Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Any added value?

Does this article have any added value or should it be merged back into Adolf Hitler? Andries 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. No it shouldn't. Paul B 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Adolph Hitler article is too long already.75.4.216.247 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Haffner quote

I have observed that a quote by Sebastian Haffner has been added and removed from both this article and the main article on Hitler. My take on this is that while Haffner is a reputable writer and quite quotable, the view expressed in this quoted is based on dated scholarship, as primarly expressed in the Hitler biography by Allan Bullock. From what we know today it can now longer be upheld. The only possibility of including it would be in a footnote about "misconceptions" alongside of Hitler the occultist, or Hitler the esotericist, or Hitler the neopagan, or Hitler the Catholic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

okay, I will not insert the quote by Haffner again. I have to accept your remark on faith, because I don't know enough about the subject. Andries 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that outdated views and popular misconceptions should be treated in Wikipedia, so if you have any source that rebuts Haffner then pleas re-add Haffner and that source. Andries 07:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Andries, for your message. I agree with you and don't object to including a treatment of the miscinception, at least not here in the "main article". We already have a small reference to another misconception (occultism) and we could expand on both. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of sourced material

Gio, could you please point out what "sourced material" you are talking about? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And while you're at it, Gio, could you explain why you "blind reverted" back to a section tag when this is an article, after I had explained that the tag was wrong in my previous edit summary? And could you explain why you reverted last night while ignoring the request for clarification on the talk page - considering one of your favourite edit summaries is "do not revert. Take it to talk" or a variation of that?

Now I don't have any particularly strong feelings about whether the tag should say accuracy and POV, or just POV, and if there is consensus that no tag is needed, then I'll go along with that. But if you are putting a tag at the top of an article, you have to use an article tag, and if you're putting it just at the top of a particular section, you have to use a section tag. It's sloppy editing to revert blindly (an expression you often use about your opponents) back to a section tag for an article, when the distinction has been brought to your attention, and it strongly suggests that you're so eager to have your own version (as regards content and POV) that you don't care about ordinary basic tidiness in editing. Please try to be more careful. AnnH ♫ 08:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Format of quotations

I've done some copyediting. In particular, there was a problem that a full stop was placed before a footnote, the footnote was added, and another full stop was placed after it. A few quotations had not been closed with quotation marks, etc.

Some quotations have are enclosed in <cite> </cite> tags, which seem, according to my eye, to change them into italics but not to do anything else. I don't see any reason to have some quotations in italics and some not. Actually, I don't see any reason to have any quotations in italics. We've already had problems (in the Hitler article from which this section comes) with someome putting quotations that implied that Hitler was a fervent Christian in block quotes, and leaving the quotations that implied he was anti-Christian embedded in the text where they wouldn't look so obvious, and later saying that was done according to the length of each quotation (a claim which was refuted by a simple word count). I don't see a pattern in other articles of quotations being in italics.

I'm going to change all of the quotations to plain text (i.e. not italics). Long quotations can, of course, go in block quotes, regardless of which POV they support. Unrelated to the issue of format is the use of the word "deplored" in the last sentence. I propose changing that to "rejected". "Deplored" suggests shock and anger at the fact that this idea existed, rather than simply rejection of the idea. If I'm mistaken in this (as I don't know whether Hitler condemned the idea that Nazism was a religion, or the the idea that anyone would think it was), please change it back. AnnH ♫ 09:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

Some recent changes have messed up the structure a bit. Hence I am reverting them, trying to retain copy-edits.

I also move the following stuff over here, as it doesn't fit well where it was placed:

In the Hossbach Memorandum Hilter is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you would prefer to keep factually inaccurate material which suits your beliefs, rather than accurate material that "messes up the structure a bit"? O tempora o mores. I will attempt to integrate accuracy and flow. Paul B 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger?

Gentlemen, please try and keep a cool head! This is not about what content is the "correct" content. This is merely a discussion about where the content should be located. If we want it as a separate page, then we should summarize and let it be a separate page, and we can discuss and NPOV it there. If not, we should change that page to a redirect and keep the content on the Hitler page. Personally, I think the Hitler article is getting a bit long, so I think we should have the separate article, at least for now. That way, the discussion you two are having can be focused on a talk page specifically designed for it, and other Hitler issues can be discussed on the main talk page. Themillofkeytone 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mill, thanks for your message. Sure, I agree with you. For me, the issue was merely that you thought the merger accomplished and removed the tags. You were right at that moment, but when the content of the Hitler article was changed, this changed. I also agree about cutting the section in the Hitler article while giving a comprehensive treatment in the Religious Views article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I oppose a merger because Hitler's religious beliefs were a side-issue in his life. Only a short summary of this article should appear in in the article Adolf Hitler. In contrast Adolf Hitler's military leadership, anti-semitism, youth private life, political views, and speeches are not side issues. Andries 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have particularly strong feelings about it, but I think it's probably better to have a short section in the main article and to refer readers to this article. For one thing, that section in the main article has been the subject of a lot of edit warring, with one editor in particular determined to portray Hitler as a devout Catholic (even adding the completely POV, completely OR and completely unverified claim that Hitler, as a child, received the sacraments "devoutly"). That would be one reason not to have the long section in the main article, as an edit war over a widely-read article is worse than one over a fork. (Ideally, of course, there shouldn't be edit wars at all.) Also, there were complaints at the main article talk page that the section on his religious beliefs was longer than the parts devoted to the Holocaust. So my feeling would be that we should keep it here. (That said, I've just reverted a drive-by removal of the section from the main article by an anon who had been disrupting talk pages. Or, to be more accurate, I restored this version, as we seem to be getting some kind of consensus now. AnnH ♫ 07:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is superflous and should be merged back with [Adolf Hitler]. Having it as a sperate article is useful given the level of controversy and editing surrouding the topic. However once a version had can be agreed upon is reached - it should be merged back.

settlement, changes

This version is not bad. I made some minor tweaks with the main change being to this part, which I'd like to see the exact wording that states such a of fact in these strong terms: "After he had left home, he completely stopped attending mass." Instead I wrote in: "After he had left home, he did not regularly mass, and my have stopped altogether." [3] I believe the latter is more in keeping with what the source actually reports, but I welcome you to quote the author and lets see what he actually says so as to support our wording on this point. The other things I removed was the little lecture on the Catholic church's requirements for attending mass on holidays, etc. This is off topic and its pushing a POV for the reader. If the reader wants to know about the requirements according to the Catholic church, they can find out. This article should talk only about Hitlers religous views and his practices--not what the Catholic church says aobut its own requirements for being a good practicing Catholic. With the minor changes I've made, I removed the dipute POV tag. I also made some minor language improvements, which you can review. Overall the article is not bad, and the integration of the MK quotes is good. Until I comprare it and re-read the other version I'm not sure which one is better, yet.Giovanni33 05:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, I am glad to view a new, positive approach. However, I still had to do some tweaks on your last edits:

• The change you explained above about attending mass goes too far. The former version better reflects what the sources tell us, that Hitler stopped attending Mass (or other sacraments) - there is evidence for that, there is no evidence countering that, and it fits well with his overall attitude during his entire adult life. Your version introduced doubt where there is no reasonable doubt.
• I don't mind cutting down the longish explanation of the Church's requirements (put there originally because of Drogo's objections) but I think a minimum should be retained.
• I reverted your inclusion of "alleged" in the private statements passage - the statements are not "alleged": though some individual quotes might be disputed, the overall package is not (or are you saying that Hitler had no private conversations in his life time?)- what might be disputed is the conclusions drawn from that, which is what the sentence says. Putting in "alleged" next to "disputed" is really overdoing it in one (your) direction.

The rest seems allright at first glance. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed there are several missing quotes and thoughts from this version when compared to the other version. I'd like to see those sourced comments from those historians given a voice in the article, and yes, that does include their own speculation, and Todland's statment on the subject.Giovanni33 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, in removing the reference to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "practising", you completely messed up the footnotes. You have to close the tags with </ref>. I have not restored the OED definition, as the article no longer uses the word "practising", so there is no need to justify the use of the word. (Actually, there never was any need, as we were using it according to the standard, traditional meaning, unlikely to be disputed by anyone other than those who had an agenda of portraying Hitler as devout and practising.) However, I have restored the reference to Church law, which is based on fact, and is certainly not pushing a POV. Obviously, if you want to portray Hitler's life and actions as being in somre way compatible with Christianity, you won't want the reader to know that he lived in violation of Church law, but suppressing that is simply pushing your POV (like inserting a claim that he received the sacraments "devoutly"). If we have an article devoted to Hitler's religious beliefs, and we mention the fact that he did not attend Mass or receive the sacraments after he left home, we at least owe it to the reader to inform him that this was in violation of the laws of the Church that Hitler had been baptized into. After all, many Protestant religions do not require Church attendance every Sunday, so you could be a "good" Protestant and stay at home on many Sundays, but still pray and read the Bible. Therefore, it's necessary to inform the reader that this does not apply to Catholics. I know many lapsed Catholics who are delightful people, and whom I respect a lot; but they are not living a life consistent with the laws of the Church. Nor do they pretend to be — like Hitler, they disagree with what the Church says. AnnH ♫ 08:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I have no problem with that in the footnotes. I just don't think it should be in the main article since this is about Hitler's religious beliefs, not Catholic laws of the Church--unless we have a source that makes this point about Hitler. If readers want to know about how Catholic church law, I'd hope there is an article that covers the subject. Hitler's religious beliefs are Hitler's religious beliefs and they are complicated. Lets keep the article space on that subject, and notes about the fact that his practices entailed violations of Church law, the the footnote, if you feel its important. I don't wish to portray Hitler in any other way than to give a full picture of all that is known based on reputable sources. I do not believe in pushing a POV, only NPOV. I understand this is a touchy subject as modern Christianity is rightfully embarrassed by Hitler being a Christian and Christianity being compatible with fascism and Nazism, so I understand the emotional needs on the part of some editors close to the subjects. Also, to the extend that Hitler did not follow Church law, this should also be sourced, based on what the sources actually say on the matter. I know Str cited a source before, but I recall Drogo looking up that source and showing it was not quite what Str extrapolated from it. We should be careful abide by verification and not engage in any kind of complicated inferences which can boarder on original research and POV pushing. Also, isn't saying "absolute minimum" redundant? A minimum already sets the low limit, its minimum. What does "absolute" add to this? Giovanni33 08:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitler, the Nazi Party and Atheism

"Hitler was virulently opposed to state atheism (anti-religiosity) of the Soviet Union, but he also desired a religiously neutral state system, at least during the years of his dictatorship. Nevertheless within his Nazi Party some atheists were quite vocal. Especially Baldur von Schirach, Arthur Axmann and Martin Bormann were known as atheists, even though von Schirach during the Nuremberg Trials declared himself to have never been one, while admitting to his, allegedly private, aversion from Christian Churches. Bormann once was even criticized by Joseph Goebbels for his constant attacks against the pro-Nazi Evangelical Lutheran Churches of Germany, a thing which Goebbels considered inopportune and even dangerous during the war. From Hitler's toleration of declared atheists within his party, can be concluded, that Hitler in the public realm accepted different religious opinions, ranging from atheist to Islamic, as long as those adhering to these different creeds would support the regime."

I move this to talk as it is mostly not about Hitler's religius views. It also contains obscure wordings like "opposed to state atheism (anti-religiosity of the Soviet Union", when the facts are that he was opposed to Marxism (which including atheism). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I will reinsert it with other wording. It is relevant, as Hitler was the Nazi Party and the Nazi Party was Hitler. There is no need to delete it. Hitler was opposed to the principle of state atheism, but not to private atheists. That is important to note.Smith2006 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smith, maybe you could care to offer at least a single argument? I see none, except that the Nazi Party was Hitler, which is not the case. The one was a political group and the other was a man. A man can have religious views, a party cannot. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was the party and vice-versa. Hitler controlled his party totally until April, 1945. The way in which he handled religion or atheism within the party, tell us important things and nuances about his personal spirituality and opinion on religion. That is why it fits into the article totally. I will re-insert it. Please explain first, why you think it does NOT say anything about Hitler personally. I think it does. I have not described the Nazi Party, but the way in which Hitler and his followers treated e.g. atheism.Smith2006 10:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smith,

No, Hitler was not the party (no matter that Rudolf Hess said that in "Triumph of the Will", but he also equated Hitler and Germany), though he was in control.

If you think it relevant than strip it down to what is relevant to our topic which is Hitler the man and his beliefs.

To call Hitler a pluralist (whatever that means) of any sort is definitely contrafactual. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Smith, I think what Str1977 is trying to suggest by his edits to this article is that Hitler was personally much more anti-religious than the policies of the Nazi party would lead you to believe, but that Hitler-and-friends felt they had to appease the religious sentiments of the public to rise to power. His speeches are reliable sources, but may differ from his private beliefs (though private sources sometimes conflict and are hard to verify). I can't say whether Str1977's characterisation of Hilter is both accurate and complete. But the person/party distinction is informative and I think he's right to separate the two, or at least to not confuse them. -Andrew Delong 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Links

The issue of links has been discussed extensively on the main Adolf Hitler page. The three links I've removed all fail to meet the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. The issues discussed in the websites in question are covered in more reliable way in Steigmann-Gall's book, for example. Bytwerk 12:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Albert Speer

I removed Albert Speers quote from the "private statements" section as it appeared to be speer expressing his personal distaste of Christianity and is irrelevant to an article on Hitler's religious beliefs.

I have restored it. Speer was reporting what Hitler said to him, or at least what he claims Hitler said. Paul B 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where can these quotes fit in?

From http://www.runestone.org/lep4.html

• "It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan [father of the gods in the German lore]. Our old mythology ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund." - Hitler's Table Talk, page 61

• "The characteristic thing about these people [modern-day followers of the early Germanic religion] is that they rave about the old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack." - Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf

Please see a lot more here: http://www.runestone.org/lep4.html as this is important information. A LOT more information can be found at the Wikipedia project 'Germanic Mysticism, Revivalism and Nazism' Hope this is of some help. FK0071a 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Section: Hitler and Christianity's future

The below section I removed. It stands out from the rest of the article in that its speculations stated as facts, and non-attributed. This might be the opinion of a scholar, but it is by no means an accepted fact or consensus among others. Therefore, if it is to be included it must be properly done, ie. "according to...' and then state his theory. Also, the scholar who presents this must be reputable and this POV must be a significant one. I'd like to see the sources in English and the credencials of the author, and quotes about exactlly what he says, as well as what others in the field have to say about him and these speculations. Finally, they must be stated with the proper neutral, encylopedic language. The way its done below, reads as if its an established and authoritative account of the plans Hitler had all mapped out, and does so in the language of a polemic, a debate, i.e. 'and even the smallest influence of the Catholic..." This is not appropriate language and stands out in stark contrast to the tone of the rest of the article. As for its claims, unfortunately, the record is not at all so clear.Giovanni33 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hitler already had plans for the Roman Catholic Church, according to which the church was supposed to "eat from the hands of the government." As a first step Hitler wanted to force German Catholics to abolish priestly celibacy and accept a nationalisation of all church property, as had happened in France in 1905. After the "Final Victory" of National Socialism, all monastic orders and religious congregations were to be dissolved, and even the smallest influence of the Catholic Church upon education of children was to be forbidden. Hitler proposed to reduce vocations to the priesthood by forbidding seminaries from receiving applicants before their 25th birthdays, hoping that these men would marry beforehand, during the time (18 - 25 years) in which they were obliged to work in military or labour service. Along with this process, the Church's sacraments would have to be revised and changed to so-called "Lebensfeiern", non-Christian celebrations of different periods of life.

The aim was slowly to dismantle the institutions of the Catholic Church and fit the institution itself into a new National Socialist German state religion, because Hitler still firmly believed, that religion and belief in God was something "the simple people need." But since the "laws of evolution" - upon which a new religion would have to be founded - were not yet precisely researched, according to Hitler, it was decided to keep these changes and laws on hold, pending the final victory. Hitler and Goebbels also recognised that such changes might create a third front of Catholics against their regime in Germany itself. Nevertheless in his diary Goebbels openly wrote about the "traitors of the Black International who again stabbed our glorious government in the back by their criticism", by which he meant the indirectly or actively resisting Catholic clergymen (who wore black cassocks).

I don t care you do not know Dr. Huerten and other German historians. The statements are sourced and sources can be checked. Replaced them. Whoever removes them again (they are referenced!) will be reported to wikipedia moderators.Smith2006 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Given your own statements pro-Communism, I conclude you want to throw National Socialists (including Hitler) and „reactionaries” (e.g. Catholic Church) upon one hill of dung, but that cannot be tolerated here. These sections were proven by quotations.Smith2006 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33 is vandalizing the article by removing sourced statements by German historians on Hitler and his plans for the Catholic Church after the Endsieg. He repeats these statements are unsourced, in fact references have been provided, including pages etc. etc. That he refuses to acknowledge these statements are made by professors from universities, does not make them worthless. Please watch that these sections are kept in the article. Communist re-editing of articles cannot be tolerated, neither can Nazi, Neonazi, or ultraliberal statements be tolerated. But historians must be quoted, not deleted just because some user does not like their conclusions.Smith2006 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who is removing your these additions that you are pasting here and elsewhere. For example: 14:55, 23 January 2007 Andrew Delong (Talk | contribs) (rv original research -- doesn't follow that he had "no attachment"; overly strong and speculative statement). Besides being original research, which is not allowed, one is presenting pov's as undisputed facts, which is also not allowed. For example, you keep adding in:"Despite the unclear position of Hitler's public speeches on religion, it may be concluded from his self-chosen suicide, that he had no attachment to Roman Catholic, and general Christian, teachings on morality which forbid suicide in all cases," Notice that you are jumping to a conclusion for the reader when you say, "it may be concluded from his..."This is creating a synthesis and pushing a POV. Its not an uncontested fact. Also, we have the problem of undue weight from this minority views. The view is presented as if it were the only view and given full weight when this pov does not reflect consensus on the question. The other big problem is that it does not use neutral language, as explained above. You can never present a speculative theory, even if it is from a legitimate source as a fact, nor can you include a source's POV as representing the truth in the matter unless it clearly is the consensus among historians in the academy. Surely, if this is the case, you can find other sources to collaborate these claims, or even quote exactly what this author says, and prove his qualifications to speak so authoritatively on the matter? A google search does not yeild anything. We only want the best scholars/historians in the field to represent their work, unless this is an article on the scholar in question--then we can focus on his POV/theories, but with proper qualification. Also, don't forget this has to do with Hitler's personal belief system, not the plans the Nazi's may have had. Lastly, please review Civil, as you are violating it here with your red-baiting and calling my edits vandalism. Your talking about who can be tolerated and not (ultraliberal? hehe), is your own view but they are not policy here. Infact, you can be blocked for these violations.Giovanni33 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fuhrerbunker art/Murals

Codex, I find your edit-warring and paranoid edit-summaries to be deeply unhelpful. If you know anything about the history of art you will know that Greco-Roman pagan imagery was extremely common in palace decoration since the Renaissance. Go to Versailles and you would get the impression that Louis XIV worshipped Apollo rather than Jesus. By the nineteenth century it was increasingly common to replace generic "classical" pagan imagery with nationalistic imagery. There are numerous 19th century German palaces that contain imagery derived from Germanic myth. The palaces of Ludwig II of Bavaria are a well-known example. They have almost no value as evidence concerning anyone's religious beliefs. Since no-one actually thinks that Hitler believed in the existence Valkyries the argument in this paragraph is really rather absurd. Paul B 13:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Paranoid" is just another of your unsubstantiated POVs, since I am not paranoid of anything. I just don't like seeing evidence suppressed because it's so obvious you don't want to bring attention to this. (and they aren't MURALS, that is a totally misleading header for this conversation, they are fully GRAVEN images). Contradicting what you said, there was massive speculation during his early years that he did indeed take the Germanic mythology seriously. I should probably add these quotes as cited references. Whenever you try to quietly take attention away from something, those tactics usually backfire on wikipedia, because the more you persist, the more I will bring it TO the attention of more editors and readers to get some more opinions, probably the exact opposite of what you wanted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want it here because I think it is a silly and irrelevant argument that weakens the article. Whether they are murals, or sculptures or easel paintings is irrelevant (I have seen reproductions of some murals that were in the Fuhrerbunker). By all means bring it to the attention of as many editors as you want. And no, it is well known that Hitler did not take Germanic mythology seriously, unlike some other Nazis. He repeatedly ridiculed the believers in "Odinism". Paintings of Wagnerian subjects and Germanic myth were commonplace from the 19th century on. There are "fully GRAVEN images" of cupids in buildings all over Europe. Does that mean their makers were all neo-pagans. Paul B 13:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have some information about Hitler ridiculing Odinism, that should definitely be added to the article, preferably a firstahnd quote from him. I have several quotes from others who were his contemporaries who thought he believed in it, I say bring it all on. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in Mein Kampf and in virtually every serious book on Hitler you can find. Yes, there are numerous worthless "Occult Nazi" books of pop-history, but serious scholars don't given them the time of day. It's also worth adding that this section is completely unreferenced. You know - William Ewart Gladstone had a sculpture of himself with a relief (graven image!) of Athena on the bottom of it.[1] It would be absurd to put that in his article and use it as evidence that he was a Pagan. I know that Fundamentalist Christians love the idea that Hitler was a secret occult-loving worshipper of demonic forces, but the truth is far far more complex than that. Paul B 14:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it must be complex, because the quote from Mein Kampf actually given in the article does not support what you say, but supports what I say. You have dismissed my sources as "Occult Nazi" books without even knowing what they are, so stay tuned and I will be back with more quite soon. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What sources? The reference to Mein Kampf in the article actually states that it was necessary for Christianity to replace Paganism, a statement Hitler also makes elsewhere. His other comments about Islam and Japanese culture clearly indicate that he had no actual "theology", but looked at choosing religions in the way you might look at choosing suits. Here are some of the relevant quotations. This webite is biassed against Christianity, but the quotations are accurate.[2]. Here is Elst, the pro-Hindutva writer, on the subject [3]. The problem with online material on this is that it's not very reliable. Many authors are just concerned with point scoring for or against particular beliefs by using Hitler, others are just sensationalistic stuff for lovers of "secret occult forces" etc etc. The best recent book is Steigmann-Gall's. Paul B 14:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I think I've waited long enough for these sources. Let's summarise:

1. No source is given for these claims about the presence of "numerous motifs from Germanic mythology, such as ornately carved Valkyries", nor can I find any. There are several photographs of Hitler's various offices and private residences. None show evidence of any such motifs. The only clear evidence of art in the bunker that I know of are the semi-amateur murals in parts of the bunker occupied by SS troops.[4], [5],

2. If he did have such images what would it prove? I have already provided an example of a well-known evangelical Christian politician (Gladstone) who had the goddess Athena depicted on a statue of himself. It was there because he admired Homer. Hitler admired Wagner, so it would be unsurprising if he had images of characters from Wagner. As the valkyrie page shows, such images were common at the time, unrelated to religious beliefs.

3. Pagan images have been part of decorative art culture in palaces for centuries (obviously the bunker is hardly a palace, but it was a state building). Germanic mythology was increasingly popular for nationalistic reasons from the mid-Nineteenth century on. Again, this is usually unrelated to religious affiliation. Paul B 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems from this that Codex claims some personal knowledge of the content of the bunker: "I have seen the photographic proof that it was totally filled with carvings of valkyries and Odin, etc... I'm not talking about snapshots, I'm talking about albums published by the Nazis themselves, full of pictures of the interior". What these mysterious "albums" are remains unexplained, nor why they would "publish" pictures of the interior of a secret bunker. This claim also seems to contradict what other sources state about the contents of the bunker. However, it is known that Hitler had lots of material from Bayreuth in the bunker, including the original scores of Wagner's operas, all of which went missing after the war - looted no doubt. Perhaps these albums relate to productions of Wagner, but until we know what they are the reference must surely go. Paul B 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

The above site is an example of a bad one. It's collected a range of images, then used them to support an argument that they often simply do not support. For example, take the images purporting to show a Nazi love of Christmas. The Nazis actually de-Christianized Christmas, a task made easier by the German term, which avoids any reference to Christ (Weihnacht). For example, before the war, Nazi propagandists discussed how to transform Christmas from a Christian to a Nazi holiday (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/feier37.htm). During the war, they produced annual booklets to help Germans celebrate Christmas. None of them made any mention at all of the Christian aspects of Christmas. See, for example, the booklet for Christmas 1944 (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/weihnacht44.htm).

Paul B is right. Steigmann-Gall is the most reliable recent source on the matter. He makes his case more strongly than I think entirely justified, but at least he does it based on evidence and careful argument. Bytwerk 12:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Gunther on Hitler's "Religious" beliefs

American John Gunther visited Europe before the war during Hitler's early years and was uniquely in a position to comment on what was know about the man. He devoted much of his bestseller book "Inside Europe" to Hitler and several pages (pp. 9-11) to his religious agenda.

"He was born and brought up a Roman Catholic. But he lost faith early and attends no religious services of any kind. His Catholicism means nothing to him... On being formed his government almost immediately began a fierce religious war against Catholics, Protestants, and Jews alike...

Catholicism he considered a particularly dangerous competitive force, because it demands two allegiances of a man, and double allegiance was something Hitler could not countenance. Thus the campaign against "black moles," as Nazis call priests. Several times German relations with the Vatican neared the breaking point. Protestantism was --theoretically-- a simpler matter to deal with, because the Lutheran Church presumably was German and nationalist. Hitler thought that by the simple installation of an army chaplain, a ferocious Nazi named Mueller, as Reichbishop, he could "coordinate" the Evangelical Church in Germany, and turn it to his service. ..

It was quite natural, following the confused failure to Nazify Protestatism, that some of Hitler's followers should have turned to Paganism. The Norse myths are a first-class nationalist substitute. Carried to its logical extreme, Naziism in fact demands the creation of a new and nationalist religion. Hitler has indicated this in a speech at Nuremberg in September, 1935. "Christianity," he said, "succeeded for a time in uniting the old Teutonic tribes, but the Reformation destroyed this unity. Germany is now a united nation. National Socialism has succeeded where Christianity failed." And Heiden has quoted Hitler's remark, "We do not want any other God than Germany itself." This is a vital point. Germany is Hitler's religion.

One of Hitler's grudges against God is the fact that Jesus was a Jew. Another is a nationalist grudge again. The basis of the Nazi revolution was the defeat of Germany in the War. Thus religion had to be Nazified because no God who permitted the French and other "inferior" races to win the War could be a satisfactory God for Germany...

I have several other pre-war sources that address this same topic, including some written by German authors, but this should be enough fodder material for the article for now...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody disputes the assertion that "Germany is Hitler's religion". There is nothing whatever here to support your claims. All it says is that some of Hitler's followers turned to Paganism. Again, no one disputes that. Paul B 21:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Which of my "claims" are you referring to? I am only submitting this excerpt as material to shed some light on the subject in general... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so disingenuous. Paul B 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Heiden on Hitler's religious beliefs

Hitler's biographer, German Konrad Heiden also has some relevant comments in his book Der Fuehrer: (p.632-633)

"...Many insisted that German religion free itself from the Jewish Biblical tradition -- from 'Satan's Bible', as Hitler eleven years before, in a conversation with Dietrich Eckart, had called the Old Testament... Hitler himself in his youth, as he told his friend Hanisch, had been convinced that the hisotrical Jesus had been no Jew, but the son of one Pantherus, a Greek soldier in the Roman army...

...in March, 1933, it is true, he had demonstratively remained absent from the services of his Church; there was the story that in his youth he had spat out the Host... At all events, on July 1 he let it be officially proclaimed: "Reich Chancellor Hitler still belongs to the Catholic Church and has no intentions of leaving it."

p. 637: ...At this point, open warfare broke out between the Church and the Party. Almost anything might have provoked it, for these were two faiths which could not live at peace with one another. The most obvious cause was the racial question, for the German Christians had demanded that only Aryans be admitted to the Church... The Church as such could not renounce these people, for Christ had said: "Ye shall teach all nations."... In the Protestant Church the German Christians, with their insistence on the introduction of the "Aryan clause" into the articles of faith, stood two thousand years of church history on its head. For the history of the Christian Church had begun with the principle that all Christians must be circumcised Jews, and only when this principle was discarded did Christianity begin to grow and to "teach all nations"; now, in 1933, it was no longer permissible for a Christian to have been a circumcised Jew. When Bodelschwingh and his clergymen resisted this idea... High and low clergymen were thrown out. Muller was made head of the Protestant churches, and Bodelschwingh was forced to resign. On July 2, 1933, the swastika flags were raised over the Evangelical churches of Germany.

I am giving these excerpts in hopes they may give some clearer picture from a contemporary source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all very well known information. The question is, how it supposed to affect the content of the article, which is about Hitler's personal beliefs, not the details of Nazi attempts to extend their anti-Semitic legislation to the Protestant churches and to unite them under the leadership of the Nazi Lutheran Ludwig Müller. We have other articles for that issue. Paul B 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviews of Steigmann-Gall

For those interested, the January 2007 issue of the Journal of Contemporary History has five extensive reviews of Steigmann-Gall's "The Holy Reich." The reviews find interesting things in his analysis, but the balance is that he considerably overstates the connections of Nazism and Christianity. The first review, Stanley Stowers, is the most favorable. He concludes:

Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich provides a clear alternative to vague ideas about an incoherent religion of National Socialism that arose due to the spiritual vacuum of modernity and tried to replace Christianity. Instead of symbols and rituals that work in mysterious ways and language that does not mean what it seems to mean, "The Holy Reich" shows that the dominant portion of the nazi leadership held familiar Christian beliefs with their own distinctive interpretations of some points.

Doris Bergen likes some of what Steigmann-Gall does, but also finds a lot of problematic points.

Manfred Gailus doesn't like the book at all, finding it riddled with factual errors and misinterpretations. A typical comment:

As so often in his expositions, he carries his thesis too far and tends to extrapolate National Socialism as a whole from its partial reality .

Ernst Piper finds Steigmann-Gall ignorant of a lot of the important literature, and concludes:

He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement.

Irving Hexham takes S-G to task for misuse of sources. Commenting on S-G's use of Alfred Rosenberg, for example, Hexham writes:

It is here that Steigmann-Gall's approach fails. Rather than enabling the reader to understand how and why people accepted nazi logic he dismisses it as illogical and vainly seeks an alternative explanation that leads him to deny that anyone could possibly have read Rosenberg's work.

Steigmann-Gall will respond to the reviews in the next issue of the journal. Should be interesting.

The reviews provide one of the better examples of scholarly controversy I've seen lately, and those who have been active in the discussions here might find the issue worth the time to exhume from the nearest academic library. Bytwerk 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems worth looking at, but I don't recall anywhere in the book in which S-G says that "National Socialism was a Christian movement". Paul B 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

changes by User:Giovanni33

I reverted these changes because he has been repeatedly reverted on this issue and he is removing sourced information, which is not original research. Vassyana 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who is removing these additions or think it is OR. Many of the statments are not sourced, nor it is shown that the supposed and questionable sources are saying what is being claimed. For example: 14:55, 23 January 2007 Andrew Delong (Talk | contribs) (rv original research -- doesn't follow that he had "no attachment"; overly strong and speculative statement).

For example:"Despite the unclear position of Hitler's public speeches on religion, it may be concluded from his self-chosen suicide, that he had no attachment to Roman Catholic, and general Christian, teachings on morality which forbid suicide in all cases," Notice that you are jumping to a conclusion for the reader when you say, "it may be concluded from his..." This is creating a synthesis and pushing a POV. Its not an uncontested fact. Also, what source says this?!

Besides being original research, which is not allowed, its presenting a pov's as undisputed facts, which is also not allowed. Also, we have the problem of undue weight from this minority views. The view is presented as if it were the only view and given full weight when this pov does not reflect consensus on the question. The other big problem is that it does not use neutral language, as explained above. You can never present a speculative theory, even if it is from a legitimate source as a fact, nor can one relay on a source's POV as representing the truth in the matter unless it clearly is the consensus among historians in the academy. Surely, if this is the case, one should be able to find other sources to collaborate these claims, or even quote exactly what this author says, and prove his qualifications to speak so authoritatively on the matter? A google search does not yeild anything. We only want the best scholars/historians in the field to represent their work, unless this is an article on the scholar in question--then we can focus on his POV/theories, but with proper qualification. Also, don't forget this has to do with Hitler's personal belief system, not the plans the Nazi's may have had.Giovanni33 21:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"A google search does not yield anything". Really? Heinz Hutzen is professor emeritus of modern history at the Catholic University of Eichstaett. He is clearly an important historian, not a nobody. Equally clearly, he is a Catholic apologist. Paul B 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and removing sourced material along with unsourced material is not the way to go. I am going to change the article back again. There is clear disapproval from multiple editors about your removal of this material. If you disagree, please focus on editing the unsourced comments and rephrasing improper language. If you disagree more strongly than that, please go for an RfC or mediation. Vassyana 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Future of the Catholic Church

Rather than engaging in an edit war, let's take a straw poll to see where people stand. It is not a replacement for consensus and discussion, but can give everyone a clear view of where people stand. Please vote Support, Neutral or Oppose under the appropriate option. Please keep any comments to the dicussion section for clarity. Vassyana 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Question: Should the Future of the Catholic Church section be removed from this article?

Option 1: Yes

1. Strong Support

Option 2: No

1. Weak Support

Discussion

• It has citations. It seems relevent to the topic. Needs some cleanup. Quotes from sources would be desirable. Citation from a critical view of this position would be desirable. Cleanup, not removal is the answer, in my opinion. Vassyana 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm for keeping what is good, but the clean up that is needed is not minor and thus it should be removed until its cleaned it. The sources do not support all the statments it makes, nor does it makes it an a way that is neutral, nor does it respect the policy of no OR as it draws conclusions baased on synthesis. It violates NPOV as it states POV's as facts, and the claims attributed to various sources must be verifiable and from sources that represent an accepted POV among historians. Lastly, and this is a reason not to keep it here at all is that this is about the future of the Catholic Church under Nazi Germany, and this article is about Hitler's personal religious beliefs. It does not belong here. It belongs on Nazism and Religion where it was copied and pasted from--unless this article is going to argue that Goebbels beliefs on religious matters are identical to Hitler's? Giovanni33 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with both comments above, as far as they go. However, I do think we can retain a reference to this in this article (the fuller treatment would be in the Nazism and Religion article, where I might add it's not merely "Hitler and ..."), as such plans are also indicative of Hitler's beliefs. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have no objection to the inclusion of a discussion of plans for the future following the "final victory", if they can be usefully linked to Hitler himself, but we have to be clear about the sources, and that theories are not facts. I really don't think we should be including the fact that he shot himself. Lots of Christians and non-Christians have killed themselves. It was a part of the Prussian military tradition for disgraced or defeated leaders to do so. Also, even the principal Nazi Christian Ludwig Müller shot himself. It would be like adding to the Roosevelt article the claim that he can't have been a Christian because he had an affair. Paul B 11:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Just a quick addition to Paul: that Hitler shot himself may not conflict with Christianity in general, as understood at the time or today, but it conflicts with any supposed Catholic faith. The Prussian military and its code was Protestant in nature. Of course, it shouldn't be overdone but it is IMHO a sensible point. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I generally watch this article to learn things, so I'm in no position to contribute, but the "Hitler's suicide speaks against his Catholic faith" argument bugs be precisely for the reason PaulB mentioned. It's like saying a woman's faith in Islam is "questionable" if she doesn't wear the hijab, or that a Catholic person's faith is questionable if they don't fight against the death penalty. Even if this kind of speculation were from a historian it wouldn't merit inclusion here; the article cites lots of better evidence that his religious convictions were ... clouded. --Andrew Delong 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• You may not be aware of this, that suicide is a mortal sin in the Catholic religion and that its handlung was way much much more strict in Hitler's day. A suicide never received a proper burial and was commonly seen as hellbound as one could get. To compare it with mere clothing regulations and Islam in general (note, this is not about Christianity in general) is fallacious. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that, but it's beside the point. I don't think Hitler's Catholicism was anything more than nominal of course, but the fact is that even members of the Mafia think of themselves as "Catholics". How can one be a Catholic and a Hit Man? I don't know, but some people convince themselves that they can. Likewise, overwhelming despair, guilt, fear of humiliation can overcome someone's belief system leading to suicide. Several Catholic Priests accused of child abuse have committed suicide[6] Does this mean that the priests weren't really Catholics? Paul B 17:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not want this to crowd the entire discussion but still have to give a short reply: as for the suicide priests, the question is when they killed themselves? Today, things are much more lenient nowadays (even though Catholic doctrine has not changed). Also, I am not suggesting his suicide to be the sole "piece of evidence". Finally, as for Catholic mafiosi, I guess they in some crooked way justify their doings or think they can misuse the sacrament of confession to wipe themselves clean. However, this is not the case regards suicide - for obvious reasons. This is why suicide is different from any other act. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that suicide calls into question someone's Catholicism, perhaps more so than murder (!), because it is "different from any other act" seems rigid, POV, and purely speculative -- I don't see how you can get around that. I can't imagine Encyclopaedia Britannica getting away with such an irresponsible claim. The "POV" I'm referring to is that you're probably viewing this from the perspective of someone who would never consider suicide, whereas it should not be surprising that some people can contemplate suicide and still consider themselves to be Catholic. Anyway, even if your assertion is widely supported, wouldn't it make sense to first find a respectable source that makes that conclusion (probably not too hard)? To cite Catholic laws does not address the issue (particularly laws that were young in Hitler's time). --Andrew Delong 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is original research. The "source" is simply a link to biblical text and no one is referenced making these comments, they are simply stated. You are going to have to cite someone claiming this if you want to use it and phrase it as exactly that. This is not a soapbox or the place for original research. :bloodofox: 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the OR problem, and POV problem, and the Undue Weight probme, we have inclusion of material that does not belong here. I keep removing this text, which is about Goebbels views from his diary, which is fine if this article is about Goebbel's views, but this article is about Hitler's religous beliefs. Still, Smith keeps inserting this over and over and saying that my removing it is "vandalism." Can anyone make an argument why the below even belongs here (other than POV pushing by suggesting that Hitler shared Goebbels view?

Nevertheless in his diary Goebbels openly wrote about the "traitors of the Black International who again stabbed our glorious government in the back by their criticism", by which he meant the indirectly or actively resisting Catholic clergymen (who wore black cassocks).Giovanni33 23:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just chime in and say that while I seldom ("never" would probably be a better word) agree with Giovanni's edits, they are most certainly not vandalism, and should not be referred to as such in edit summaries. Vandalism is really something like blanking a whole article, and putting in the word "poop" instead. It's not the removal of a section that offends your POV. Musical Linguist 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus, Suicide and the Catholic Church

Reading over the comments above, it seems that the consensus indicates:

• That the suicide claims in relation to religion do not belong in the article.

Comment. While there are biblical verses supporting such a position, original research is "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". Unless the assertion can be linked to an outside reliable source, it should not be included in the article. If the source is biased, or displays a POV, this must be clearly stated in the article.

• That the "Future of the Catholic Church" section should link to the appropriate section in the Nazism and Religion article. That such discussion should be limited. That any biased sources or POVs should be clearly attributed to their authors. That the section needs some cleanup and clarification.

Does this seem accurate? Any strong objections?Vassyana 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana, for helping with fixing this article and counter the edit waring. I think you have summed up correctly the situation. The fixed, minimized version that exists now, while much bettter than what was there before (OR, POV), still--I think--doesn't belong in this article simply because the "Future plans of the Nazi regime" which is what this section is concerns is quite a sepearate subject than the personal religious beliefs of Hitler, which is what the article is supposed to be about. It simply doesn't belong here, and it's repeated from the Nazism and Religion article. The other problem that concerns me is that the POV it expresses from this historian is given undue weight, and there is a question of the notibility of this historian's POV; I did a google test and came up with nothing for this speculative POV.Giovanni33 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know Giovanni is trying to delete this over at Nazism and Religion too, but that's obviously a better place for the section. Simply duplicating material here is not helpful. The book referred to is not readily available in English speaking countries. It would help if Smith transcribed some of the relevant passages on Talk pages. I must admit, I haven't read, in any of the material I have looked at, any evidence that the Nazis had clearly defined plans for the Catholic or other churches. Intemperate remarks written in diaries, or proposals, are not definite plans. The section would be better if it was more precise in attributing ideas to specific leaders or factions within NSDAP. Paul B 09:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Heinz Hutzen is professor emeritus of modern history at the Catholic University of Eichstaett. He is clearly an important historian, not a nobody. Equally clearly, he is a Catholic apologist. Paul B 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Vassyana 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The sources seem to be problematic for the Catholic Church section. While Dr. Hürten is a very well-respected scholar and his "German Catholics" is a widely accepted text, not all of his theories have such broad support. In particular, the "pet theory" cited seems to be very controversial. Also, Burt Natter is not a professional historian, but rather a popular journalist/essayist who is explicitly called an "amateur historian" by many. Between these facts, it seems certainly proper to refer to the theory as speculative or, at the very least, highly controversial. Certainly, I can find almost no supporting reference to the theory beyond these authors except among those who praise Dr. Hürten in nothing but the highest terms, and even then they are but passing references. Vassyana 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Question. How should we proceed in light of the above? Can anyone find additional references that are neither slavish nor antagonistic to Dr. Hürten where the theory is the primary focus, whether supporting or dissenting? Vassyana 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that unless Smith or whoever wants to keep this here can provide an argument for keeping it, and address these problems, raised above, then it should be removed from this article.Giovanni33 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As there was no defense to these problems rasied above, I've removed it. This never belonged in the section on Hitler's personal beliefs to begin with.Giovanni33 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

POV External links

To avoid edit warring on this topic, I suggest we have an external links section that categorises the links according to their POV. We do this on some other articles in which there are radical disagreements about the merits of links. For example the articles related to Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories have led to "link deletion wars", mainly because many contribuors think all "Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare" arguments are fringe and nonsensical. The same problem exists on pages devoted to Aryan Invasion theory (a subject obliquly related to the topic of this page), in which links are now arranged in pro and con. Speaking personally, I have no objection to the inclusion of polemical Christian, anti-Christian, Neopagan, Atheist, anti-Atheist etc websites as external links as long as they provide accurate information along with their POV. Paul B 09:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern on that is that the site currently popping in and out is produced by an engineer with no particular qualifications on the article topic. His other main Internet interest seems to be reviewing pornography. There is some accurate information, some inaccurate. Once one starts adding dubious sites and arranging them by POV, the list could get long. Bytwerk 11:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that site and he is primarily intereted in science, evolution, and religion. I didn't see anything about pornography. The good thing about his site is that he makes the particular POV he has very well. The site that is being taken down is simply a disection of Hitler's book. Since this article is about Hitler's personal religious beliefs, I see this is very fitting.Giovanni33 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Gio, you don't like Natter because "he's not an historian." Neither is Wong. The ponography bit may be a bit of a cheap shot, but if you click on his name at the bottom of the page, his biography page links to "Mike's Porn Reviews." The point is that the argument is made well by Steigmann-Gall, rather more strongly than I'd make it, as I've said before. What Wong has done is to stack the material to lead to a conclusion that simply is not one that anyone I have read with credentials in the field would accept to the degree that Wong takes it. There are equally bad collections of quotations on the other side, arguing that Hitler was not a Christian. There are sites that argue Hitler invaded Ausria to get the "Spear of Destiny." Others argue he and the Nazis were in touch with demonic forces. I don't think the article is improved by sending people to dubious POV sites. Bytwerk 19:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Natter was being quoted as a historian when he is not, and he was being used in the body of the article. This is not what we are doing with Wong's article and site. Its in external links. The standards are not so high in the external links section which is a place, among other things, for POV--whoever makes the POV the strongest. The POV he advances, that Hitler was a Christian true and true, is a valid POV, and does not compare to the other lunatic pov that you compare it to, i.e. "Nazi's in touch with demonic forces," etc. So that argument is not valid, either.Giovanni33 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the site is dubious, it does not give page references to any of the citations that would enable an interested reader to check them out. And although standards for external links may be looser than for the article text, there still should be reasonable standards. An engineer writing about Hitler is not likely to increase the credibility of the article, particularly when the point he makes is stronger than any knowledgeable historian is going to support. I repeat that sending people to dubious sources is not a wise idea. Bytwerk 02:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious is not a fact its an opinion. Let the reader look at the evidence the site presents, look at the argument it makes, and let them decide. It is strong because it uses the text of Hitler's book, to make its case. True, it doesn't give exact page numbers but it does give chapters and volume so its relatively easy to find. I had no trouble finding the quotes it references. So that others can see this link its: *Essay on the use of Christian metaphors and imagery in Mein Kampf.Giovanni33 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline on external links (WP:EL) lists external links normally to be avoided. One of them is: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." I think a personal page by an engineer rather falls afoul of that guideline. Bytwerk 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You leave out what it prefaces this advice with: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article...one should avoid:..." This is about the subject--Hitler's relisous beliefs. There is no rule against posting this link. It fits and you have not come up with any objections that stand. It makes the case for this POV. If you don't like it, you are welcome to link to a site that makes the counter argument. Do not censor valid information.Giovanni33 07:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well. I would be interested in what others think on the matter. Some comments.

First, the guideline page, besides the section I quote above, also says that things that should be linked include: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." The site in question is certainly not neutral, though I have not checked to see if the passages it cites are accurate.

Second, Gio says that the lead-in to the section I quoted states: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject". Now, if we take the first clause as literally as Gio, there is no reason to give most of the criteria that follow (e.g., unique resources, promoting websites, etc.). I read that as saying that, say, Adolf Hitler's personal web page, if there were such a thing, could be an appropriate link. To read it as Gio does means that almost anything could be justified as long as it is about the subject of the article.

Third, Gio suggests adding links that make the counter-argument. That makes the situation even worse, since it adds still more dubious links.

Fourth, in his change note, Gio suggests "list all POVs." However, he doesn't mean that, since he responded earlier that he thought some POVs weren't worth adding (e.g., Hitler was in communication with the devil), and he's willing, apparently, to censor them, since they are in his opinion "lunatic." Still, those are POVs, and some have adherents at least as "qualified" as the engineer behind the questionable page.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter? Bytwerk 12:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I enjoyed Mike's wife's review of the mircowavable dildo. On the more pertinant aspects of the site, my general view is "inclusionist" as I said above - that goes for Creationist Hitler-was-a-Darwinist sites too, as long as the facts are not palpably wrong. But unless we agree to an inclusionist approach - which would mean specifying the POV of the websites, this one should not be added, because its arguments are far to blatently one-sided. Mentioning the word church does not mean you are using "christian metaphors". Paul B 13:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Bytwerk and Paul B wrote. One more note on the guideline. The first sentence clearly means that if this were an article about this Mike and/or his web page, then his page would be a proper link. Even Hitler's webpage would not be one here. It would be in the article Hitler's internet webpage. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hitler excommunicated?

While working on my current project, I came across this interesting passage in Wilfried von Oven, "Finale Furioso: Mit Goebbbels bis zum Ende" (Tübingen: Grabert, 1974), p. 271: "'We never actually left the church,' the minister said with a smile, 'but we were both excommunicated at the same time. It was at the moment that I commited the deadly sin of marrying a Protestant. The Führer also was thrown out of the only true church for the crime of being a witness at the marriage of a heretic. So we were both out of the church. But we still had to pay the church tax.'" Goebbels goes on to discuss a letter he sent to the bishop of Berlin protesting, and says that Hitler did something similar, but that they had both paid rather considerable church taxes ever since. The marriage was in 1931.

von Oven was Goebbel's personal secretary from 1943-1945. The book is based on the diary he kept during the period. I've come across the claim that Hitler had been excommunicated before, but never with a source given. I'm not entirely sure if I believe von Oven, but as time permits, I'll look into it. Bytwerk 02:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This refers not to an explicit sentence of excommunication, which was rare then and is even rarer nowadays. Goebbels says that he and Hitler excommunicated themselves by a certain action. I am not sure that his observation regarding "the deadly sin of marrying a Protestant" is true. In any case, there would have been countless other things worthy of excommunication before. I see no direct relevance of this but the tongue in cheek way of Goebbels' comment is indeed telling. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that it might be tongue-in-cheek, except for what follows, which I'll leave in German:

Nun waren wir raus aus der Kirche. Kirchensteuer aber mußten wir weiterzahlen. Denn wir waren ja nicht freiwillig ausgetreten, sondern exkommuniziert, das heißt schimpflich ausgestoßen worden. Mir wollte das nicht recht einleuchten. Ich sollte nunmehr unrettbar der Hölle verfallen sein, trotzdem aber weiter mein Himmels-Scherflein, und zwar ein recht beträchtliches, einrichten. Ich schrieb daher an den Bischof von Berlin einen Brief, dessen logischer Beweisführung man sich meines Erachtens nicht verschließen konnte.

Ich erhielt ein sehr höfliches Antwortschreiben, das gleichsfalls sehr logisch aufgebaut und nicht ohne feine Ironie abgefaßt war. Sie sind excommuniziert worden, hieß es darin etwa sinngemäß, für ein — im Sinne de Kirche — von Ihnen begangenes schweres Vergehen. Würde damit für Sie auch die Zahlung von Kirchensteuer wegfallen, so entstünde daraus für sie ein materieller Vorteil. Sie wären also für Ihr Vergehen nicht bestraft sondern belohnt, zumal Sie unseres Wissens auf Ihre Zugehörigkeit zur Kirche keinen allzu großen Wert legen, Ihnen also auch der Verlust dieser Zugehörigkeit nicht allzu schmerzlich gewesen sein dürfte.

Auch der Führer bekam auf seinen schriftlichen Protest eine ausführliche Antwort. Im Leben des Staates, wurde ihm geschrieben, gäbe es einen analogen Vorgang. Ein Bürger habe sich gegen die Gesetze des Staates vergangen. Er werde mit einigen Jahren Gefängnis bestraft. Für diese Zeit setzte sich nun nicht etwas seine Verpflictung aus, von seinem Vermögen Steuern an den Staat zu entrichten, Im Gegenteil, oft genug würden ihm zu der körperlichen und seelichen Pönitenz in Gestalt der Gefängnishaft auch noch materielle Bußen auferlegt. Der Führer sei also, das stand zwischen den Zeilen geschrieben, eigentlich noch ganz gut davongekommen und sollte sich freuen, daß sein Richter diesmal nicht die weltliche sondern die geistliche Macht gewesen sei.

Goebbels suggests that both he and Hitler wrote the church authorities about the matter, and had the fact of excommunication comfirmed. Anyway, as I suggested in my first post, I'm rather hard-pressed to believe that Hitler's excommunication, had it in fact occured, would have made so little noise. But I'll see if I can find anything else. Bytwerk 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we know which authority of the Church was contacted? And when? And of course, Goebbels misses the point that excommunication is not exclusion from the Church ... it is exclusion from the sacramental community, to which a return is open by penance. From the Church's perspective there is not such thing as leaving the Church. And Goebbels can hardly blame a Church man for his failure to declare his leaving of his own accord in front of the proper office of the state. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Until 1966 catholics who married non-catholics, married in front of a non-catholic minister, or served as witness at such an occasion did indeed automatically excommunicate themselves by that act. (canon 2319, if I remember correctly) Such an excommunication "latae sententiae", however, had no practical consequences, unless it was officially and explicitly confirmed and publicly proclaimed by church authorities. (The abolition of that rule (by "Matrimonii sacramentum" in 1966) was retroactive, so it voided all earlier excommunications.) Goebbel's marriage took place in 1931, so the bishop of Berlin mentioned in the German text was probably Dr. Christian Schreiber, who died in 1933. Judging by the hints of irony in the bishop's answers, I'd assume that Hitler's and Goebbel's "protest letters" were similarly ironic in tone. 62.158.74.247 19:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think it is obvious, why the subsection on Adolf Hitler from Nazi mysticism should be moved here. However, I wanted to give room for a discussion first. -Zara1709 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Werll there seems to be a lot of dubious stuff - if not outright claptrap on that page. Paul B 12:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that a lot of what that article says is hard to belief. But the only thing that I definitely would say is not correct is the one about the reptilian conspiracy at the end of the article. The SS did seriously sponsor the research into the existence of the Holy Grail or Atlantis. Some Nazi did obviously lack a sense a reality.

Adolf Hitler was not involved with similar occultism when he was in power, but he had been in contact with Lanz von Liebenfels during his time in Vienna, so that there has been a debate among historians (but could be that some of this debate is in German) how strongly he was influenced by him or by or other Ariosophist. Although I could not summarize the whole debate, I know enough about it to write a verifiable article. You wouldn't get any statements from me that would not be backed up by quotes from Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke or Wilfried Daim. -Zara1709 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, the Hitler's religious views article is about Hitler's personal views in the matter, Nazi mysticism is about a melange of occultism shared by some Nazi leaders. Hitler did not share the latter and even if he did, the two would still be two different topics. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that I only would merge the section on Hitler's religious beliefs and not the rest of 'Nazi mysticism'? At the moment this article here deals with Hitler's views on Christianity. While the Ariosophy of Lanz von Liebensfels is quite different from Christianity and one could argue that it is not a religion, it most likely has influenced Hitler especially concerning his antisemitism and racism. An article on Hitler's religious views has to deal with this, while the Nazi mysticism article should focus on the Nazi leaders and organizations that had a stronger affinity for the occult (at least after we have seen to come to the agreement to deal with Liebenfels etc in the Germanic mysticism article). As I said, I can quote reliable literature, and while Hitler has never publicly admitted that he was influenced by the ariosophic milieu historians have found good evidence for it. (E.g., there is a letter in which Liebenfels calls Hitler a pupil of him, if I remember correctly. In an interview after the war, Liebenfels said that he had been visited by Hitler, etc...) -Zara1709 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. If Hitler had views along the line of Nazi mysticism, he "deserves" to be included with this view in both articles. But only if it's reliable. But that wouldn't be merging, just adding relevant info to another article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism

Amusingly, the BBC report quoted here as a reliable source for Adolf's interest in Hinduism is largely copied from our Swastika article. Furthermore, the passage from Hitler's "memoirs" (i.e.Mein Kampf) - also lifted from our Swastika article - says nothing about the influence of Hinduism on Hitler's religious beliefs. It just refers to his development of the flag design. Paul B 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the one reference removed

I am not sure if this: Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism with Selected quotes from Mein Kampf should not be implemented somewhere else in the article. Apparently there is a competition going on between Pagans, Atheists and Christians and who can make a better Reductio ad Hitlerum for the other beliefs. Zara1709 15:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It should not as it is an utterly unreliable source. This has been discussed before.

As for your insistence on including a "The question whether Hitler was a Christian or an Atheists is discussed on several pages on the Internet.", I oppose this as

• Anything is discussed on the internet, therefore this is a truism.
• It serves as an introduction to the inclusion of unfitting external links.
• Creates a false dichotomy of Christian vs. Atheist. In fact, Hitler was neither.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this more than the usual debate. It appears to me that people attemt a "Reductio ad Hitlerum" here. I mean, what do you want to make of this? If this is what peaple interests, then it should be in the article.

And please, leave the Friedrich Heer reference in there. I think a 600-page book on the topic from a notable historian needs to be mentioned. I would add some stuff from it, but I haben't read it yet and I can't get it at the momement. Zara1709 09:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where you stand one the question it Nazism can be examined as a political religion. But if it wasn't for Goodrick-Clarke's book from which I have taken the reference to Heer, it would be almost impossible to sort out that Ariosophy stuff. Zara1709 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And frankly, I do not care what some odd website argues. And I don't think that we need these links as a reference for any "Reductio ad Hitlerum" here as this is not about RaH but about what Hitler thought himself.

I also do not think that Heer is needed to reference political religion. However, if you merely want to use it as an example of the usage I do neither applaud it (I think it superfluous) nor oppose it but suggest that this is moved into the pol.rel. footnote.

One can argue about Heer's notability as a historian but I want to add that he and another are cited by Rissmann as bad examples of scholars using Hitler for inter-denominational polemics (Heer bashing Catholicism, the other one bashing Protestantism).

I am not sure where I stand on the political religion issue myself. I see it as a construct to analyze some traits of Nazism. However, IMHO the distinction between religions and ideologies is not a very useful one (especially if one talks about "religion" as if such an entity existed).

I want to conclude with the note that the Ariosophy stuff is indeed controversial when it pertains to Hitler. From what I read, Hitler (as opposed to Himmler, Heß and the much overstated Rosenberg) was much less of a loony than it is often supposed (of course that doesn't make him any less evil.)

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Operation Barbarossa as a Crusade

The naming of Operation Barbarossa after Frederick Barbarossa--Christian monarch from Germany--is related to Adolf Hitler's admiration of the 3rd Crusade.--71.105.18.54 08:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

How so? and what does it have to do with this article? Hardyplants 08:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler didn't openly reject God and Christianity. He ended his Barbarossa Proclamation with "May the Lord God help us especially in this fight!" He used Christianity to achieve political objectives and justify some of his actions.--71.105.18.54 09:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So you can't find a legitimate reason for its inclusion here. What does this have to do with Hitlers religious beliefs? So he names a campaign after a great German King that created a large almost unified empire (the same thing Hitler wanted), so what? Do you have a reference that the name has any religious meaning to Hitler? Hardyplants 13:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The choice of this name also had another logical parrale, the crusading army was very large and had to cross a lot of land because it could not be transported across water, Hitlers attack against Russia was also remarkably large. The results were about the same, Frederick drowned in a stream on the way and Hitler destroyed his army and committed suicide after the Russians entered Berlin. Hardyplants

Not only has this no place in this article. The reasoning above is also wrong.

Yes, the fact that Barbaross participated in the 2nd and led the 3rd crusade might have played a role (but where is Hitler attested as admiring the crusades in general or the 3rd in particular) but there is also a different element:

Barbarossa's policies were not actually popular among nationalist German historians which shaped the then current view on history. Nationalists considered Barbarossa's Italian campaign a wasted effort and instead endorsed Barbarossa's cousin and rival Henry the Lion, whose policies were directed towards the East and which nationalists interpreted as a policy settlement to extend the German "Lebensraum" (living space). And here it is Operation Barbarossa ties in: Yes, it emulated the crusading effort of Barbarossa but it also meant to make up for the Emperor's mistake by this time moving towards the East and conquer Lebensraum.

A rhetorical reference to God in his speech proves nothing as "God" doesn't equal "Christianity". (One has to look at other utterances to find out what Hitler meant by "God".)

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Lost Content

I just had the opportunity to look through Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and there is section on Hitler's and Stalin's religious beliefs, where Dawkins mentions that he has been repeatedly asked whether Hitler wasn't an atheist. Referring to our previous discussion;, this should make the question notably, even if it would otherwise only be debated on some webpages. But more importantly: What happened to the "Childhood and Youth" section? I checked the edit history, and no one explained why that section was deleted. And I thought someone had already mentioned this issue on this talk page, because this has made the article structure inconsistent. One can't debate the relation between Hitler and Ariosophy if one does not give a reconstruction of his contact with Lanz first. I will continue with some work on this article, but I don't know when. If you consider a discussion necessary, you can start it in the meantime. Zara1709 (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hitler-praying.jpg

Image:Hitler-praying.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing important information

This article appears to have been significantly watered down since I was late active on it. I will see if i can address this by restoring some of the previous content. I don't see anything on talk about it's removal either.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Severely POVed statements need substantiation

"Hitler rejected the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering" - Source? The quote says nothing of the sort.

"According to historian Michael Rissmann young Adolf was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and Darwinism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly" - Is this the consensus view of historians? Pan-Germanism + Darwinism = Hitler hates Catholicism?

"Nazis also planned to systematically destroy Christianity." - This claim needs more specific substantiation: quotes from Hitler, etc. We should be immediately alarmed when the first Google hit for a claim Wikipedia is making is a Christian apologetics website that argues that the universe is 6,000 years old.

"Once in power Hitler showed his contempt for religion and sought to eliminate it from areas under his rule." - Which Hitler quotes, exactly, show that he had a "contempt for religion"?

"This may indicate, that at least Braun herself still clung to belief in one Supreme Being." - "Still clung to"?

Also, the end of "public statements" needs revision. The last paragraph is a summarization of the contents of a previous paragraph, and the last sentence of the paragraph before that belongs more in "private statements".-Silence (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was just coming to also complain about the "redemptive suffering" line as well. From the article:

Hitler rejected the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering, stating in 1927:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

I see nothing there rejecting redemptive suffering, the passage merely has him giving it less importance than Jesus being a fighter. This looks like a case of WP:SYN to me. The other lines need support as well or they are simply WP:OR or possibly WP:FRINGE. -- HiEv 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What's up with the "Religious neutrality" section?

The section actually states that Hitler attempted to eliminate "non-Aryan religion", which sounds like he actually favored some religions, as opposed to being neutral. The section then claims that there were some "vocal" atheist Nazis, but fails to give evidence that they were atheists or that Hitler approved of them. It mentions the Nazis used Muslim fighters, but fails to say whether he tolerated them or simply used them (or was even aware of them). It then somehow draws the conclusion from that that the Nazi Party was a tolerant group. If you're scratching your head over that one, so am I. That looks like original research in the form of WP:SYN to me, so I marked it as such.
The section then notes Hitler's use of religious speech and symbolism. I don't see what that has to do with "Religious neutrality". That looks more like he's favoring religion to me.
The section then claims that the Soviet Union didn't persecute western religions because they feared Hitler would use that as an excuse to attack. Again, this sounds like Hitler favors religion if he's willing to attack others in its defense, even if it's just as a pretext.
It then mentions (unsourced) that Hitler married Eva Braun in front of a civil servant. So what? Plenty of Christians have done the same thing. It's meaningless, especially since it's unsourced. It wraps up with evidence that Eva Braun believed in God, which again has nothing to do "Religious neutrality", let alone Hitler's views.
Is it just me, or is this section a complete mess with an almost entirely inappropriate title? Can anyone tell me why most of it has survived so long? If not I'll delete most of it and put the few worthwhile bits elsewhere, or if you agree, feel free to do it yourself. -- HiEv 14:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to Steigmann-Gall's work and other non-consensus/fringe views

The description on the author's own book states "Richard Steigmann-Gall argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it." I deleted a portion of material attributed to him, but this raises a larger problem with regard to this article as a whole. Steigman-Gall is a full 7 of 63 citations (over 11%) in this article. If the views are fringe views they don't belong in the article at all. It is explicitly stated that Wikipedia articles are not the place for novel scholarly concepts. And if the views of Steigmann-Gall and the like are not quite fringe but still contrary to the consensus (I believe they demonstrably are), then this article has a problem because it seems to portray those views as the consensus, rather than a fringe or minority. They obviously have undue weight.Mamalujo (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, hold on here, Steigmann-Gall is not proposing a "fringe theory," even by the definitions of the page on the matter. The book was published by Cambridge University Press, not known for carelessly publishing fringe theories. It has gotten a variety of reviews, including some favorable ones from leading scholars. I happen to think he makes the point too strongly myself, but dismissing him as on the fringe is hard to defend. I'll see what others have to say, but I'm inclined to revert these edits. Bytwerk (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fringe..No, a minority view...yes very much so. Even favorable reviews state that his conclusions go too far and are not justified by the evidence. Hardyplants (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

S-G is not remotely fringe, and he explains that he is making a specific case. Reviews were both favourable nad critical. But the main point is that he is the principal modern source in English, which is why he is so widely quoted. I don't think we can even say that his is a "minority view", since he is simply stressing aspects of the Nazi record that have been glossed over, not making any extraordinary claims. Yes, I agree that he can be acccused of playing down things that stress the oppposite position, but that's because he is making a case. It's a reliable source by any estimation. Paul B (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I have reverted some of Mamalujo's edits to Adolf Hitler and preserved some of Mamalujo's edits thereto. Mamalujo appears to be a good-faith editor who intensely dislikes seeing any kind of link between Adolf Hitler and Christianity but goes too far, removing well-sourced information from reputable authors without a note or explanation. Some of the information introduced by Mamalujo APPEARS to be O.K. (no time to check the sources) and I have preserved those insertions.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Donovan Nuremberg Trials Collection

In the current page, there is a sentence "In 1998 documents were released by Cornell University from the Nuremberg Trials that revealed Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity at the end of World War II". I do not find [7] an acceptable cite for that; if you read the linked page, you'll find nothing about Christianity or religion at all; it merely provides a high-level overview of what's in the collection. [8], a subpage, mentions the collection includes "OSS research & analysis reports on [...] the Nazi's intended annihilation of European Jewry", but nothing about Christianity. Given the nature of the documents, I'm inclined to suspect that claims of "Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity" are based on the word of a prisoner, who certainly may have had motive to tell the Allies what he thought they wanted to hear, and who may have been passing along hearsay or rumor. Certainly a good cite would allow the question to be explored, and an acceptable cite would let us verify that the BBC or other media or Cornell itself claimed that they revealed these plans.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the references given, especially [9] The one you were objecting too just covers the cornell library and its document release of historical information about the Nuremberg tribunals. Hardyplants (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's still not an acceptable cite; it proves the uncontroversial part of the statement, that Cornell released documents from the Nuremberg Trials, and leaves the controversial part, that they had something to do with Nazi plans to exterminate Christianity, uncited. I'm not going to contest the factual part of it, but it's not a helpful cite at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Try [10]for the documnets covering the issue.Hardyplants (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This part of the article seems out of place to me. It doesn't describe Hitler's religious beliefs and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Positive Christianity (the heading it's under). Maybe it should be moved to Religion_in_Nazi_Germany? JesseHogan (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the Word "Fag"

In one of the references, the word "Fag" is used in a manner that seems inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph, as if it was added in. It seems unduly offensive. "Closely related to his support of education was his tolerant skepticism concerning religion. He looked upon religion as a series of conventions and as a crutch for human weakness, but, like most of his neighbors, he insisted that the women of his household fulfil all religious obligations. He restricted his own participation to donning his uniform to take his proper place in festivals and processions. As he grew older Alois shifted from relative passivity in his attitude toward the power and influence of the institutional Church to a firm opposition to "clericalism," especially when the position of the Church came into conflict with his views on education." - Bradley F. Smith: Adolf Hitler was a jew it is true this fag was 1/8 JEW. His Family, Childhood and Youth Stanford/California, 1967 p. 27 75.4.216.247 (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To no one's surprise it was stealth vandalism. I reverted it. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself

Sometimes it says Hitler persecuted and hated atheist, other times it says he was some sort of quasi atheist and that atheist were vocal in the Nazi Party. What the hell?

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_fascism.htm

This article shows Nazis and Fascist views on religion.

from "You Mean Hitler wasn't a Priest"

You Mean Hitler Wasn?t A Priest? The truth is, in fact, out there.

Dave Shiflett is coauthor of Christianity on Trial . January 21, 2001 8:40 a.m.

shocking story has been revealed: Adolf Hitler was not a Christian after all. Instead, he hoped to destroy Christianity. This news flash comes courtesy of a group of students at Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, who have posted papers on a website detailing Hitler's desire to eradicate Christianity. The documents are from the archives of Gen. William J. Donovan and were originally prepared for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, so we can safely assume they are authentic.

To be sure, Hitler's antagonism toward Christianity will not be news to everyone. That its central figure hails from a Jewish family did not set well with him, and its teachings of universal love ran contrary to his violent precepts. Yet one could easily get the impression, these days, that Hitler believed himself to be something of an altar boy on a mission for God.

The Rutgers project's editor, for example, seems to have been taken a bit by surprise. Julie Seltzer Mandel told the Philadelphia Enquirer that "When people think about the Holocaust, they think about the crimes against Jews, but here's a different perspective." The Nazis, she says, "wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity."

That will unsettle those who have been taught that Hitler was a Christian of some stripe ? and indeed, by some accountings, an enthusiastic Catholic. Bill Clinton, for example, said at the 1999 National Prayer Breakfast that "I do believe that even though Adolf Hitler preached a perverted form of Christianity, God did not want him to prevail." Meanwhile, at the United States Memorial Holocaust Museum, a film portrayed Hitler as an overzealous son of Rome. "Enter Adolf Hitler," the narrator intoned, "Austrian born and baptized a Catholic." Hitler's mission: "In defending myself against the Jews," he is quoted as saying, "I am acting for the Lord. The difference between the Church and me is that I am finishing the job."

That film was altered after protests by, among others, conservative Jewish writers. But the same message crops up elsewhere. Soon after the September 11 attacks, a spokeswoman for the Freedom From Religion organization pronounced Hitler a Catholic. In 1999, Maureen Dowd included Hitler as yet another Christian zealot. According to Dowd, "History teaches that when religion is injected into politics ? the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo ? disaster follows."

Hitler was indeed a baptized Catholic, but his rejection of the faith was profound. "My pedagogy is strict," he once explained. "I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth... There must be nothing weak or tender about them. The freedom and dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes... That is how I will root out a thousand years of human domestication."

That domestication, of course, was in large part due to the influence of Christianity. Hitler was blunter still on other occasions. "It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity," he said in 1933, "because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood." His countrymen would have to choose: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both."

Indeed, he understood all too well that Christianity, in the long run, was his enemy. "Pure Christianity ? the Christianity of the catacombs ? is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into fact. It leads simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely wholehearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." Switch a few words around and you'd think you were listening to Joseph Stalin. And like Stalin, Hitler believed history was on his side: "Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense. Never again. The tale is finished... but we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves."

That promise was to come true in a frightful number of cases. Polish Christians felt the full force of the persecution, as historian John Morley reminds us. "In Poland, both Jews and Christians were objects of Nazi oppression and manipulation." The clergy were a chief target: "In West Prussia, out of 690 parish priests, at least two-thirds were arrested, and the remainder escaped only by fleeing from their parishes. After a month's imprisonment, no less than 214 of these priests were executed... by the end of 1940 only twenty priests were left in their parishes ? about three percent of the number of parish priests in the pre-war era." The toll of murdered Polish priests would rise into the thousands; their Protestant counterparts (though a much smaller group) fared no better, with many members of the clergy perishing in the camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.33.130 (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

why do you keep saying polish christians? start saying catholic please. to say christian leads the reader to think the killing was shared when almost every single christian who died in poland was catholic.

YOu said that the protestant preachers were killed proportionately (fared no better) to the priests. Can you cite a source ?Peppermintschnapps (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Logical Fallacy "Poisoning the Well"

In the section, Private Statements, 3rd sentence, the logical fallacy, poisoning the well, is used to pre-empt the "mistranslation" the argument made by Richard Carrier. Whether the translation in question is accurate or inaccurate does not change depending upon Mr. Carrier's religious affiliation or profession. I recommend "Atheist activist/historian " be deleted. 90.193.148.100 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it does, cause Richard Carrier also stated that the SS wore "God with Us" on their belts. He had no evidence for that it was only after his article was peer-reviewed did that mistake get discovered. I think the Atheist Activist/nonacademic historian title is merited because he is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.168.211 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It was corrected in the sense that it was not the SS, but the German Army (under Nazi rule) who wore "God with Us." A minor error. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

They had "God With Us" before the Nazi party came to rule. Not sure how it's relevant. I don't think Carrier even needs entry, as his views on the subject do not mirror the historical consensus on the matter and come from an obvious bias. We can rule out the idea that Hitler was religious, but we can also rule out that he was an atheist. I'm not sure what the purpose of this article is for. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The poster above was mischaracterizing an error Carrier made, almost implying that he had fabricated evidence. This wasn't the case. You're correct that the slogan "Gott Mit Uns" on the German army's uniforms says nothing of Hitler's own personal religious beliefs. But Carrier's point is that the slogan is evidence against the claim that the Nazi's were intrinsically atheistic. It's a peripheral point, but it is a point often made by Christian apologists. Regarding historical consensus, I don't believe there is any. I've read a number of texts and biographies and have seen vast disagreement over this particular issue. And like it or not, Carrier is a legitimate historian, and his views on the matter are more carefully thought out and more detailed than other historians I've run across. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of Christening and First Holy Communion? (edited)

Neither here nor in the main article, I find a precise date for his christening nor his First Holy Communion. Being of Roman-Catholic upbringing, infant baptism has likely been practiced a few weeks after his birth. In the main article, it is only mentioned that "he became a Christian" at age 15. Followed by: "He was confirmed on Whitsunday, 22 May 1904 at the Linz Cathedral." This is a bit imprecise. Probably it is meant to mean that at age 15 he received his First Holy Communion (which would be more precise than confirmation). The phrase "becoming a Christian" is potentially unnecessarily controversial and could be dropped. Best regards, jan Trinitrix (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is CRAP!! Someone needs to fix it, or they need to delete it!!)

This article protrays Hitler as a quasi-christian and not the political oppourtunistic, propagadic liar that he REALLY was.

Hitler was a christian as he stated many times in mein kampf, his speaches and putting the crucifix on nazi uniforms is a bit of a give away.--Gtserf (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple views being presents in this article...at the sametime even. All you have to do is read them together. For example:

"According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father Alois, though nominally a Catholic, was somewhat religiously sceptical,[1] while his mother was a practicing Catholic.[2] According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Hitler was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and began to reject the Catholic Church, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never again attended a Catholic Mass or received the Church's Sacraments.[3] Georg Ritter von Schönerer's writings and the written legacy of his Pan-German Away from Rome! movement, which agitated against the Catholic Church at the end of the 19th century, may have influenced the young Hitler.[4]

Doesnt matter what these other people claim, why not look at what hitler said?  :)--Gtserf (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the second opinion:

"At the Benedictine monastery school which Hitler attended for one school year as a child (1897–98), Hitler became top of his class, receiving 12 1's, the highest grade, in the final quarter. He also sang in the choir at the monastery.[5]"

Here's the third opinion:

"In his childhood, Hitler had 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.[73]"

How does Hitler go from hating, to tolerating it, to loving so much he feels like singling along to it?

Another example of a quote that constrasts modern scholarly opinion is:

In his rhetoric Hitler also fed on the old accusation of Jewish Deicide. Because of this it has been speculated that Christian anti-Semitism influenced Hitler's ideas, especially such works as Martin Luther's essay On the Jews and Their Lies and the writings of Paul de Lagarde.

The above quotes constrasts COMPLETELY with what Alan Bullock describes in his biography of Hilter and his point-of-view has been celebrated as setting the standard for Hilter bio's. Instead of mentioning this (or mentioning Bullock at all in the entire article) it just says:

"Others disagree with this view.[71]"

WTF: The entire article is complete crap and someone needs to change it before the public gets seriously confused... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.168.211 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Obviously written by a biased christian who doenst like the fact hitler was a christian.

While it is easy to label Hitler a Christian in the hit and run fashion by pulling a handfull of his statements, the matter is much more complex than that. Germany was considered a demographically Christian country, so it would have been politically convenient for him to claim to adhere to Christianity. However, a number of comments he made in private show that he clearly abhorred Christianity. A few of his statements include: "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity." "National socialism and religion cannot exist together." "Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure." "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light, and serene was because it lacked two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." "Christianity is an invention of sick brains." "There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death."

These are only a handful of Hitler's statements against Christianity. Based on them, it would be pretty hard to call Hitler a Christian, which is why some people will deny that they were translated accurately. However, I find it hard to believe that, if such were true, someone could botch the translation that badly. The argument might be plausible if there were only one or two of these statements, but there are a large number, and no one has yet presented an "accurate" version.

A simple answer would be that his claims to be a Catholic were solely for political benefit. It is not particularly uncommon for a political figure to lie about certain things for his own advancement. --69.128.204.110 (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Daim document signed by Hitler

I have added a reference to the document published in 1985 by Wilfried Daim (text is from http://www.contra-mundum.org/schirrmacher/NS_Religion.pdf).

"Immediate and unconditional abolition of all religions after the final victory ('Endsieg') not only for the territory of Greater Germany but also for all released, occupied and annexed countries ..., proclaiming at the same time Hitler as the new messiah. Out of political considerations the Muslim, Buddhist and Shintoist religion will be spared for the present. The 'Führer' has to be presented as an intermediate between a redeemer and a liberator, yet surely as one sent by God, who has to get godly honour. The existing churches, chapels, temples and cult places of the different religions have to be changed into 'Adolf-Hitler-consecration places'. The theological faculties of the universities have to be transformed into the new faith. Special emphasis has to be lain on the education of missionaries and wandering preachers, who have to proclaim the teaching in Greater Germany and in the rest of the world and have to form religious bodies, which can be used as centres for further extension. (With this the problems with the abolition of monogamy will disappear, because polygamy can be included into the new teaching as one of the statements of faith.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.137.214 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Lerchenfeld

In the Positive Christianity section I've tagged for attribution interpretations of Hitler's intent in his reponse to Count Lerchenfeld. On investigation of the edit history however, this section was changed from one OR interpretation to another on 9th November. The earlier version is in part concerned with attributing an agenda to the excerpt of this speech which Richard Dawkins quotes, largely from an edit added on 22nd September. The supposed ref given is just to the quoted section in RD's book, not of a notable commentary on any agenda behind his choice. The edit of the 9th removes mention of the imputed agenda but leaves an orphaned, unexplained mention of Dawkins. Unless there's some notable citation regarding Dawkins' use of the quotation, this is now somewhere between OR and off-topic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving un-cited and probably bogus material here

This added to article on 21 January 2011 by 70.89.199.42.

Not cited. Presumably bogus. Moving here for now.

Here is another interesting quote regarding Hitler and Christianity. "The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam..." - Adolf Hitler

Please furnish a good cite for this if you return it to the main article.

-- 186.221.130.183 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed, really?

On one occasion, didn't he say "Before God's eyes I am a Catholic, and in the interest of Christ's mighty work here on Earth I will purify humanity." His definition of purifying humanity, sadly, was rooted largely in his racial policies. I will find the book where I got this at a later date. The actual quote is, of course, in German, but this is my best memory of the translation in that book. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source, or not?

A section has been added to this article, under the subheading "Hinduism and Buddhism". I've little prior knowledge of the topic; I find the material in the new section interesting enough in its own right, but it's based on a single source, authored by a popular evangelist with no scholarly standing in this particular field. The section needs a reliable source. Comments are invited; here's a link to the current source. Haploidavey (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Himmler was influenced by Aryanist ideas that draw on aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism. There are plenty of sources for that, and its links to the various Aryanist religious groups of the time, notably the German Faith Movement. The problem is that this is an article about Hitler, not Himmler. He never closely identified himself with these movements. Paul B (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I should have noticed - after all, that's what you said in your reversion and edit summary. So I assume the section draws an inference not made by its author, RS or no. Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Haploiddavey. There seems to be an influence but it was not direct and tended to be filtered through Theosophy, Ariosophy and other occult influences. Also, my understanding is that the evidence of even these occult influences on Hitler is largely circumstantial. There's no doubt that they had immense influence on some top Nazis and on Nazi ideology but those are not the topic of this article. I think anything dealing with this, if it is to be included, will have to have a more reliable source and be given only its appropriate weight. Mamalujo (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I Did Not Violate the NPOV Policy

I sourced Carrier's own website to back my claim. He does have a history of promoting anti-religion propaganda in his books and on his website. Read his writings for yourselves before assuming I was not neutral when I typed that statement.75.72.35.253 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you add "hi dheeraj tewari here" with this edit? Does this seem like an encyclopedic addition to you? Doc talk 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The hi dheeraj tewari is not encyclopedic and should be removed. When I talked about Richard Carrier, I was being quite neutral Richard Carrier is not a reliable resource and it needs be known what he has promoted. 75.72.35.253 (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source stating that Carrier's writings are propaganda, it should not be added. And even then, it is of debateable utility as it would add undue weight. Your own analysis of the quality of his writings is a textbook npov violation. "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Additionally, I do not doubt the historical statements sourced by about.com, but I question the reliability of an archeologists opinion on Hitler's religious views. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Falcon, but you are quite mistaken. It is not an opinion that he promotes anti-religion propaganda, it is a fact. I sourced his own website so people could read this fact. To state that it is only my opinion that he does so is like saying it is only my opinion that Wikipedia even exists. It did not violate the NPOV policy at all. It is only your opinion that it did, and it was quite a confused one.75.72.35.253 (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide a reliable source explicitly stating that, not your own original research. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Falcon, it's Carrier's own website that I sourced to back my claim. He has published various propaganda to attack religion before, such as questioning Jesus' historical existence. You can't find anything more reliable than his own words or writing. Keep your opinions about what's reliable to yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There must be some other references to Carrier other than his own website. Try putting in some other references from various sources. If you put only his website, you are only putting in edits that are only from his view. Shakinglord (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. We rely on sources for content, and achieve WP:NPOV by establishing a balance of significant viewpoints. 75.72.35.253, you cannot describe Carrier's website or opinions as "anti-Christian propaganda" unless you cite a WP:Reliable source to that effect. That source could be Carrier himself, or an independent reliable source on Carrier, his website and the material within. WP policy forbids Editorialising. Haploidavey (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is Carrier himself, in case you didn't read the website or my previous arguments, and is quite reliable. Look up the definition of propaganda too. Shakinglord, the websites describing his view are quite reliable resources. If you both are fans of Carrier, then keep your opinions to yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion that I violated that editorial policy is also quite inaccurate. That policy, if you examine it closely, refers to blog opinions. I have not done so. I including his own website to show that he matched the definition of propaganda. Look up the definition of propaganda. It is defined as information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause. Here's a very good source:[11]75.72.35.253 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but now you have violated the 3rr rule, and have also accused me of making accusations, I am afraid I will have to inform an administrator on your actions. Shakinglord (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

IP, we don't have to be for or against our sources in order to present them neutrally. If two equally reliable and significant sources disagree on a particular point of fact or interpretation, we present both without personal comment or caveat. Persistent insertion of such tends to get persistently reverted. I invite you to review wikipedia's editing policies and, as per Shakinglord's post above, remember 3R policies. Haploidavey (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I invite you both to look at the policies more clearer and understand I did not violate them. I did not the three revert rule either. The maximum number of reverts allowed in the policy is three reverts in 24 hours. In fact, I only undid two edits within 24 hours. If you look at the page history, you will see I clearly did violate this policy. I also did not violate the good faith policy and make accusations against either of you two. I clearly typed "if", not that you were fans Keep your opinions to yourself and assume good faith.75.72.35.253 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already filed a report on this incident at the Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard incidents page, and the discussion will continue there. Shakinglord (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

And see WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Carrier is already described as an atheist advocate - that pretty much entails promoting anti-religious views. The addition is wholy unnecessary. Editwarring to include it instead of discussing it here is a very bad idea that will get you blocked.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the IP added that he was an atheist advocate as well. I left that part in as a reasonable compromise after his continued attempts to label him as an "anti-religious propagandist". Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Then continued discussion should focus on whether that is a necessary descriptor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump, what you described as not being an entitlement was a warning guideline. While edit warring is a cause for intervention for some, it is a not a violation.75.72.35.253 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Editwarring is explicitly prohibited by policy and it is sufficient grounds for blocking, even without 3rr being violated. I will block you if you editwar again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's only a guideline without demonstration that there is disruption. Disruption is defined as an act of delaying or interrupting the continuity. The prohibition of it you mention pertains to disruptive behavior. I have been civil by discussing the matters on this talk page, as recommended, and the history of the page's edits will show you I did not delay or interrupt anything. In fact, I was the one who first posted the matter of Carrier's propaganda and arguing I was disrupting anything is not relevant. I didn't erase anything at all and I was not the one who originally reverted these edits.

I have only been retyping my edits. Please, read the administrative guidance policy for edit here: Wikipedia:Edit_warring. The page clearly says: "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it." Please, read also this policy: Wikipedia:Consensus.75.72.35.253 (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been civil by informing you of my decision about what I will do you if you continue to editwar in advance. The prohibition is for editwarring, not just for disruption. DO NOT EDITWAR. Citing policy gets you nowhere - following policy does.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult one this, since it is often useful to provide information about what the viewpoint of a particular source, as this provides context for the views expressed. If a far-right activist calls someone a "communist" we are less likely to take that characterisation seriously than if an academic with no obvious axe to grind describes someone as a communist. We don't give much credence to the tea-party types who say Obama is a "marxist". However, adding such information can easily be done to discredit a source, as, frankly, appears to be the case here. On balance I think it is right in this case to note that he is an 'atheist activist', or some such phrase, but the language should be neutral - "anti-Christian propaganda" is not neutral. It's clearly designed to discredit the source. Paul B (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a mainstream reliable source that describes Carrier as an 'atheist activist'? 'Activist' seems to imply more than being an advocate of atheism, which he seems to be. Frankly though, I see no more reason to discuss his views on religion in this article than those of any of the other historians cited. Has any reliable source suggested that his views on the subject of the article (Hitler's beliefs) are being distorted by his alleged 'activism'? If not, there seems no reason why we should imply the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The article on him is quite clear (Richard Carrier). I really don't see much of a difference between and 'advocate' and an 'activist', at least if the advocacy is public and organised, as his is. His views are certainly rather beyond the mainstream on this topic. As I said, there are many occasions on which the political affiliation of commentators is given when that is relevant. Paul B (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP needs more sources that give information. Carrier may claim to be an atheist, but others may say otherwise. Shakinglord (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are suggesting that his claim to be an atheist might be a ployt to cover up the fact that he is really a Catholic?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If he claims to be one then he is one. I fail to understand the relevance of this comment. BTW, he is already described as such in the article and it is not in dispute. See his own BLP. Paul B (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting issue, if it is appropriate to include the fact that Carrier advocates atheism does this mean that the religious attitudes and advocacy of every historian who voices their spiritual/philosophical beliefs should be cited alongside their citations? Substitute "advocate atheist" with "advocate Jew" and think about how that sounds.137.111.13.200 (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The word "Jew" refers to ethnicity. If the person was a hard-line orthodox rabbi, say, then it might be relevant to mention the fact if it meant there was a motivation for his or her views. See for example the characterisation of Ovadia Yosef in Hurricane_Katrina_as_divine_retribution#Failure_to_support_Israel, which follow the same pattern. As for "every historian", in most cases we would have no reason to identify their religious or political views, because we wouldn't even know about them. We only know about them when they become an activist. If their activism is directly related to their views on a matter of history, then it is relevant. Paul B (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A Rabbi is a religious teacher. There is no equivalent for atheism, but does that mean that any atheist represents atheism in much the same way that a rabbi does Judaism? Or perhaps only "hardline, orthodox jews" are equivalent to an historian who is outspoken in their atheism? You are producing the label "activist". There is a reason why the word "advocate" has been used in this page, as well as the page of the historian. I suppose an author's philosophical background allows us to understand their opinion, if an historian advances one. If they relate facts, then insinuating bias must be substantiated with evidence to support that notion. Sources for Carrier misrepresenting historical facts?124.168.175.64 (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is now just becoming confusing. Carrier represents an ideological position. His views about Hitler depart from the mainstream in exact conformity to his ideological position. We would not give someone's religion or ethnicity if it was irrelevant. If an economist who was Jewish, or black, or whatever criticised a goverment's economic policy, we would not write "black Jewish economist Joe Schmo said interest rates are too low", because his race and ethnicity have no relevance at all to interest rates. If he was criticising policy towards Israel or Africa we might do so (there are always judgement calls). If he was a representative of a pressure group advocating for black rights, or Israel, or anything else specifically linked to the issue, then we should do so. IMO, Carrier comes into the latter category. The fact that atheism does not have an official "church" is irrelevant. He is part of organised campaigns to promote that particular POV. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly not neutral. The fact that Carrier has promoted propaganda has demonstrated more and is not the equivalent of saying "if an economist who was Jewish, or black, or whatever criticised a goverment's economic policy, we would not write "black Jewish economist Joe Schmo said interest rates are too low", because his race and ethnicity have no relevance at all to interest rates." Being an atheist and promoting anti-religious propaganda are two separate issues. Read his work from a clear, neutral and not one-sided.75.72.35.253 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)