Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 36

message: I think something should be added to this article, even if just a link, to the assassination attempts on him. 64.16.162.161 14:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination attempts? 

message: Large chunks of this section were removed on the basis that they were non NPOV. The section was well written and sourced, but I guess the new editor perceives some pro-Rome bias. And the cheesy description of Hitler's mother as a fervent catholic is the first thing that gets put in by way of replacement. Tiresome Tiresome. Bring back EffK.--shtove 08:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It proves, that every strong POV produces an equally strong counter POV. The matter could have been stopped a long time ago. Agathoclea 11:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "he stopped going to mass" - nobody had a problem with that statement. The problem started with someone simultatiosly claiming that that statement implied he not a practising catholic, while claiming that it is not enaugh to imply that and that statement needs to be added. Agathoclea 07:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored religion section 

message: A nickname for Hitler used by German soldiers was Gröfaz, a derogatory acronym for Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten ("Greatest War Lord of all Time"), a title initially publicized by Nazi propaganda after the surprisingly quick occupation of France.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how this can be considered "derogatory", does the acronym word mean something in German? Clarification would be useful. --Black Butterfly 10:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could hear a "Fratz" in it :-)   -- Agathoclea 07:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: Gio has demanded that I make my case on talk page (though he hasn't bothered making one himself):
*"Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and his own Christianity, which appealed ..."
:This sneaks in a factual assertion that Hitler was a Christian - as the whole section shows, it was much more complicated. Hence it was problematic, but I will not remove it again, but reword it.
*I revert the deletion of Hitler's never officially leaving the Church placed in context.
*"The collection called validity of the heresay sourceTable Talk ..." is not only ghibberish but inaccurate and POV pushing in the most extreme of ways. TT is not a hearsay source - it was written down by two adjutants of Bormann after they had dined with Hitler - they could not take notes during the dinner, of course, and only wrote down from memory after having returned to their place, so the probably don't contain the talk verbatim. Albert Speer said the text straigthened out and elevated Hitler's language but the content was accurate. Apart from these observations, historians use it, albeit with caution, so no need to included unwarranted, POV-driven disclaimers.
*I moved the "No matter ..." quote up, since it said the same thing as that paragraph above (... far from being irreligious). The quote supports this statement and we shouldn't be repeated the same stuff all through the section.
*Another double is the paragraph beginning "Although he accused organized Christianity ..." - we have mentioned all this before and hence I included some wordings further up and deleted the rest. 
*the spelling and capitalization "God" implies that this god is the same as God in whom Christians believe. Which is POV, hence the change to "this god".
*Hitler demonstrated a preference for the Protestant church, but he did so for a reason. It was not the Lutheran doctrine of justification. Hence the addition stays.
*"Despite his rejection of the Catholic Church ..." adds no new information but connects the last paragraph to the rest of the title. It is needed to create cohesion.
Str1977 (smile back) 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You object to the POV of spelling "God" instead of "god". Have you got any sources that Hitler shared your POV?. -- Agathoclea 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the context of the sentence God is pushing POV. Str1977 (smile back) 10:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Make my case on talk page

message: Hitler admired the pomp of Catholic ritual and the hierarchical organisation of the clergy. Later, he drew on these elements, organizing his party along hierarchical lines and including liturgical forms into events or using phraseology taken from hymns. Because of these liturgical elements, Hitler's Messiah-like status and the ideology's all-encompassing nature, the Nazi movement is sometimes termed a "political religion". - These sentences need to explicitly give sources so we know who is making these claims. These are not facts. What is the basis for stating as a fact that Hitler admired the pomp of Catholic ritual? Next, stating that he drew on these elements is definately someone's opinion: whose? Who says that the Nazi movement is sometimes termed a political religion? Who says that Hitler had Messiah-like status? Drogo Underburrow 13:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no problem if you wanted to remove that paragraph. DJ Clayworth 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not too difficult to find support on those questions. There is recently Hans Maier, "'Totalitarismus'und 'politische Religionen': Konzepte des Diktaturvergleichs" (Paderborn, Ferdinand Schöningh, 1996-2004).  Göring wrote in 1941: "We National Socialists declare with complete conviction that for us, the Führer is infallible in all political and other matters that affect the people's national health and social interests." There were thousands of poems to Hitler resembling Christian hymns (e.g,: "There are so many people who bless you / Even if their blessing is a silent one — / There are so many who have never met you, And yet you are their Saviour. / And when you speak to your Geman people,/ The words go across the land / And sink into countless hearts, / Hearts in which your image long has stood. / Sometimes the vision of you brings life / To those in the midst of hard labor and heavy obligation . . . / So many are devoted to you / And seek in your spirit a clear light." Or as a book of praise of Hitler published by the Nazis in 1941 put it: "Our Führer is the most unique man in history. I believe unreservedly in him and in his movement. He is my religion." Bytwerk 11:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information belongs in the article either as footnotes or as text. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources, and those sources need to be cited. -- Drogo Underburrow 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pomp and Circumstance

message: smells of sneaky vandalizm. Can anybody check the facts? Agathoclea 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where to look. But take a look at Golden Party Badge - no references, no sources, no footnotes, no talk page. We supposed to take everything on faith?  This is the ultimate example of editors with no clue that Wikipedia is supposed to be about telling what published sources say, and citing those sources, not editors telling what is. -- Drogo Underburrow 23:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems all right to me. Göring was very much fishing for decorations and titles, down to being "Reichsjägermeister" (chief hunter of the realm), while Hitler always was simple in his appearances and after the beginning of the war only wore the simple Wehrmacht uniform with his Iron Cross. But that is nothing new: rulers often were the ones dressing simply, while their servants wore pompous uniforms. my great grandmother as a child confused the Emperor Francis Joseph with his carriage driver because the Emperor wore a simple blue uniform, while the carriage driver was decorated with a feather on his hat etc. Str1977 (smile back) 10:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitlers mention at Göring article 

message: Could you please stop inserting the totally inaccurate and POV motivated statement that Hitler's Table Talk is a) "an exclusively hearsay compilation of private conversations" (it is not, as I have explained before, regardless of some concerns) and it is neither b) "where virtually all Hitler's anti-Christian quotes come from" - there are other sources for such comments, such as Speer, Goebbels etc., not counting the fraudulent Rauschnigg. Str1977 (smile back) 13:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian Kershaw says that Table Talk must be 'treated with due caution'; show me where he uses it in his biography of Hitler. You arn't using it with caution; you are using it without informing the reader of its questionable nature, and boldly. Drogo Underburrow 13:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not using it at all. In my contributions here I am leaving the "Quellenkritik" bit to the people I (and others) quote. Of course, we should be cautios. However, what I oppose utterly is the inclusion of disclaimers which bascially say "don't worry about anti-Christian statements by Hitler - they call come from a worthless source" - when the soure is neither worthless (and it is, despite all problems, neither worthless nor hearsay) nor it is the source of all anti-Christian statements. Str1977 (smile back) 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that Kershaw doesn't use the Table Talk at all in his biography?  To say that it must be "treated with due caution" is not the same thing as to say that it is completely unreliable. john k 05:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: John, are you addressing Drogo or me? I completely agree with you! Quellenkritik is a difficult business and WP-wise I prefer to leave it to the literature we are referring to, e.g. Kershaw or Rissmann or Steigmann. I also don't mind including a sentence about the dispute about Table Talk (though it makes me think that we should include a sentence on Rauschnigg as well - maybe as a footnote to the "not occultist" passage - , to avoid readers confusing the two books). What I object to is this know-nothing addition cited above which only serves to eliminate not just Table Talk but all anti-Christian statements by Hitler (supposedly only taken from Table Talk). Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 08:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was addressing Drogo, who seems to be implying that Kershaw does not ever cite Table Talk in his biography.  This seems unlikely to me, although I cannot disprove it.  That is, I fully agree with you. john k 14:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used Table Talk once, but it has nothing to do with the religion part of the article and is listed in the references. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table Talk again

message: And again Gio has struck, changing the consensus "authoritarian" to "fascist" - I never was completely happy with authoritarian, as it is a bit weak for Hitler's regimee and hence have always preferred "totalitarian", despite the controversy the term sparks (which should be covered on the wikilinked page). However, I can live with either word, as they are descriptive terms, talking about some characteristics of Hitler's regime. "Fascist" on the other hand is merely labelling him politically, using a misused political label, but tells us nothing about the character of Hitler's rule. I reverted to the T word, but don't mind reverting to the A word again. But not the F word, ever! Str1977 (smile back) 13:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. I never changed the consensus "authoritarian" to "fasicst." I only changed the hightly contentious and loaded theory of "totalitarism" to the completely accurate, useful and descriptive "fascist regime." I was never completely happy with authoritian either, as it is a bit weak for Hitler's regime and hence I preferred the more precise "fascist,' despite that there is a tiny minority that feels that it only applies to the Italian model (really a fringe within academia). However, I can live with either word (authoritian or fascist), as they are descriptive terms for Hitler's regime and the nature of its system of reactionary control. "Totalitarianism" on the other hand, is merely politically labeling based on a highly disputed organic theory of the state that tells us nothing about the real workings of Hiter's rule. I reverted to the F word, but I don't mind reverting to the A word. But not the T word, ever!Giovanni33 02:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While "fascist" is certainly a term which has been misused, it is not a misuse to use "fascist" to describe the Nazis.  I do think it is problematic to refer to a "fascist regime," though.  While I think there's a fair degree of consensus among scholars that Nazism was a fascist movement, I'm not sure that there's ever been any real consensus about what a fascist "regime" is.  That said, fascist is clearly better than "totalitarian," because the latter is a term whose general usefulness and validity is in serious dispute.  The narrative voice of wikipedia should never refer to any regime as "totalitarian."  Use of the term should always be attributed - "Some scholars have described the Nazi regime as totalitarian," not "The Nazi regime was totalitarian." john k 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My problem with the word "fascist" here, is not so much its misuse or that I cannot debate the F vs. T thing (and I have mellowed down a bit recently), but that using the F word in the intro makes it meaningless, merely stating H's political affilitation, and that only by stretching it to a an umbrella term. We could be more precise than F and state he instituted a Nazi regime, which makes the emptiness of Gio's version utterly obvious. What I want is a descriptive term for Hitler's regime: F doesn't do that, authoritarian (which BTW was the consensus before Gio and someone else starting to revert again) is a bit weak, totalitarian in my book does the trick, despite the dispute. Str1977 (smile back) 08:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a recent edit, Gio claimed "Totalitiarianism is not an accepted theory." It is a disputed theory (as are almost all attempts to explain the subjects under discussion), but it is a theory many accept. It would not be difficult to list a lot of recent books that accept it as a useful theoretical approach (and lots that don't like it). I will settle for mentioning the Hannah Arendt Institute for the Study of Totalitarianism at the University of Dresden (http://www.hait.tu-dresden.de/ext/homepage.asp). It accepts the theory to the extent that it is part of the institute name. Bytwerk 10:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse Hannah Arendt would accep the theory, she is one of the main developer of the disputed theory. When I say its disputed, I mean within the larger academic conesnsus of political scientists, and therefore any usage of the term has to be sufficiently problematized, qualified, and not stated if it were were a theory that was well established and accepted by consensus (as the theoretical understandings of fascism is). Infact, if I recall correctly, even Arendt backed off on major points regarding the theory of T herself, leaving it to any last surving cold-warriors who still want to cling to mistaken conceptions of a cartoonish description of a society. Giovanni33 14:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hannah Arendt was dead long before the institute was named for her, so her sentiments are irrelevant to the point I was making. Do a search on amazon.com or amazon.de for the term. You will find numerous recent books that take the term seriously. People disagree on the subject. The theory is well established, and has significant proponents. It is not the consensus. But guess what — authoritarian doesn't have consensus either. To term those who like the term "cold war warriors" simply won't pass muster. In some ways, this mirrors the discussion on Hitler and religion. Perhaps a brief paragraph outlining the debate might be in order, rather than edit-warring back and forth.  Bytwerk 15:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Authoritarian may be weak, but it is a term which everyone agrees is appropriate.  Totalitarianism is a term whose validity is disputed.  Wikipedia's editorial voice shouldn't be using terms whose very validity is disputed as though they are unproblematic. john k 14:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And I agree that fascist is pretty useless as a term to describe the regime. john k 14:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to support Str on this because I quite honestly haven't a clue about whether the regime was fascist, authoritarian, or totalitarian, and contrary to what Giovanni says about me, I don't exist for the purpose of reverting to my buddy's version. But if Giovanni can accept A but not T, Str can accept A but not F, John has problems with T and F, and finds A weak but appropriate, why is there still an edit war going on? Can we just leave it as authoritarian, and hope that Kecik doesn't show up to make his 28th revert out of 30 article edits later today? AnnH ♫ 15:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain my recent edits in this matter: I can live with A (though I think it to weak) and not with F (which is in my book non-descriptive) and in my first few reverts I revert to the A word again, after someone else had changed it to T and Gio then changed it to F. Later, I revert to T, since Gio kept on inserting his beloved F word over and over again, even revert a removal (not by me) of a superfluous category. It was a reaction out of annoyance. However, I will not revert the A word ever and since John K approves of the A word too, I am inclined to revert further F pushing back to the A word. Str1977 (smile back) 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me explain my recent edits in this matter, too: I can live with A (though I think it to weak) and not with T (which is in my book non-descriptive). I revert to F, since Str kept on inserting his beloved T word over and over again. It was a reaction out of annoyance. However, I will not revert the A word ever and since John K approves of the A word too, I am inclined to revert further T pushing back to the A word. Giovanni33 02:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very clever, but the potential problem with fascism and that with totalitarianism are not the same.  Fascism is arguably non-descriptive in that the term "fascist regime" arguably doesn't mean anything - there's never been any clear definition of what a "fascist regime" consists of, and what its defining characteristics would be.  The term "totalitarian regime" is certainly descriptive, in that several scholars have given very detailed descriptions of what the term means.  What makes it inappropriate is that many scholars don't think that the totalitarian model actually applies to any real world cases, and that others think it, at least, doesn't apply to Nazi Germany. john k 02:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you say that in your own words too, Gio, or do just want to do a parody. The T word is hardly non-descriptive and it was not me, in general, who changed A to T. However, it was always you  who changed T to F. You could have changed it to A as well, but you refused to do so. This POV pushing on your part was what annoyed me. Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are my words. And, no, no parody. The F word is hardly non-descriptive, and it was not me who changed A to F. However, it was you who changed F to T. You could have hcanged to to A. This POV pushing on yoru part was what annoyed me, too. Good day. Giovanni33 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the info. BTW, that parrot is dead! Str1977 (smile back) 19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you, sir, that parrot is not dead. It's sleeping.Giovanni33 19:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totalitarian

message: # (cur) (last)  08:50, May 9, 2006 Str1977 (rv to accurate, NPOV, sourced version)
# (cur) (last) 03:32, May 9, 2006 Giovanni33 (rv "totalitiarn" back to consensus A word. Also, rvt. the Owen Chadwick addition--he's a theologian and his expertis is in the Early Christian Chruch--not Hitler.)
# (cur) (last) 00:30, May 9, 2006 Patsw (→Hitler's religious beliefs - he hated...)
# (cur) (last) 00:26, May 9, 2006 Stanley011 (Changed "authoritarian" to "totaliarian")
# (cur) (last) 00:07, May 9, 2006 Drogo Underburrow (→Hitler's religious beliefs - rv to properly sourced, NPOV version free from original research)
# (cur) (last) 19:55, May 8, 2006 Golbez (TAUNT?)
# (cur) (last) 19:52, May 8, 2006 Musical Linguist (Rv to my last one. That version is POV, and does contain OR (in last sentence of religious section).)
# (cur) (last) 17:31, May 8, 2006 Kecik (Rv/ This is more NPOV, and has no original research. Its verifiable.)
# (cur) (last) 17:19, May 8, 2006 Musical Linguist (Revert to my last - more NPOV. Also, I don't think we need {spoiler} except for novels and plays.)
# (cur) (last) 16:41, May 8, 2006 Kecik (RV)
# (cur) (last) 16:29, May 8, 2006 Kenwilliams m (→Defeat and death - +{spoiler})
# (cur) (last) 16:21, May 8, 2006 Musical Linguist (Rv to KNewman)
# (cur) (last) 16:15, May 8, 2006 Kecik (Rv to last by Musical Linguist--the accurate, NPOV, and compromise version by Drogo.)
# (cur) (last) 12:56, May 8, 2006 KNewman m (typo)
# (cur) (last) 12:36, May 8, 2006 Michael David m (→External links - Category)
# (cur) (last) 06:35, May 8, 2006 Str1977 (rv to accurate, NPOV, sourced version, also rv change to the T word to retain consensus)
Here's the exercise for the day: How many times can we find the string "rv" in the last 20 edits or so? Perhaps the article should be protected so we can discuss things properly. Revert wars never win. --Golbez 12:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that so? Then why did you, without discussion, revert the deletion of "The Third Reich, which he said would last a thousand years, collapsed in only twelve." ?  There's two editors on the talk page who have expressed their opposition to that statement, and no voices in favor, yet you reverted. Drogo Underburrow 14:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say I was without sin? Stop fucking arguing with me about my own revert, I never said I am without sin here. I said, EVERYONE stop reverting, or I'll get the page protected and force it on us. --Golbez 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "rv" 

message: Given a choice between a commercial site with advertising, that is making money off of its link to Wikipedia, and who forces you to see ads, and an ad-free page hosted by a neo-Nazi group, I prefer the ad-free site, especially as its presentation of Mein Kampf is superior. There is no neo-Nazi propaganda on the Mein Kampf page, so any objection to this site simply because the host is a neo-Nazi group is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the Stormfront is kind enough to host an ad-free Mein Kampf page, that is great and we should take advantage of it. Drogo Underburrow 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Wikipedia's policy states: "However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints." Second, the guideline recommends avoiding sites with objectionable amounts of advertising, which the original site does not, to my eye, have. Bytwerk 22:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We arn't using Stormfront's extremist views when we link to Mein Kampf. The page is only hosted by Stormfront, nothing on it is Stormfront's material. You are quoting this material out of context. Its discussing the use of sourced material in the article, and we are discussing an external link, a completely different issue. Finally, the passage you quote is not a Wikipedia policy, its only a guideline, its in no way official. The page you quote from can be modified by anyone, I just made a minor improvement to it myself. Drogo Underburrow 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a little more than simple hosting. Entering "crusader(dot)net" gets you to the Stormfront forum page. And the rest of the material on the site is neo-Nazi oriented. So given the choice between modest advertising at the bottom of a non-neo-Nazi page, and no advertising on a neo-Nazi site, I know where I'd prefer to be. Bytwerk 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's all there is to it. The page is hosted by Stormfront. Of course, if you type in a different URL, of course you are going to get a different page. So what? We link to the Mein Kampf page, not to the Stormfront page you typed in. You simply object to this page because its hosted by Stormfront, and I say that's no reason to look at an inferior presentation of Mein Kampf and be subjected to advertising, because Bytwerk doesn't like the hosting organization. Drogo Underburrow 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My point was that crusader(dot)net takes one to a Stormfront URL, which suggests that the relationship between the two sites is a little more than simple hosting. And if I am the only one who doesn't like a neo-Nazi hosting organization, and most agree with you that it is a good place to link to, well, then I'll be somewhat surprised, and the neo-Nazis will be happy. Bytwerk 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "hosting" means in this case is that Stormfront supports the webpage using the same domain name as other pages it also hosts. Every webpage is a seperate document, and its not fair to object to ANYTHING that Stormfront puts on the web simply because you don't like them. The webpages on Mein Kampf are ad-free and do a superior job of presenting Mein Kampf, and there's no objective reason not to use them in preference to sites which do an inferior job and also display ads. Drogo Underburrow 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, one more try. There are pages on the "crusader(dot)net" site that take one to a site with a URL that says "crusader(dot)net/whatever." However, "crusader(dot)net" takes one to a page with the URL "stormfront(dot)org/forum". Hence my point that the relationship is a little closer than simple hosting. But as I've said above, if many others think it is a good idea to link to such a site, I'll be surprised. Bytwerk 23:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the logic presented by Drogo, I have to disagree on the basis of the links it provides to the rest of the side, and at the bottom of the same page. These link to neo-nazi essays. Even though the presentation of MK may be superior, the the other site might have advertising, I don't like having a link that links to neo-nazi POV's. For me they are outside the legitimate scope of political views, and thus should be avoided absense a critical treatment or counter-balanced presentation. I agree that the mere fact that its hosted by a neo-nazi site should not matter, but its the racist links they provide below which I find objectionable. But, this is just my view and I will abide by the consensus of my fellow editors. Giovanni33 06:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For once I agree with Gio. Since we don't need to link to a Neo-Nazi site I don't think we should. The advertisement isn't really that aggressive. Str1977 (smile back) 19:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice of Mein Kampf Sites

message: Hitler however, like many other Catholics, felt that he was still a Catholic even if he did not attend church. He maintained to the end of his life that he was a Catholic in good standing with the Church, and the Church never issued a statement contradicting him.
Since when is Wikipedia qualified to state as a fact what Hitler actually felt? Do we have some proof that he never told lies?  If so, why don't we put that in the article.  And can someone refer me to a statement he made a few minutes or hours (I'll be generous and even accept days) before his suicide that he was a Catholic "in good standing"?
This original research is on the same level as the recent statement that he received the sacraments "devoutly" as a child. Gosh, we don't even say that about Pope Benedict. AnnH ♫ 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not original research. Its from John Toland, Adolf Hitler p.803, where it says he was still a member of the Church in good standing, and that he stated "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" . Drogo Underburrow 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you didn't put "According to Toland, Hitler was still a member of the Church in good standing." You stated Toland's theory as if it was a fact.  Also (and this is really where the original research comes in), you stated that Hitler felt that he was still a Catholic. We don't know what Hitler felt. By stating what he felt, as if it's an indisputed fact that he felt that, you were introducing original research in the sense that you were deciding that Hitler was sincere when he referred to himself as a Catholic.  Also, "maintained to the end of his life" is unsourced, because, as I pointed out, we'd need a quotation from him from shortly before his death. AnnH ♫ 02:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "According to Toland ..." is the farthest we can go. The statement is referenced but it is also definitely incorrect or at least misleading ("good standing" being a bit ambiguous). Toland is, despite the book's subtitle, not the definitive biography but actually a highly superfluous book, as it aims at merely listing events without attempting, as the author put it, to issue a "thesis" - he might think that this makes it objective. However, such a thing as an objective book is impossible. I don't understand why we need to use this third rate book when we have Kershaw and other grand masters. Str1977 (smile back) 19:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In respect of "now as before", surely, "According to Toland Hitler stated that..."?--shtove 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Practically all I see on the page history for this page is reverts. I've protected the page- please resolve disputes and then request unprotection by me or using WP:RfPP. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection was long overdue considering the nonsensical edit war going back and forth with little progress by the typical edit warriors. So, a page protection is needed to get them to actually state their objections and find out what consensus is, including an understanding of the rules.Giovanni33 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not thrilled with the version that's protected, but that's beside the point.  Can we please come to some sort of consensus here? Al 21:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I'd love to reach a consensus if only others would stop playing games with the rules (as with what Kershaw said or didn't say) and valued attempts to create an actual text instead of a collection of unconnected elements. I have tried that several times but only got reverted all the way. Points raised on the talk page were left unanswered or brushed aside by some technicalities. But I see your post, Ali, as a sign of improvement. Please, don't prove me wrong. Str1977 (smile back) 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Deskana. I think it only fair to both disputing editors and readers unaware of the dispute. Str1977 (smile back) 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm starting a new section where we can discuss the dispute. Drogo Underburrow 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected page