Talk:Sexuality of Adolf Hitler/Archive 1

message: Why doesn't this belong in the Adolf Hitler article??
-For the same reason this doesn't belong in the Hitler article. They both make it way too long. Frasor
:I'd be glad to boldly merge it if it gets no consensus again (without the middle paragraph, of course). It can be pulled back out if and when there is enough verifiable info for an article. Gazpacho 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adolf Hitler article?

message: This article is ridiculous. 
*These sources are hardly suffice.  One of them leads to a video that mentions nothing about Hitler's sexual orientation until the end when it states "could Adolf Hitler have been gay?"  How is that a source?  This article had serious "yes" votes for deletion and I believe it should be ran again.  --Mmeinhart 02:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged NPOV 

message: Could someone please format the references using WikiBib? It just makes it easier to read, and this article needs spotless citations. Thanks. Harro5 10:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I renamed the page from Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation to Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. The article is no longer just about his hetero/homosexuality. —Seqsea (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved 

message: Why is this article constantly being put up for AFD? Please refrain from re-AFD'ing it for a while. Give a rest period in between them!
Also, to merge this into the Adolf Hitler article would be a bad idea as the main article is huge and would be far too large for any person without a DSL internet connection to read. -Localzuk (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD's? 

message: I have merged this article with Adolf Hitler's medical health on 04/23/05.  OSU80 01:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Completed 

message: This articles is poorly written that focuses on the unencyclopedic and the sensational.  Obviously I am no fan of Hitler, but its article's like these that make wikipedia look so amateurish The proceeding unsigned comment was inserted by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg on 22:30, 6 May 2006
Concur. Also not a fan, but all this is is describing PsyOps/propaganda campaign against hitler, which uses statements by someone Hitler had expelled from the party - hardly a credible source. If this article was entitled 'Propaganda to discredit Hitler', it might stand - but instead the article tries (and fails) to make all this look credible. Recommend merge a cut-down version into the main article. Bridesmill 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delettion nom once again 

message: I now believe that Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia.  Who needs to defend and take care of such a falsehood?  No small wonder that all the best editors have left.  I will my wikibreak permanent, since it looks like this is (and other incompetent edits are) driving nails into the coffin.  IP Address 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles Like This 

message: The article meets the standard if there is maybe something to correct it would be a stub but there is not much to add with all this quotes. The article might have been cleaned up but the tag maybe hadn't been removed by now but i see the article totally clean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzubiri (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Cleanup tag 

message: No mention of his wife?! 75.3.237.103 (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed that. This article is still pretty terrible though.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eva Braun]] 

message: "Some historians have argued that he was homosexual, some that he was bisexual, others that he was asexual.  Finally, others argue that he was heterosexual."
Is this necessary?  As far as I know, that about covers everything that possibly could be argued.  It could be trimmed down to just a couple words. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it. Not only was it pointless before but that sentence made it look as if the claims had equal weight, like 25% possibility gay, 25% straight etc.
Frankly the whole article stinks. Just some authors trying to cash in off of Hitler's crimes by writing a book claiming he was gay. I mean a book claiming he was straight is never going to sell is it?
Someone needs to re-write the whole thing. I think the fact that most of the women he gets involved with seem to end up trying to kill themselves is worth mentioning as well.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede doesn't say anything 

message: I don't think the popular culture mentions, particular the second one about Fritz the Cat, are actual social depictions of Hitler's alleged sexuality. It's fairly obvious they were just some juvenile attempts to poke fun at Hitler, on the basis that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of. I'd like to hear the opinions of the other editors on whether or not these listing actually contribute to the article in any way, and whether or not they should remain in the article. Freikorp (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed due to no objections, on the grounds they are not actually depictions of his sexuality therefore do not contribute to the article. Freikorp (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I've since discovered there is an entire article devoted to Adolf Hitler in popular culture. Accordingly all popular culture mentions should be placed there anyway. Freikorp (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture

message: The list at the bottom of the article claims that Hitler was "engaged" to both Erna Hanfstaengl and Renate Müller. What are these claims based on? The article on Hanfstaengl suggests that Hitler's affection for her was one-sided and that she had no intention of marrying him, and the article on Müller makes no mention of Hitler at all, let alone that she was "engaged" to him. Sounds pretty dubious to me, and unsourced as well. 80.222.33.165 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; I've removed "engaged" as too far "out there" to really even be notably alleged.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engagements? 

message: From what I've heard, it sounds like heterosexual is most likely to be true, but this article gives a disproportionate amount of attention to the theory that he was homosexual. WP improver (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most likely orientation? 

message: The report took evidence from a political enemy of Hitler - Otto Strasser, whose brother Hitler had killed in the Night of the Long Knives.  ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.166.232.140 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Otto Strasser & Gregor Strasser  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: "Hitler was also known to enjoy having gay butt sex with gay jews and niggers because he was gay and he was a futon, although the researchers concluded that the evidence of Hitler's homosexuality was too thin to make any conclusions."
I am not sure this is accurate/ well cited... Just an FYI
:. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "gay butt sex with gay jews"  

message: The article should be clearly merged on Article:Adolf Hitler as it is already mentioned. And all the statements there are facts and it is why it does have a NPOV. The Sentences that may not be Neutral i remark them as facts and they are quotes and not opinions. --Zzubiri (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try posting your query at the bottom of the talk page, as you're meant to. --Michael C. Price talk 12:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Adolf Hitler is a very long article, currently 212 K long, so a merge is not recommended -- this page is a valid application of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, though I think it could be better synchronized with the parent article.  If consensus nevertheless develops to merge this page back into Adolf Hitler, the redirect left behind must not be deleted -- that would be a violation of the GFDL (see WP:Merge and delete).  Baileypalblue (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend a merge, and the deletion of most of the text from this article.  There is little of substance. Reports of rumours, myths and propaganda don't belong in Wikipedia: it is not a branch of the wartime OSS.203.184.41.226 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be merged as the Hitler main article is already long on bytes, and it is discussed briefly therein; further, it is a GA article. This is a sub-article which is important enough to keep but I agree could use tightening up. Kierzek (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

text: No merge.  Hitler is a major figure, and his sexuality has always been under question.  While the material here might be speculative etc, it is better to corral it here than to be constantly fighting to eliminate this kind of stuff from the main page.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in Adolf Hitler 

message: The evidence of any relationship with Renate Müller, seems paper-thin, with no mention in her articles on either Eng or Ger WP. Pincrete (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renate Müller and others

message: I'm not sure of details here, however as part of The World at War, there were interviews with AH's personal staff, including his valet (possibly Heinz Linge). Whether these were part of the original series or 'add-ons' released later, I am unsure. Within those interviews, his valet said that the household staff (room-maids), never saw any evidence of sexual activity between AH and Eva Braun. I am not sure how RS this would be, however this testimony seems as valid as the speculations of other close confidants. 
That their relationship was the subject of speculation among personal staff, is itself interesting, and possibly indicative that the character of that relationship was not clear-cut. Pincrete (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Linge's comments from his memories are already in the article and cited. Kierzek (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not these specific recollections, though World at War is not very citable and this is 'downstairs gossip'. Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Kierzek (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I briefly text scanned the subs for all the later World at War progammes. I could not find the text I referred to above. I am certain though that it was part of a UK TV programme (including interviews with Junge), possibly a spin-off of The World at War. For the time being, a dead-end. Pincrete (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testimony of valet 

message: It is often stated that Hitler was a urophile; it is speculated that it was a major contributory factor in his difficulties in relationships with women and their (attempted) suicides. However, this article only briefly mentions it very briefly as an accusation by Otto Strasser, who was obviously very biased. It has been claimed by others; some documentaries about Hitler state that he was a urophile. Could it all just be anti-Hitler propaganda, or is there real proof that Hitler did have such a paraphilia, and that he indulged it with Geli Raubal and other women? If the latter is the case, the article should mention it more. WP improver (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult to see why this painless and non-invasive practice should have induced suicidal feelings in the women. Valetude (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Urolagnia]] 

message: Otherwise, this article may as well have been called "The sexual orientation of Adolph Hitler". Here are a few other questions to consider. Is it true that Hitler's sex drive, at least at some point, was so low that he had to seek medication? How did Hitler's sexuality develop and change throughout his life? Is it true that he had certain paraphilias? Did he have any other sexual peculiarities? For example, Ayn Rand's whole idea of sexuality and romance was about a woman being dominated by a superior man, which caused her to fill those perfectly good novels with all those vile, sickening rape fantasy scenes (no offense to any Ayn Rand fans, I'm kinda an Ayn Rand fan myself). 213.109.230.96 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's more to sexuality than the gender you're attracted to 

message: THIS IS ALREADY COVERED IN THE MAIN ARTICLE!!!!--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article is too long, so it is appropriate for this topic to have its own article. --ukexpat 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Aha. So because the man in question is evil, every accusation made towards him are automatically true. Great reasoning. The OSS is a propaganda piece, this was even stated by the authors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.109.41 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Covered?

message: What is the matter with Leni Riefenstahl? There was a lot of rumours that there is more than an only acquaintance between both!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.70.92 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leni Riefenstahl 

message: I don't understand not including the latest claims about Hitler's cryptorchidism and possible micropenis not being included on the "recent claims" section (a section for, you know, RECENT. CLAIMS.) despite much publicity and a well-sourced citation. As a recent claim, and one that isn't on the fringes of speculation but actually being reported by reputable sources, this needs to be included, and I am aghast as to why some editors use bizarre logic to suppress this info being put into this article.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this is a GA article; second, it is a WP:Fringe "claim", and the book it is from is not written by WP:RS historians; it is a low-grade source by two "authors". It is NOT supported by any well regarded RS historians. Wikipedia is not tabloid news, nor entertainment news and just because some new outlet's "picked up the story" does not make it news-worthy or give it greater historical weight. One does not add anything he comes upon, without regard to its importance and RS citing. It should be kept out of this article; also, the possible cryptorchidism "claim" by itself is already included in the Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism article, (although it is a weak argument, at best); and not cited to the book above. Kierzek (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cryptorchidism/micropenis claims 

message: The entire first paragraph in this section except for the initial sentence mirrors word for word a passage in *Adolf Hitler: a Biography* by Ileen Bear (Alpha Editions, May 8, 2016). Google books provides no page number. The passage in the article has 4 footnotes, none of which cite Bear. Unless Bear wrote this passage in the article this is plagiarism. Ringdisc (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is the version from 27 December 2015, which predates the May 24, 2016 publication date of Bear's book. It would appear that the sentences that are duplicated actually predate the publication of Bear's book, as they are present in the December 27, 2015 version of this article. I'm not going to necessarily say that Bear copied Wikipedia, but the sentences in question definitely were here on Wikipedia before Bear's book was published. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote some of this myself. See for example . I also wrote the part about "late returning for tea" and added it to Eva Braun in 2011 when I brought it to GA. . Somebody copied material from there to this article in . So yeah, we had it first. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The sincerest form of flattery ?.Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:EEng was watching Stranger Things one evening and was taken aback to hear his own prose from the article Phineas Gage being spoken by one of the characters.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968#Published plagiarism of one of our articles — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was flattered that some of my Wikipedia prose (written in approximately 2013) and cited RS books in relation to same, were used in a recent book (2014) on Hitler in the section that covered his last days. Kierzek (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical accounts 

message: The lede seems to me like it should be a section on the question of whether he was gay. It doesn't summarize the article very well at all. Other opinions? --causa sui (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: it should be a section on the question of whether he was gay. Why? Do RS take that idea very seriously? Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede passed the vetting for GA and I believe it to be fine. The mainline RS historians do not give it serious consideration. As the article states, there is "no evidence that he engaged in homosexual behavior". The very dated 1943 report is conjecture. And the book "The Hidden Hitler" is at best, speculation, conjecture and pov postulation. Kierzek (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You both misunderstand me. The lede should *not* be focused on the question of his sexual orientation. But it is. That content would be better as a separate section so that the lede can actually summarize the article. If you want to delete it, that's fine with me too. But if you don't think it should be taken seriously then you don't think it should be in the lede either. --causa sui (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think it should focus on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: causa sui, thank you for the clarification. Well, what I believe is it should be kept to a bare minimum, for the article. BMK, Diannaa, Pincrete, your thoughts? Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand what the perceived problem is. I think the lead is okay as it is. The subject is Adolf Hitler's sexuality, which encompasses sexual orientation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Diannaa here, which is why I asked you to say (above) what you think it should focus on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Diannaa, a valid point. causa sui, can you provide some additional elaboration? Kierzek (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sexual orientation is part of the topic of sexuality, yes. But the purpose of a WP:LEAD is to "...identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The lead we have now does none of that; it explores the topic of his alleged homosexuality & interest in bizarre fetishes, several of which are not discussed again -- and, as you mentioned, are not prominent controversies since few historians take them seriously. I think the second paragraph seems okay, but otherwise, most of the lead we have now is more or less a distinct section on Hitler's supposed homosexuality & deviant kinks placed in the position where a lead should be. --causa sui (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, should is missing about Hitler's sexuality that should be there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you meant "what" where you have "should". If so, I think an introduction to the topic and a summary of the article should be there. --causa sui (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just re-read t, and I think it does that adequately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus, in the intro, or the lack thereof 

message: Kolozani (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021 

message: The following material has been added to the article:
In his 2012 book Hitler and the Nazi Cult of Film and Fame, Hollywood chronicler Michael Munn argues that Hitler "preferred to look rather than touch". Hitler regularly requested German film studios to send famous young actresses to the Reich Chancellery, which – according to Munn – was both a means to fulfill his desire as a fan to have lunch with a movie star, and a manifestation of his political power that had the ability to drum up popular celebrities at will. One of those actresses was Renate Müller, who told German filmmaker Albert Zeisler that Hitler seemed uninterested in sex. Instead, he fell on the floor and begged her to kick him, condemned himself as unworthy and grovelled on the floor. Munn notes that Nazis such as Ernst Hanfstaengl, Otto Strasser and Hermann Rauschning all reported that if he liked a girl, he tended to "grovel at her feet in a most disgusting way," even in company.
I left the material in, but I have to question whether Michael Munn is a reliable source for this stuff. He's a film historian and a biographer of movie stars, which hardly seem like credentials for reliability regarding this subject.
Should the material stay in or not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out - he is a film historian - I don't think a book billed as "A shocking look into the twisted, lurid world of Nazi Germany’s film industry" can be considered a reliable source for our purposes.— Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal and the reasoning given. Kierzek (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Michael Munn]] a reliable source? 

message: The subject matter is trivial, and the alleged sources of information are sensationalist, and wildly contradictory. This entire thing should be a footnote on the main Adolf Hitler page, at best. Quite frankly, this article is shameful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.169.1 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article a thing?