Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism/Archive 3

message: I do like them short and sweet. Wyss 03:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bare bones intros

message: I don't really like the blockquote style, as it hampers readability and makes formal continuity difficult by offsetting certain passages.  It might work well on some pages, but I don't see it working here at all.  In any case, I'm interested in moving all but the most important quotes to wikiquote and paraphrasing the rest; or shortening the quotes as much as possible, as I did with Berry.  --Viriditas  | Talk 13:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wyss, you said earlier I ought to learn about historiography, but you're now using Doyle as a source for an alleged veganism, when he was not in a position to know that, and has anyway misused the word. And writing [sic] after the word is a misuse of that, and doesn't qualify it. That's used for typos and spelling mistakes. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition of sic is mistaken, please look it up  and please stop the unilateral edit-warring and careless remarks about my edits. Wyss 18:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  I don't like the sic, either. He clearly wasn't a vegan, just as Goebbels clearly didn't "invent" Hitler's vegetarianism. Why don't we just exclude incorrect info from secondary sources from the article? Babajobu 17:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO? Because the Payne quote, however inaccurate, is too near and dear to the evangelistic, moralizing and purging veggie PoV of Rynn Berry. Wyss 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Well done, Slim and Viriditas, as it now stands the article very effectively represents veggie POV. Babajobu 17:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore. We can work together or bicker, Viriditas seems willing to work this out and has been contributing sundry helpful cites, IMHO SV is still reverting wantonly and aggressively to her personal and extreme PoV. Wyss 18:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you say about working together, Wyss, and I appreciate your hard work on this article.  IMO, SlimVirgin is one of the most neutral editors I know on Wikipedia, and she is adept at writing for the enemy.  As Wyss suggests, let's stick to working on the article and arguing about content, not editors.  FWIW, I do not see any "wanton" or "aggressive" reverts from Slim, nor do I see her pushing a pro-Veggie POV; it's just not her style.  --Viriditas  | Talk 00:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'll take the "wanton" and "aggressive" about SV back. :) Wyss 01:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blockquote 

message: These questions are directed towards Babajobu, not Wyss.  He may answer these questions as an indented, threaded reply to my text if he so wishes.
*You wrote, Well done, Slim and Viriditas, as it now stands the article very effectively represents veggie POV.  I would be very interested to see you back up that claim with evidence, Babajobu. Please do so, here. --Viriditas  | Talk 00:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Babajobu's criticisms

message: As far as I can tell, all of these "pieces of evidence", for whether Hitler ate meat or did not, are anecdotes. Singling out one side in a controversy and calling those reports "anecdotal" while failing to do so for others is not neutral. Calling them "anecdotal" (and especially "largely anecdotal"--implying the conclusion of a comprehensive survey of the evidence which is not supported by the article text) adds nothing to the introduction. Since the article is mostly an enumeration of reports, let's just call them that.
The one item that might not be considered anecdotal is the Hitler quote from Spencer ("I don't touch meat largely because of what Wagner says on the subject."). That's a source I don't have, but in any case it doesn't establish anything but a claim of avoiding meat (that is, it doesn't strengthen one side or the other of this controversy to the extent that we should regard one or another as more established in the introduction).
Demi T/C 21:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Demi is correct, and I've brought up this point before.  You are failing to adhere to the NPOV policy by calling one side anecdotal and the other "documented", when in fact they are both anecdotal.  I'm not clear on how you are using the term "documented", but it's the wrong word.  His meat eating is no more documented than his vegetarianism, and both are based on anecdotal evidence.--Viriditas  | Talk 22:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: His vegetarianism is widely documented. The meat eating reports are anecdotes. Please stop mis-appropriating the term NPoV. This sort of argument is an attempt to re-write history (some people call it Historical revisionism (political)) by treating all sources as if they were of equal weight and provenance, which they aren't. Wyss 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I can only conclude you don't understand the definition of anecdotal in this context.  Demi is correct.  I am adding the NPOV template to the article for this reason and the reasons I have explained here.  I wish you would stop pushing your POV over and above the historical record. --Viriditas  | Talk 22:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, your conclusion is mistaken. I wish you would stop pushing your PoV over the historical record, Viriditas. I told you before we don't agree. I can accept that. Can you? Wyss 22:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Great, then perhaps you will help remove the slant, starting with your own edits, particularly the NYT addendum (original research) and adding back in historical timeline data that you removed for no reason (meat eating during WWI, prison).  Your critcism regarding Berry is not only empty but lacks any evidence.  The article is fully sourced, and except for Berry's name (and your POV description of Berry's claims) and quote from Payne, the entire article has nothing to do with Berry or an invisible "purging wing" of vegetarian paper tigers. --Viriditas  | Talk 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my reason for removing the irrelevant reference to eating meat down in trenches in a war zone. Please stop mis-representing my edits, edit summaries and posts, thanks. Wyss 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You gave no reason, nor is a reference to Adolph Hitler's meat-eating diet "irrelevant" in the context of this article; it fills in gaps in the timeline and provides historical continuity.  There is no reason why you removed it other than to distort the facts in the article, as you seem to be doing on a daily basis. --Viriditas  | Talk 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I wasn't plain enough. Soldiers struggling to survive in a trench in France or Belgium in 1917 often didn't have the luxury of choosing a meat-free diet, never mind the reference pre-dates AH's consistent claims  of and efforts towards vegetarianism (beginning over a decade later, in 1931), as documented in the historical record and cited by most of his biographers. Also, as I've said repeatedly, we disagree on who's distorting and spinning the article with little or no regard to the historical record and consensus by opportunistically dragging out worthless, long-discredited OSS reports and spurious quotes from minor, seldom cited biographies (for starters). Wyss 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Removed reference to jewish dietary laws, as i think this was only example of OR in article. The info was not OR, but the implication that this explains the NYT reference to ham probably was. I'll now remove the OR tag. I don't see how pre-1931 instances of meat-eating are relevant to this article, sice at that time hitler did not claim to be veggie, and made no efforts to be veggie. regardless, the article is now the best it's been, though it still needs narrative flow. Babajobu 07:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chronology also needs to be made more explicit. Even a sentence at opening of evidence section would help. Having comp problems, won't be able to contribute much for a while. Babajobu 07:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By far my biggest problem with this article has been as Babajobu confirms above. My other serious concerns relate to the Payne quote followed (less severely) by the NYT article (although we can agree to disagree on the ham and the OR of mentioning jewish dietary law and AH's attitudes about jewish people) and mentioning one or two other minor biographers. Mentioning the liver dumplings is ok, the sources indicate he kept eating them for awhile during the early 30s but notice the NYT article does not mention them and by the time Junge came along, according to her, he was abstaining altogether. Wyss 12:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Demi, "largely anecdotal" is inaccurate and unduly prejudices the reader. Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources are not equal in provenance and reliability. Wyss 21:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *In which case, we are using the term "anecdotal" in an inappropriate way--to imply, without explicitly stating it, that the reports of AH being vegetarian are more credible than those of his eating meat. This may entirely be the case, and if there's a sustainable way to show this (preferably through another analysis we can cover, rather than through our own) it should be stated that way. But again, the things AH might have done to entertain his guests at dinner parties or how he may have reacted to being slipped meat products in soup are also anecdotes, credible ones though they may be. Demi T/C 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Who decides which sources are more credible, using what critera? Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you're still misunderstanding. One anecdote may be more or less credible than another, but they are still both anecdotes. And it isn't really Wikipedia policy to tell the reader what conclusion to come to regarding the credibility of sources, but to present information relevant to credibility. I'm not sure why I'm having trouble explaining myself, so maybe you can help me out... since both "sides" are supported by several anecdotes, it is not neutral to describe the "evidence" on one side as anecdotal and not the other (credible though it may be). Demi T/C 17:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I'm not claiming all historical evidence is anecdotal; but the items presented in this article certainly are (with the exception of the Spencer quote I referred to above). You're implying now that there are several pieces of evidence that are not anecdotal; and you've said that they are "tightly triangulated", which would imply corroboration of specific incidents my more than one source. If these exist, then please add them to the article, because they aren't there now. Secondly, I have never described "all sources as equal," in fact I have rather taken pains to explain that's not what I'm saying at all. Demi T/C 14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told, almost every source cited in the article describes AH as a vegetarian. It's widely documented. Wyss 14:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "largely anecdotal" 

message: Sadly, because of the blizzard of distracting personal attacks I've received, I must start over on Toland. The reference to Toland, "Frau Hess" and liver dumplings was pulled from Berry's "slim paperback" book and copy-pasted across countless vegetarian websites, whence it ended up in the dispute section of List of vegetarians, then here. Berry must have misquoted it, or did so misleadingly:
:American author and historian John Toland also refers to Raubal's death, quoting Hitler's close friend Frau Hess as saying that, after Raubal's death, "Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings."  
The quote marks indicate these are the words of the unidentified Frau Hess, but they are not. An Amazon index search  shows the true passage (although still not in sufficient context):
:1.  	 on Page 256:
:"... Frau Hess, he meant it. From that moment on, she said, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings. "Suddenly! He ate meat before that. It is very difficult to understand or explain." ..."
Note that the passage quoted in the article contains only Toland's words. However, when taken from the Amazon index, Hess' words are correctly inter-quoted as above. Viriditas says he's verified this quote directly with the source (implying Toland) but he could not have done. If he meant to say he'd verified it in Berry, then he's picked up Berry's misleading quote marks (and lack of context). Readers should note that the Slate article plainly says Berry didn't use primary sources, only secondary ones (when I was around 16 or 17 someone pointed out to me the abusive stuff one can do writing only from secondary sources). Either way, despite his flaming replies and flip remarks that I have been "refuted," Viriditas has not answered my request for this passage in full context. For now, I've added Frau Hess' words to the article, but I have serious concerns about other sources copy-pasted into this article, especially those which do not respect the historically documented chronology of the subject's behavior. (A note on "Frau Hess" - I suspect she is the wife of Rudolf Hess but I'm not sure, it's been awhile since I read Toland)
Finally, I am sorry to all readers that the stark, historically supported evidence Adolf Hitler was a practicing vegetarian between about 1931 to his suicide in 1945 is neither re-affirming nor politically correct, but reality is often like that. I do bring one PoV to my work on this general topic, which is that to know and understand genocide and sociopathy we must be painfully objective, which includes embracing the sad truth that someone directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of some 50 million people (and setting back western civilization at least a generation) not only had intelligence, talent and personal charisma, but did sensible things like not smoking, avoiding alcohol for the most part and pursuing a vegetarian diet (for whatever personal reasons), especially after driving his niece to suicide in 1931.
Or as someone once said, "The SS wore black. I love to wear black. That doesn't make me a supporter of the SS."
Viriditas, please post any answers below my post. If you intersperse your remarks into my text, I will move them to the bottom of the page myself, thanks.Wyss 09:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Berry has nothing to do with this, however you are correct that the quotes should not appear.  The original article stated,  "Biographer John Toland quotes Hitler's close friend Frau Hess as stating that after Raubal's death, "Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings."  The quotes were misplaced, probably by myself.  Berry cites the same Toland quote on p.42, so there's no difference or misquote like you claim, and the error appears to be my own.  The difference between misattribution and quoting Toland is easy to make.  Toland writes, "From that moment on, she said, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings."  For accuracy, all you have to do is remove the quotes and you get: Biographer John Toland quotes Hitler's close friend Frau Hess as stating that after Raubal's death, Hitler never ate another piece of meat except for liver dumplings--and there's the correction.  This has nothing to do with Berry (since he is quoting Toland) and everything to do with removing misplaced quote marks that I added in error.  Thanks for catching that. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see it as "misleading" but as a simple mistake that you found and corrected. --Viriditas  | Talk 21:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think you were misleading about it, but I believe whoever (maybe Berry, maybe someone else) phrased the quote that way purposely edited and spun it in the most PoV, misleading way possible, implying these were Hess' words and leaving out Toland's remark that "he meant it" along with her still-evident surprise that AH had suddenly stopped eating meat. Wyss 13:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Toland

message: The footnote numbering didn't match--with footnote3 you can't rearrange the order of the footnote references without rearranging the footnotes; and you can't mix it with numbered external links. I fixed these (I think) according to the practices in footnote3. I also commented out the Berry and Toland references because they are not actually cited in the text, and I removed the link to the geocities site (in the photo caption) because I didn't know what the link was supposed to be showing (the source of the picture? More quotes?). Demi T/C 07:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with the Berry citation is that the Berry information is apparently being kept out of the article.  I can't find a policy driven reason for doing so; are there credible external sources which dispute Berry's research or neutrality? Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is no.  The external link (to Slate) in the current article, which takes a brief, critical look at Berry, fails to dispute any of his claims.  A bit of googling on Berry shows that he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with some kind of degree, possibly History.  He claims that he taught ancient history, archaeology, classical literature and comparative religion at Columbia University; as late as 2000 he claims to have taught a course on  history and vegetarianism at The New School.  He's the author of the following books:The New Vegetarians (1993) , Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes (2002) , Food for the Gods: Vegetarianism and the World's Religions (1998)  , and the monograph, Why Hitler Was Not a Vegetarian (2004) , as well as co-author of other books (The New York Times dining section recommended his book The Vegan Guide To New York City (2004) ) and is also the author of many published essays.  Berry co-founded the Big Apple Vegetarian Society, is historical adviser to the North American Vegetarian Society, and was commissioned to write the entry on the history of vegetarianism in America for the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America (2004) . --Viriditas  | Talk 09:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation cleanup 

message: Instead of describing one set of reports as anecdotes rather than the other, I've changed "largely anecdotal" to "less well-documented". We're not really getting at the reports themselves in the article (the discussion above did not produce any fruitful improvement in the quality of the reports--we are lacking the "tightly triangulated" evidence Wyss suggests exists. However, the assertion of vegetarianism is "well documented" in the sense that it appears in biographies. I'm putting this forward as a way of trying to accommodate what everyone's trying to say, correctly. Improvements welcome! Demi T/C 15:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty much how I see it. Anyway--right now the introduction says the reports are "from the 1930s", which is all it says on chronology. Can we/should we make that more specific? Demi T/C 23:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either characterise them as "largely anecdotal" or somehow stress that the meat eating was of an infrequent, "cheating" variety and tapered off completely sometime during the mid-late 1930s. Wyss 23:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide cites for your statement, "Anyway by around 1941 he was hard core vegetarian in terms of effort and general diet. All his major biographers say so."  Also, your claim that "meat eating was of an infrequent, "cheating" variety and tapered off completely sometime during the mid-late 1930s" appears to be original research.  --Viriditas  | Talk 13:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, cites for claims please, and no original research. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory characterization of conflict 

message: As near as I can tell, User:Viriditas added the POV tag with the following issues:
*POV title
*omission of historical facts
*bias over anecdotal evidence
To which User:Wyss has added (current list)
*PoV suggestions that title is PoV
*distortion of anecdotal evidence
*bias over unrelated historical facts
*omission of chronology
*conflation of historical facts
*lack of context
*lack of historical balance
*failure to accurately represent the provenance and reliability of sources
I'm going to remove the "title" issues because I can't think how the article would be better titled. It seems to me like each source is cited and appropriately referenced. I would like to remove the POV tag and allow additional context and overview (which is what I think the article needs) to grow.
Demi T/C 23:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (I think what I've done still over-emphasizes whatever cheating went on) Wyss 00:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've read through the talk page and I think it's hard to follow, especially with several issues identified en masse. Can we tackle them one at a time, starting with the article title? I think Adolf Hitler's Diet (or Diet of Adolf Hitler) isn't as good because what's being discussed here is not his diet in general but specifically if he was vegetarian (which issue might even range outside diet). I don't think that having the article about the assertion here says that the assertion is true (just that it's the subject of the article, which it is). Demi T/C 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Adolf Hitler's medical health and notice how it is structured.  We don't have articles titled Cocaine addiction of Adolph Hitler or Methamphetamine addiction of Adolph Hitler or even Candy addiction of Adolph Hitler.  These topics are covered to some extent in Adolph Hitler's medical health, as they should be.  The current article is but a subset of Adolph Hitler's diet; once all the qoutes are moved to wikiquote and the main points are paraphrased--little will be left.  The main article should be appropriately titled, "Adolph Hitler's diet" as that is what is being discussed in the article; whether or not Hitler was a vegetarian can be determined by covering the topic of his diet throughout his life using the historical record as a guide.  The current title, "Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler" is a springboard for original research, as it introduces a theory, original ideas, new definitions of old terms and arguments without citing sources (see the present lead) which purport to refute or support the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian at some point in his life using contradictory anecdotal evidence.  I am presently unaware of any primary or secondary source that covers the topic of the Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler except to comment on specific dietary behavior that demonstrates a reduction of meat-intake in addition to continued consumption of animal products--this contradicts the definition of vegetarianism unless you redefine old terms without sources, and again, you're back to original research.  There are many other POV issues (such as the deliberate omission of competing POV's -- a violation of NPOV) but for the moment I am just addressing the title (I am adding the original research tag as well).  See also: Wikipedia:Naming conflict: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications."  Naming the article by the neutral and descriptive title "Adolph Hitler's diet" will help achieve consensus over the long-term and prevent edit wars; whether Hitler was or wasn't a vegetarian can be easily deduced from an examination of his diet.--Viriditas  | Talk 13:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How it is original research to state that he avoided meat in the '40s when numerous primary (Tabletalk) and secondary sources attest to this. Perhaps you should amend the template to indicate that you, personally, would prefer that Hitler had not avoided meat in the 1940s. More accurate. Likewise, numerous sources discuss Hitler's vegetarian habits qua vegetarian habits. If you would like to collate evidence and discussions of other aspects his life as well chronicled, I encourage you to do so. Babajobu 15:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment on the content of the article, rather than your beliefs about other editors. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, Babajobu's first sentence does refer to the content and explicitly references supporting cites (the article is replete with them by the way). Wyss 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The final two sentences of my comment also referred to the content of the article. Purged of references to other editors' POV, it reads: "How it is original research to state that he avoided meat in the '40s when numerous primary (Tabletalk) and secondary sources attest to this. Likewise, numerous sources discuss Hitler's vegetarian habits qua vegetarian habits. If you would like to collate evidence and discussions of other aspects his life as well chronicled, I encourage you to do so." Babajobu 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incidentally, Jayjg, funny that you were hardly so conscientious about such things when Viriditas and Slimvirgin were filling this talkpage with their thoughts on Wyss's motivation for editing this article. A simple oversight on your part, surely. Babajobu 17:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use the Talk: page to comment on the contents of the article, and not on other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In my humble and honest opinion, all of Babajobu's comments are related to content. Note that I have been directly attacked with utterly unfounded, personal political accusations on this page, repeatedly, to the point where I even considered referring the editor to RfC but I loathe the notion of using formal process to resolve disputes and issues. I also realize that this topic has the potential to bring out the worst in even sincere, good faith editors. Anyway the objectivity here has at times been zero. The intro is fully supported by the citations given in the article. I don't know if you've read them, if you haven't please do, thanks. Wyss 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppositions about what editors would "personally prefer" to have in the article, or comments about alleged "oversights" in "conscientiousness" can hardly be considered content-related. As well, if you can provide a specific citation for your thesis that Hitler "seems to have made consistent efforts to avoid it [meat] entirely after around 1940" please do so; otherwise it smacks of original research.  Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, if the evidence is overwhelming, the comment is acceptable. Also, I've been personally attacked (with wholly mistaken remarks) several times on this page. Finally, please tell me, have you read the citations I've mentioned? Please tell me yes or no, since they fully support the introductory text. If you have not read them, please do so. After I have recieved an acknowledgement from you that you have indeed read all the citations, if you have further questions of a specific nature, I'll then be happy to discuss specific points. Thanks. Wyss 18:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both the talk page and article are laced with citations of sources that claim Hitler was a vegetarian from 1931. The only evidence of exceptions to this vegetarianism pertains to the 1930s. Perhaps this is how it should be stated in the lead, to avoid allegations of OR. And I'm glad that Wyss is being lectured on the inappropriateness of making suppositions about editors' motivations. Because he has been subjected to incessant speculations about his motives for editing this article, and because no admins ever called anybody out on such suppositions, Wyss may have concluded that such behavior is perfectly acceptable. Glad we straightened him out on that one. Babajobu 16:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Truth be told, like most people, some editors and admins think they know what they're talking about when it comes to that charismatic genocidal sociopath Adolf Hitler, who in trying to follow his personal, mistaken notions for "saving the world" set Western civilization back at least a generation, but they don't. Stir in a wholly unsupported belief that the ingestion of a vegetarian diet (healthy as it is) has anything to do with an individual vegetarian's personal capacity for ethical behavior and compassion... and this talk page is the result. Wyss 16:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this talk page is about how to best represent the historical record according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Viriditas  | Talk 07:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My thoughts: Hitler considered himself a vegetarian. He was passionate about the benefits of his vegetarianism. This article is an examination of his vegetarianism. The title is the only possible choice for an article on this topic. Babajobu 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a silly conclusion.  The "only possible choice"?  IMO, one cannot understand the so-called "vegetarianism" of Hitler without examining his diet.  An article about Adolph Hitler's diet is neutral and "steers clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view...The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Quoted from: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Viriditas  | Talk 11:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The issues described above have not been resolved (as detailed in above sections) and the article would be more appropriately and inclusively titled Adolph Hitler's diet. --Viriditas  | Talk 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've read through the talk page and I think it's hard to follow, especially with several issues identified en masse. Can we tackle them one at a time, starting with the article title? I think Adolf Hitler's Diet (or Diet of Adolf Hitler) isn't as good because what's being discussed here is not his diet in general but specifically if he was vegetarian (which issue might even range outside diet). I don't think that having the article about the assertion here says that the assertion is true (just that it's the subject of the article, which it is). Demi T/C 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Adolf Hitler's medical health and notice how it is structured.  We don't have articles titled Cocaine addiction of Adolph Hitler or Methamphetamine addiction of Adolph Hitler or even Candy addiction of Adolph Hitler.  These topics are covered to some extent in Adolph Hitler's medical health, as they should be.  The current article is but a subset of Adolph Hitler's diet; once all the qoutes are moved to wikiquote and the main points are paraphrased--little will be left.  The main article should be appropriately titled, "Adolph Hitler's diet" as that is what is being discussed in the article; whether or not Hitler was a vegetarian can be determined by covering the topic of his diet throughout his life using the historical record as a guide.  The current title, "Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler" is a springboard for original research, as it introduces a theory, original ideas, new definitions of old terms and arguments without citing sources (see the present lead) which purport to refute or support the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian at some point in his life using contradictory anecdotal evidence.  I am presently unaware of any primary or secondary source that covers the topic of the Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler except to comment on specific dietary behavior that demonstrates a reduction of meat-intake in addition to continued consumption of animal products--this contradicts the definition of vegetarianism unless you redefine old terms without sources, and again, you're back to original research.  There are many other POV issues (such as the deliberate omission of competing POV's -- a violation of NPOV) but for the moment I am just addressing the title (I am adding the original research tag as well).  See also: Wikipedia:Naming conflict: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications."  Naming the article by the neutral and descriptive title "Adolph Hitler's diet" will help achieve consensus over the long-term and prevent edit wars; whether Hitler was or wasn't a vegetarian can be easily deduced from an examination of his diet.--Viriditas  | Talk 13:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: How it is original research to state that he avoided meat in the '40s when numerous primary (Tabletalk) and secondary sources attest to this. Perhaps you should amend the template to indicate that you, personally, would prefer that Hitler had not avoided meat in the 1940s. More accurate. Likewise, numerous sources discuss Hitler's vegetarian habits qua vegetarian habits. If you would like to collate evidence and discussions of other aspects his life as well chronicled, I encourage you to do so. Babajobu 15:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment on the content of the article, rather than your beliefs about other editors. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, Babajobu's first sentence does refer to the content and explicitly references supporting cites (the article is replete with them by the way). Wyss 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The final two sentences of my comment also referred to the content of the article. Purged of references to other editors' POV, it reads: "How it is original research to state that he avoided meat in the '40s when numerous primary (Tabletalk) and secondary sources attest to this. Likewise, numerous sources discuss Hitler's vegetarian habits qua vegetarian habits. If you would like to collate evidence and discussions of other aspects his life as well chronicled, I encourage you to do so." Babajobu 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incidentally, Jayjg, funny that you were hardly so conscientious about such things when Viriditas and Slimvirgin were filling this talkpage with their thoughts on Wyss's motivation for editing this article. A simple oversight on your part, surely. Babajobu 17:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use the Talk: page to comment on the contents of the article, and not on other editors. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: In my humble and honest opinion, all of Babajobu's comments are related to content. Note that I have been directly attacked with utterly unfounded, personal political accusations on this page, repeatedly, to the point where I even considered referring the editor to RfC but I loathe the notion of using formal process to resolve disputes and issues. I also realize that this topic has the potential to bring out the worst in even sincere, good faith editors. Anyway the objectivity here has at times been zero. The intro is fully supported by the citations given in the article. I don't know if you've read them, if you haven't please do, thanks. Wyss 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Suppositions about what editors would "personally prefer" to have in the article, or comments about alleged "oversights" in "conscientiousness" can hardly be considered content-related. As well, if you can provide a specific citation for your thesis that Hitler "seems to have made consistent efforts to avoid it [meat] entirely after around 1940" please do so; otherwise it smacks of original research.  Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, if the evidence is overwhelming, the comment is acceptable. Also, I've been personally attacked (with wholly mistaken remarks) several times on this page. Finally, please tell me, have you read the citations I've mentioned? Please tell me yes or no, since they fully support the introductory text. If you have not read them, please do so. After I have recieved an acknowledgement from you that you have indeed read all the citations, if you have further questions of a specific nature, I'll then be happy to discuss specific points. Thanks. Wyss 18:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both the talk page and article are laced with citations of sources that claim Hitler was a vegetarian from 1931. The only evidence of exceptions to this vegetarianism pertains to the 1930s. Perhaps this is how it should be stated in the lead, to avoid allegations of OR. And I'm glad that Wyss is being lectured on the inappropriateness of making suppositions about editors' motivations. Because he has been subjected to incessant speculations about his motives for editing this article, and because no admins ever called anybody out on such suppositions, Wyss may have concluded that such behavior is perfectly acceptable. Glad we straightened him out on that one. Babajobu 16:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Truth be told, like most people, some editors and admins think they know what they're talking about when it comes to that charismatic genocidal sociopath Adolf Hitler, who in trying to follow his personal, mistaken notions for "saving the world" set Western civilization back at least a generation, but they don't. Stir in a wholly unsupported belief that the ingestion of a vegetarian diet (healthy as it is) has anything to do with an individual vegetarian's personal capacity for ethical behavior and compassion... and this talk page is the result. Wyss 16:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this talk page is about how to best represent the historical record according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Viriditas  | Talk 07:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added POV title tag (and original research tag)

message: Okay, this started with some good discussion on the article title and then wandered from there. I'd like to attack each of the issues and eventually get to a point where we can remove the POV tag. So far, I and Viridatas have weighed in on the naming issue specifically. What are some other opinions and/or suggested approaches? Demi T/C 06:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts: Hitler considered himself a vegetarian. He was passionate about the benefits of his vegetarianism. This article is an examination of his vegetarianism. The title is the only possible choice for an article on this topic. Babajobu 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a silly conclusion.  The "only possible choice"?  IMO, one cannot understand the so-called "vegetarianism" of Hitler without examining his diet.  An article about Adolph Hitler's diet is neutral and "steers clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view...The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Quoted from: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Viriditas  | Talk 11:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: #History of meat eating: multiple, corroborating evidence for Hitler's love of liver dumplings, including Wagner's daughter and the head of the Gestapo, in addition to Hess.  There's also the WWI chronology (sausage eating), and a report of Hitler eating meat in his bunker the week he killed himself.
#Criticism of Hitler's vegetarianism: Berry, et al.
Why is this not in the article? WP:NPOV would seem to demand that it be there. Under which policy has it been excluded?  I was unable to find a specific policy reason for excluding this information in the discussions above. Jayjg (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WWI chronology is not in here because Hitler did not claim/attempt to be vegetarian until 1931 (except for a brief attempt in 1911). Is it not enough to mention that Hitler was a garden-variety meat eater until the death of his niece, or must we describe his menu at length during his full-blown carnivorous days? His love of dumplings is attested to...but are there multiple, corroborating pieces of evidence regarding his eating of dumplings in the 30s and 40s? Babajobu 21:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, yes. As an example, I've seen reports by Wagner's daughter, Hess, and Gestapo chief Rudolf Diels -- all attesting to dumpling consumption.  Regarding Berry (and other writers), I don't see any reason why they can't be added without giving undue attention to Payne. There's no reason to mention Payne, if that's a problem, however according to Robert N. Proctor, animal rights historians Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax appear to bolster some of Payne's claims.   I also want to point out that other vegetarian historians (Spencer) disagree with Berry.  There's really a lot missing from this article (including Fritz Redlich's contadictory description of Hitler as a "strict vegetarian" who eats meat in Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet; Michael Musmanno's portrayal of Hitler's meat consumption; and Proctor's description of Hitler's aversion to meat in the 1920's) concerning Hitler's diet in general, which leads me into the argument for changing the title, but I'll save that for another section, as I find its better to tackle one issue at a time.  In any case, I've added back in the POV tag. --Viriditas  | Talk 10:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mutiple independent accounts of dumplng consumption, yes. But do these accounts refer to the relevant timeframe, ie after 1931? Babajobu 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We disagree as to what the "relevant timeframe" is, as there is relevant pre-1931 content that needs to be added, such as the incident where Hitler scolded his date for ordering Wienerschnitzel in the 1920s.  As for when the dumpling consumption occurred, according to Wagner, Redlich, and Hess it was after 1931 (I assume the same for Diels, but don't know offhand). Your personal insistence on limiting the discussion of vegetarianism to specific dates appears to be an artificial restriction you are imposing on this article which prevents a balanced, historical presention of Hitler's diet which is accurately viewed as a historical continuum, rather than an isolated incident. --Viriditas  | Talk 11:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not think the article must be restricted to events after 1931. I've already cited Hitler's brief dalliance with vegetarianism in 1911 as something that should be included in the article. Also, any pre-1931 events that shed light on his motivation for attempting vegetarianism should also be included. However, with the exception of the 1911 attempt, Hitler *did not claim to be a vegetarian* before 1931. We can probably produce dozens of pages of accounts of his eating meat before 1931, because he did so almost every day. Imagine the lists we could produce!!! Not just liver dumplngs and ham, but chicken, fish, veal, meatballs, beef stew, chicken soup, sweetbread, vennison, beef sausages, chicken sausages, ground beef, catfish...and that's just a start! However, it is enough simply to state that Adolph Hitler was not a vegetarian at that time. Similarly, if we do end up creating a Vegetarianism of Albert Einstein article, we need not dwell endlessly on the contents of his meals in the many decades before he became a vegetarian. It will be enough simply to state that he was a meat-eater during those decades. Babajobu 12:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So far as I can tell, Viriditas wants to use the liver dumpling anecdotes, along with citing every possible documented reference to his meat eating with no regard to chronology, to exclude AH from being referred to as a vegetarian in this encyclopedia. Since most of his major biographers have described AH as a vegetarian, I suggest Viriditas is engaging in original research. However, according to WP policy, if Viriditas wants to cite some published "vegetarian historians," that's ok. Wyss 12:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have neither said nor implied anything of the sort.  Please refrain from wild speculation about my motives, assume good faith, and stick to the discussion at hand.  --Viriditas  | Talk 13:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Then you're ok with the existence of this article and its title? Wyss 13:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Jayjg, the involved timeframe is consequence of  the fact that everyone agrees that he regularly ate meat before 1931. Only then did he become, or claim to become, a vegetarian. This is why accounts of his meals in, say, 1924, are irrelevant: because we all know he consumed an endless laundry list of meat dishes at that time. Accounts of his eating meat after 1931 are very relevant because by then he was largely avoiding meat and claiming to be a vegetarian. Again, I offer this simple analogy: Einstein was only a veggie for the last couple years of his life. Would an article that examined his vegetarianism cite any of the countless instances of his eating meat prior to his vegetarian years as evidence that "Einstein was not a vegetarian"? I don't think so. Babajobu 22:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And I of course agree with you that we should cite reputable biographers of every position. Babajobu 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this article appears to be missing 

message: added the italicized comments to the article.  My  reasons for removal is stated as a response:
Much of the debate over Hitler's vegetarianism, or lack thereof, is fueled by idealogy rather than facts, primarily because its perceived implications.
:I don't see a citation for this claim.  The attempt by the user to frame this "debate" appears to be the users opinion. 
Individuals on both sides of vegetarian, vegan, and animal rights issues bring up Hitler, and as a result, the entire issue becomes extremely argumentative.
:That might be the opinion of the editor.  No cite, though.  
For example, according to the below-linked Slate article, activist Rynn Berry works to disprove Hitler's vegetarianism partly because his opponents point to Hitler's supposed vegetarianism to make his lifestyle look bad.
:This is a criticism made by one web author who admittedly hasn't read Berry's book.  This criticism is deceiving in a number of ways; first, it claims Berry is attempting to actively "disprove" Hitler's alleged vegetarianism, when all Berry appears to be doing is quoting historical sources regarding Hitler's diet; secondly, the editor attempts to portray Berry's argument as reductio ad Hitlerum which is a straw man.  Berry himself states that "hostile non-vegetarians" wondered why Berry didn't include Hitler in his book, Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes.  Berry's book is an attempt to answer this question. So, Berry's argument is not reductio ad Hitlerum as the editor/web critic claims.
Likewise, pro-hunting groups have pointed to Hitler's preoccupation with animal rights legislation in an attempt to link hunting foes with Nazism .
:Possibly true, but irrelevant to this article.
Whatever the case, such arguments are considered logical fallacies and ad hominen attacks.
:True, which is why I have removed them.--Viriditas  | Talk 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your removal of that content. Babajobu 18:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole thing is original research. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Idealogical considerations

message: While I understand the connection, it seems out of place.  The article only contains small portion at the end mentioning Hitler's interest in animal rights and no significant links.  Selecting this as one of the only two pictures displayed seems to imply it played a primary role.  It seems either the article should make more mention of it if it was really such a factor, or perhaps a better picture could be used.
Awesome picture as far as i'm concerned and super relevent, Hitler feeding a baby deer where do they get their stuff Rubedeau 07:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Hitler with a deer