The old version of the article was misleading in not mentioning that. The only exceptional treatment vegetarians received was the special allowance to exchange meat vouchers for vegetarian food. That's your persecution. Babajobu 12:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Injections of animal products

message: My understanding is that, though, Hitler attempted vegetarianism in 1911, and then began again in 1931, he didn't actually begin describing himself as a vegetarian until 1937. As of now, the article states that he began doing this in 1931. Babajobu 11:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said above, from the available documentation, he seems to have cut way down in 1931 and was more or less abstaining entirely by around 1941 (or so). Wyss 11:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, her seems to have acted as a vegetarian, but not described himself as one until later. And he acted as an ovo-lacto, but did not describe himself that way. I think if we're to say someone described himself as something, he needs to have actually used the word. It's like saying "Ibn Khaldun described himself as a sociologist." He acted like one, but didn't describe himself that way because the term wasn't around. They need to actually use the word. Babajobu 12:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm the one to blame for the "self-proclaimed" word. But I don't really like it either. Are there any better words? I was just looking for a less controversial but short way to label his vegetarianism from 1931 in the intro. I figured there are many people who call themselves vegetarians but who strictly aren't if we apply the common definition of it (doesn't eat any animal products at all), and that the term self-proclaimed would cover these people. If he ate meat products we can't just unctroversialy state that he was a vegetarian and not be contradicting our very own definition of vegetarianism. We could of course use a quote, but that wouldn't be neutral without also quoting some of those who don't regard him as one, and it would clutter up the intro which should be short and to the point. Shanes 12:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's self-definition as vegetarian

message: These accounts contradict each other. Payne (who is not regarded as a leading Hitler biographer) says AH stuck to sausages (never mind the inaccurately broad and misleading reference to beer), but Lucas says he ordered squab lots of times and the NYT article mentions a slice of ham. Lucas can be accounted for by the chronology- I've no doubt she's accurate and AH ate pigeon during the early 30s before he decided to be vegetarian. The NYT article totally contradicts Payne, saying AH was a vegetarian, then throws in the bit about relishing the ham but wait... Payne says AH was fond of no meat except sausages. Newspaper accounts can be forgiven, journalists are known to be sloppy but Payne contradicts every other cite in this article (including the entry in Goebbels' own diary) and what does that tell us about both him and Rynn Berry? Why do we give so much space to such a lonely, spurious quote? Wyss 12:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've stated previously, all of the accounts more or less contradict each other due to many reasons, including vagaries of language (sometimes "meat" means red meat, other times liver, but not seafood, etc.), unknown timelines (when did Lucas leave her hotel job and move to London, source?) and unreliable anecdotes (Traudl Junge was not a biographer, and her recollections are disputed by historians).  What we need is a sourced timeline on the talk page that attempts to reconcile the differences and fill in the blanks.  Singling out one account and placing it against another without knowing the primary sources and actual chronology in context doesn't help the article.  The wording you previously employed was also clumsy, making it look like Otto D. Tolischus was a time traveler. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I explained why you can't accurately make that claim above.  We don't know what conflicts or contradicts until we have the dates and primary source references. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Payne, Lucas and NYT