Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66

Opening comments by VanHarrisArt

The last thing I wrote on the talk page before she opened this DRN was "Keep - If this article is maintained subject to WP:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article template, I think it's possible to keep it from being a WP:Content Fork from Ping Fu. The article still needs work, though."

There is no impasse. No reversions. No content dispute. At least not yet. This DRN was premature. As were the AfD and the Third Option she opened -- both of which were procedurally closed as a result. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Hell In A Bucket

I think this is a case that can be solved via tags for the time being. Van Harris Art leaves rather lengthy responses (there's nothing wrong with this!) and has a strong opinion (also nothing wrong with this) but I don't see edit warring, or P.A. This doesn't mean that third opinions or more eyes aren't needed either but I think that the state of the article as is can be developed over time. Mediation doesn't always have to be negative either but in this case may be a tad premature. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bend, Not Break discussion

Hello, I volunteer here at the DRN board. This doesn't mean I have any special powers but will simply try mediate the discussion and provide and outside view. Once all parties have contributed their opening statements we can get started. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• My big thing is that I keep getting told "this is wrong", yet I'm not told in specific what is wrong. It isn't until the IP came on and commented that I'm finally getting input on what exactly was improperly phrased. Add on that I'm also getting told "this is wrong, fix it or you're going to get a billion angry internet bullies on here that'll use this to harm other people", and you can see why I'm seeing VanHarrisArt's statements as unhelpful and sort of white knighting. How am I to read his mind to know exactly what is or isn't correct? I only know what I found via the RS and on Fu's article, and I really didn't appreciate someone telling me that something was wrong somewhere in the article but never telling me exactly what. I assumed it was all things directly in the controversy section, considering what I was getting told. Like I said, it's entirely unhelpful and very frustrating for someone to keep telling you "you're wrong" but never actually contribute beyond that. Initially it was a matter of one person trying to get it deleted, then redirected, and I guess initially he was waiting to see if it'd get redirected before actually doing anything. The thing is, if you're saying that I'm missing something that could potentially be harmful, then you need to WP:BEBOLD and fix it or at the very least, be more specific about what I'm getting wrong and offer suggestions on how else to phrase whatever is wrong. The conversation kept going back and forth with very little progress other than VanHarrisArt capitulating on getting it deleted/redirected after a few others came in and said that the article should remain. I think that getting a dispute resolution is very necessary in this situation because if he's right in that we have SPAs coming in that have bad faith in mind, we need to fix what's wrong NOW by specifically identifying what's wrong and suggesting re-writes of the situation, not arguing amongst ourselves. Basically put, almost all of the responsibility of fixing everything was being put on my shoulders and when I don't know what exactly I'm doing wrong, it's easy to see where I'd imagine that someone is here to white knight and get frustrated that I'm continually being told that I'm doing something wrong and that nothing I did was right. I mean, if I'm not doing something right then why not step in and actually contribute by specifically detailing what's wrong and giving alternatives rather than just saying that a term is wrong for one reason or another. I mean, after a while I kept feeling like I was getting told "the term critic is wrong because nobody anywhere that has something negative to say about the book actually read the book". No, that's not exactly what was being said, but that's what it felt like. Maybe we weren't throwing daggers at each other across the talk forum, but do we really need to wait until we're openly hostile to seek dispute resolution? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of long winded talk being thrown around here, can someone summerize (in less than 150 words) the dispute at hand. As far as I can tell, all editors are in favour of keeping the article. The article seems well sourced and neutral to me, what exactly is the issue? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• The basic dispute is that there's an argument over what to put in the article and whether the current state is neutral. I felt like it was, VanHarrisArt said it wasn't, and we started squabbling over specific terms because that's all that I really had to go on. He'd tell me things were wrong but never gave an alternative. Then it turned into nothing but back and forths that had nothing to do with the article. Initially it was an argument over whether it should be kept or not, but that's since been resolved. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then I ask VanHarrisArt, what are the specific issues you wish addressed? Again, please keep it short and sweet (less than 150 words is ideal). Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought this DRN was premature to start with. The only content issue I'm looking to get address is this: I think Bend, Not Break should adhere to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article, so it doesn't end up turning into a content fork. (The article is already attracting disruptive editors.) If we can agree on that, then we have a direction to move towards. VanHarrisArt (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering it is a non-fiction book I don't see why that would be a problem, Tokyogirl, do you agree with this? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me add a few things. I realize that TokyoGirl put a lot of energy and thought into fixing the Bend, Not Break article, and I came along, and started to tell her it had problems. In retrospect, I realize that it might have come across as a personal put down. If it did, I apologize. I didn't jump in to start editing the page myself, because, first, I wasn't initially sure if it was going to stay, or be merged back with Ping Fu, and second, because, with the online vigilante campaign against Ping Fu, I've been wasting too much time undoing the attack pages, BLP violations, and advocacy posted by WP:SPA and WP:IP editors. I'll have more time to do thoughtful editing in the next week (I'm not that fast a writer.) VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by Timtrent

The complainant is being disruptive by both posting on my talk page and then by opening this case. The sole participation I will have in this case to to state that you can judge me by my editing record.

I have no interest in this topic at all. Pointless wikilawyering is aggravating. The opening of this case is bizarre at best. I was going to assume good faith of this editor, but this behaviour means I am unable to. I will have no further interaction with them, nor have I had any previous interaction. Perhaps someone would point them in the direction of decent conduct. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Timtrent#Please_fix_your_signature... discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by BKonrad

Iambic Pentameter, Sonnet, Cat (Disambiguation) discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by 70.56.59.36

Opening comments by 71.208.21.121

Talk:Microsoft Office 365 discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by Drmies

Opening comments by Black Kite

Opening comments by Kww

Opening comments by Werieth

Organizational Logos discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by LizFL

List of sopranos in non-classical music discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by Scientiom

User:Govgovgov has been moving around from article to article pushing his POV, has been making blatant personal attacks, and has been blatantly stalking and harrasing me. I have left a note about his behaviour here with evidence: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Problematic_editor. These serious problems should be sorted out and solved as first priority. The harassment is making me very uncomfortable editing here on Wikipedia. --Scientiom (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ex-gay movement, LGBT rights at the United Nations, Justice discussion

• Hi. I am Go Phightins!, a volunteer here at the DR noticeboard. I wanted to let you both know that I will look into your case tomorrow. Please remember, however, that this board is only for discussing content, not other users' conduct, so you'll need to go elsewhere if you need assistance in that area. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

While I am a regular volunteer her at DR/N I will be taking a regular participant role here and will be watching this dispute with interest as a member of Project LGBT studies.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am yet a third regular volunteer here at DRN. I probably won't be substantially participating in this case, but I would like to note that: (a) In light of his/her comments, above, unless Scientiom avers that s/he will participate in this as a content discussion, this is probably only a conduct matter and ought to be closed. (b) There is a lack of substantial discussion in reference to both Justice and, especially, Ex-gay movement and this case should probably be limited, if it moves forward at all, to just LGBT rights at the United Nations. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Filing editor has been idef blocked. Suggest this filing be closed.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by BDD

I would strongly suggest this thread be closed. It's too simple a matter for DRN. One editor opposed the outcome of an RM; he or she should use MRV if the result is felt to be procedurally inappropriate, or a later RM with new information if it is felt to be substantially inappropriate. This is premature. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Piotrus

Camdan makes some good points, but he made them after the RM has started and was near its finish. Much of his argumentation was also at Wikipedia_talk:POLAND#Jan_de_Jani_vs_Jan_z_Jani and worse, User_talk:Piotrus#Thoughts, neither of which is read by all parties of the RM. Because I got a lot of comments over the past few days on my talk page (I am teaching a course and have ~20 newbie students posting on my talk regularly now, sigh) I also missed his request that I move the article few days ago, which I guess led to this DRM. (@Camdan, I have not ignored your request on purpose, I simply missed it). If Camdan wants to start a new RM, go ahead and start it. I may consider not opposing the "of" version, although I doubt I can support it as I am afraid it still suffers from the WP:OR/WP:COMMONNAME problem.

Personally, I wish Camdan good luck in his wiki editing, we had a good discussion, but I think he needs to reread OR/COMMONNAME, and he probably misunderstands how RM and this board operate. If, as I suspect, this is closed with no action, I encourage him to either present sources that use his preferred spelling, or drop this issue until such a time they are present, and focus on writing about a more document topic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough form me, there have been several missunderstandings in the communication with several persons that is now clear. I wish to discuss further this issue so we can reach consensus. I thank Piotrus for kind response and I will move this discussion to other forum, case here is closed. Sincerely, camdan (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by ColonelHenry

• First Comment Many Polish (and other Eastern European) surnames are rendered in the 18th to 19th century using the French preposition "de." All things French were the rage then, and the French renderings were preferred in the spirit of a lingua franca as being of a more elitist, classist standing than the original ethnic prepositions. Jan z Jani is correct for his lifetime and for today while Jan de Jani is an inauthentic and revisionist rendering from the 19th century. Speaking from my degree work in classics, User:Camdan's assertion that the name "de" is of Latin origin is preposterous and unsupportable as there is no actual word for "of" in Latin. In Latin, the preposition "of" is implied in the form the noun takes (typically genitive or dative, rarely nominative) and is never a stand-alone word in a name. I support renaming the article Jan z Jani per Piotrus given its historical accuracy and I would eschew naming it Jan of Jani or any other permutation using an English preposition--such a construction would be culturally insensitive and incorrect.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Second comment. We do not propose changing all the Germanic von names to "of" (i.e. Otto von Bismarck, Otto von Habsburg) neither would we consider changing French names (i.e. Marquis de Sade, Marquis de Lafayette, Honore de Balzac) or Spanish names (i.e. Juan de la Cierva, Juan de la Garza). Jan z Jani would comport with the spirit and desired precision/recognizability/etc. of WP:TITLE, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME (q.v. meeting both criteria (frequency and correctness) in The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct), and per WP:UE because the non-anglicized form predominate(s) in English language reliable sources and per WP:EN we are instructed to use the name which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (which from my cursory review of reliable sources on the subject and related history would be Jan z Jani) noting that I refuse to take into consideration the algorithmic biases of Google.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Third Comment - per WP:MOSPOL, Favour the use of Polish spelling and diacritics to ensure accuracy and respect for the subject unless there is established usage in verifiable reliable sources in English. - established usage and reliable sources in English leans toward "z". Further, if there is any better evidence of 19th century French influence on culture, look at the mention of Frédéric Chopin.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Volunteer Marek

Opening comments by Ohconfucius

• Is there really a dispute, or is this a mountain being made out of a molehill? -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by

Jan z Jani discussion

After reading comment from Piotrus and also from BDD - sorely missed on my talk page but posted on his that I did not see from the beginning, I would like to close this matter since I recognize that consensus can be made by arguments with respect for all aspects involving and in accordance to make wiki trustadle and free of errors. I have no more comments on this than close this matrer. camdan (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by Gen. Quon

I was quite surprised that I got a notice about a "dispute". I would've responded to a message on my talk page...

First, I will apologize for being rude. I've dealt with a lot of unnecessary vandalism with ratings references, so I assumed this was another case. I didn't assume good faith, and this is my bad. When I mentioned the refs being screwed up, I was referring to their effect on the page List of The X-Files episodes. I'm sorry to say it, but the edits did actually screw up the page, but I left out some info, so again, my bad. OK, here's why I reverted them. The reference that you have added to the other pages is simply "'Nielsen Ratings'. USA Today (Gannett Company, Inc.). 1995. p. D3. Retrieved March 9, 2013." I assume that the refs link to a PDF with the ratings info. The problem with this is two fold. First, this reference is a conglomeration of newspaper articles, many of which are missing their titles. When I went through season 1 and 2's Nielsen Ratings, I had to use my college's database to find the title of many of them, as well as the date they were published (for instance, for many of these articles, the title is NOT merely "Nielsen Ratings). Also (like I just mentioned), the date of publication is important for these, as a lump reference is sloppy. The second problem with this is that it is utterly redundant. See the "U.S. viewers (millions)"? There is a ref right beside it that covers the entire season, with info taken directly from Brian Lowry's book Trust No One: The Official Guide to the X-Files. This is true from season 3-5. There is no reason to add a second citation for information we have already cited, other than overkill. The reason seasons 1 and 2 have unique ratings for each point is because the book that covers season 1 and 2 does not include viewership numbers, but rather household numbers. Thus, I had to go out and find the information. You claim that you were "simplifying [and] using a single source that was being used for a few episodes only", however, this actually complicates the page, because the page goes from 1 source for the ratings to about 5. I'm very sorry you spent three hours working on these, but we already had the information present in the article, and from a high-quality, independent third party source, so it was entirely redundant.

As for season 8. The way I originally had it, several of the ratings points were backed up by reliable newspaper sources (see the right hand column here), but the editor removed them and replaced them all with a single source to TV Tango (which I add for some of the other episodes that were missing the ratings). TV Tango is obvious a lesser reliable source (although still reliable, IMO, because of its founder/editor being reliable and trustworthy) than a newspaper article, so it makes more sense to include the newspaper articles before the website. The same is true for season 9's page; some higher quality sources (newspapers, books, etc.) were replaced by the (still reliable, just not as much) website. One reason why I was frustrated and acted quickly is because I've been working on this project for about a year now, and the edits goofed up the way the references for "List of The X-Files episodes" read; there were a few reference errors, but they've been fixed now.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there is no reason to re-cite the rating points for season 3-5, since they are already covered by book citations. To be fair, I went and added the book cite individually to all of season 3-5 episodes' spaces. Season 8 and 9 use a smattering of newspaper and book citations, as well as a website, but "cleaning them up" (in the manner that was done) is problematic, because it replaces the best references (books, newspapers) with lesser quality references. The highest-quality references should always be used in cases like this. I'm sorry if I came off as rash and mean. I just thought I was dealing with another vandal, as this major over-haul messed up several references in the before-mentioned List of The X-Files episodes article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The X-Files (season 3), The X-Files (season 4), The X-Files (season 5), The X-Files (season 8), The X-Files (season 9) discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by

Foundation for Defense of Democracies discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by TerriersFan

Opening comments by Necrothesp

I'm afraid I cannot understand why this has been brought to dispute resolution. It's not a content dispute. The proper place for discussion about an article which has been proposed for deletion is on the appropriate AfD page, where it is already being discussed. Attempts to circumvent this are not productive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sj

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAPS International High discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening comments by Britmax

A quick remark between RL commitments. Stick to the sources, leave out the "systematic" as not all of them were or can be proved to be, and make it clear that the deaths resulted from the war that grew from the policies that Hitler advocated rather than blaming him for the deaths of fifty million people. I'm not a fan of his but it's more complicated than that. Finally keep any breakdown to two or three major examples or editors will start "listing". Britmax (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Diannaa

The numbers at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53#breakdown of 40 million deaths mentioned in Legacy section? are well sourced and very chilling. I was doing some research yesterday for a different article and one source points out that Hitler expected 30 million Russians to starve to death the first winter after the German invasion, and that is how they would get their Lebensraum (Longerich [2012], The Holocaust, page 181). People starved to death in the camps; that does not mean they were not systematically murdered, as their deaths were planned and intentional, whether they were starved or shot or gassed. Are we expected to analyse each death and say that a death counts because the person was gassed but Anne Frank does not count because she died of typhus? The numbers listed in this article have been checked and re-checked by myself and other editors who specialise in Nazi Germany and we believe that they're reasonable estimates based on reliable sources.

More sources: Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin says that the Nazis expected 30 million Russians to die of starvation during the first winter after the invasion of the Soviet Union. Longerich says the same (Snyder, p 416; Longerich, The Holocaust, p 181). Snyder (p 416) gives an estimate of 10 million systematically murdered in the area contained within this map. To that we must add the following victims who were killed outside the geographical area discussed in his book:

• Aktion T4: 70,000 victims (Longerich, The Holocaust, page 140)
• Jewish victims outside the geographical area covered in Bloodlands: 1,532,539 (there's a breakdown in my sandbox).

That's an additional 1.6 million victims for a total of 11.6 million. So this this information, collated from three different sources, gives us a similar number of systematically murdered as to what appears in the article. To draw information regarding the victims from a number of sources is not OR or synthesis in my opinion. In fact for important articles like this one it should be self-evident that we would draw on a number of different sources. Similarly the 50 million total war dead has been collated from a couple different sources and this number is also accurate imo.

Suggested new wording: Britmax has a good idea that the wording could be altered. Suggestion: Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews.[2][3][4] An estimated 50 million people lost their lives during World War II.[5][6]

Opening comments by Kierzek

This really has been discussed at length by an assortment of regular and knowledgeable editors weighing in on the subject over time. Cites have been given in the discussion and through consensus, the final sentences have been placed into the article. As Kershaw simplify states (e.g.): Hitler made it clear he believed the Jews brought on the war so they should be "the first to feel the consequences". p. 694; thereafter, with the surrender on 9 May 1945, "Hitler's war was over." p. 963; "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead..." p. 969. "Hitler: A Biography" (2008). Kierzek (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Malljaja

I first would like to note that the list of users invited for comment here should also include Kierzek. He has been a major contributor to the entry in question. Second, I do not see evidence for synthesis as alleged by the user requesting this DR. WP advises, "...synthesis of published material to advance a new position, [...] is original research," yet the statement in question does not advance a new position—as is expected from the text in the lead, the sentence in question summarises content given elsewhere (in the Legacy section of the entry). Third, as can be seen from the extensive history of the pertinent discussion on the talk page, the discussion on the issue of inclusion or exclusion of the sentence in question became very unproductive.

In the long discussion on the talk page, I have not seen any credible evidence emerging that would contradict the notion that Hitler's policies were responsible for the death of millions of people. It is amply supported by the literature written by scholars of this part of history (eg, by Ian Kershaw who is regarded very highly in the field). As far as I can tell, two issues concern the exact number of victims and the use of the word systematic. Dianna has provided an excellent summary identifying multiple sources (listed in detail on the talk page and included in the entry) that place the number of victims between 5–21 million people, so the 11 million figure represents a conservative estimate. Lastly, the word "systematic" is very commonly used to characterize the nature of the killing methods used (see eg, here), which included direct methods, such as systematic executions and death in gas chambers, and indirect methods intended to induce death by starvation and disease, such as forced labour and organized settlements into ghettos.

[A]s can be seen from the editing history of this entry, all editors who have made major recent contributions—including revising the Legacy section and the lead section in question—have used different sources and pursued many individual approaches aimed at improving the entry both in terms of sourced content and overall length. These efforts have independently converged on a consensus as represented in the current version. It thus represents the result of mutual peer review of different editors rather than a concerted effort of synthesis as alleged by this user. Malljaja (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

_{This opening is over by 200 characters, but within the accepted overage as established by consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)}

Opening comments by Mystichumwipe

I do understand the frustration and the complaint: "we've done this". I really do. And yet ...still no-one has supplied what I have been asking for and which wiki policy requires as a basic compulsory requirement.

A previous problem that I would like us here to avoid, is that of personal opinion (presented as fact) being given as a reply to my request for a source.

BASIC and CORE Wiki policy is that articles are about verifiability NOT truth. So instead of us repeating over and over again what we as individual editors personally feel is 'true', it would finish the discussion once and for all if editors would provide a verifiable source that EXPLICITLY states exactly what the disputed sentence claims. If editors could do this, the conversation would be over. If editors still can't do that simple thing - and after so much discussion, - then I respectfully suggest that this is proof that the sentence is the result of unverifiable synthesis.

Finally, I have provided reliable, verifiable sources that contradict the sentence; sources which have been consistently ignored. I think it would help conclude this, if someone could address this aspect of the discussion also. As I am arguing that not only is the sentence the result of unverifiable synthesis, it is also contradicted by cited verifiable, reliable and authorative mainstream sources.

SUMMARY. The disputed sentence as I see it, infringes wiki policy in numerous different ways: 1.) it is unverifiable, 2.) as it is the result of synthesis so is therefore 3.) original research, and 4.) it can and has been contradicted so it can be argued is verifiably wrong.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nick-D

This has been discussed extensively (and very civilly) on the article's talk page, with many experienced editors with knowledge of this topic commenting and providing sources. The consensus is that the sentence is basically OK. This appears to be a case of one editor being unable to drop the stick and move on. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Paul Barlow

Opening comments by Paul Siebert

If I understand Mystichumwipe correctly, his main objections are: (i) that no sources exist that say that 11 million people were systematically murdered according to Hitler's policy, and (ii) no sources exist that claim Hitler's policy lead to 50 million deaths. I think serious discussion of the thesis (i) is tantamount to the Holocaust denial: in addition to concentration camps, Hitler ordered to create death camps, where systematic murder of people was being perpetrated in industrial scale (in contrast to, e.g. Gulag, which was not an extermination camp), the extermination through labour program was also a systematic murder. I don't think it makes sense to develop a discussion in this direction. Regarding (ii), as Kierzek correctly noted, Kershaw says essentially the same, namely that Hitler was a major author of the war leading over 50 million deaths. Obviously, only politicians can be an author of a war, and they do that by conducting a certain policy. That Hitler's policy was supremacist and racially motivated is obvious, and that is consistent with what Kershaw writes. Therefore, the main idea of this author has been correctly transmitted in this sentence, so we cannot speak about any synthesis here.
Mystichumwipe also argued that some sources question a systematic character of murders. If that is the case, it is not SYNTH, but due weight issue. In connection top that, I propose to separate these two issues, and finish with SYNTH first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by STFX1046190

Opening comments by TheTimesAreAChanging

Since Rummel doesn't explicitly link the war death toll with Hitler's racially supremacist ideology, the sentence does appear to be engaging in synthesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Woogie10w

I am no longer involved in this discussion--Woogie10w (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that this is a topic where emotions can run high and interpersonal conflicts can flame up, so everybody here needs to take the following from the guide for participants at the top of this page seriously:

Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.

All discussion must be about article content, not user conduct. Comments about other users will be closed or removed, and if the problem persists you may be asked to leave the discussion. If you see such a comment do not respond. Leave it for one of the dispute resolution volunteers to deal with. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion

Discussion is now open.

I am now opening this up for discussion. before we proceed, I want to clarify a few things.

First, yes we are serious about the following rule:

What this noticeboard is not:

It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.

You are free to discuss other editors on the article talk page as long as you don't violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA but not here.

Second, yes, we all know that a large number of editors have one opinion and a small minority another. There is no need to point this out. the minority freely admits it. If we determine that no policies such as WP:SYNTHESIS are being violated, then we have a consensus and that settles it. So please focus on the question of whether any policies are being violated. Another thing about a bunch of editors agreeing is that they usually are right about policy, but not always. The policies are there so that we don't end up with a hundred Neo-Nazis claiming consensus hundred Scientologists claiming consensus over our Dianetics article -- the article has to meet our neutrality and sourcing guidelines no matter what the consensus is.

Third, please slow down, make your comments short and to the point, and give others plenty of time to respond. We are here because this issue keeps coming up again and again on the article talk page, and we want to put it to bed forever (or at least until someone shows that there is new evidence that deserves another look -- unlikely with a historical figure).

Finally, look over your comments before hitting save and see if you can improve them. Closed DRN cases are often linked to, and the clearer your arguments are now, the less problems Wikipedia will have over this topic in the future. A calm, cool conversation with plenty of citations to reliable sources and discussion about the specific wording of various policies will win the day. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, can you please strike the bit about "a hundred Neo-Nazis claiming consensus"? I understand the point you're trying to make (eg, about the theoretic dangers of a local consensus of nutters emerging somewhere), but that really isn't an issue here, and it's actually pretty offensive to even suggest the involvement of 'neo-Nazis' as a possibility in this context. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point, and I apologize. I have replaced the example with another one which I hope won't offend anyone. If it does, I am going to try to offend Justin Bieber fans next.. :) Again, my apologies. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You should always be trying to offend Bieber fans ;) Nick-D (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that the question before us is not what the numbers are or whether it is OK to add numbers from different sources, but rather what those sources are counting. It is also clear that the sources don't have to be in he lead, but they do need to be somewhere in the article.

Let's start with the first part of the disputed statement:

If you want to say "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." then every source you add up has to say exactly that. If a single source says the equivalent of "Hitler's policies resulted in..." you have to either exclude that source from the count or drop the "supremacist and racially motivated". So, for those of you who support "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in...", please list the sources you are counting up and quote the exact wording where you think each source says "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." Note that not everything in racist. On could argue that ordering Jews to be killed is clearly racist but ordering the handicapped to be killed is not (being handicapped is not a race).

If instead you want to say "Hitler's policies resulted in..." then you should have an easier time showing that all the sources you are adding together say exactly that. A source saying that it is counting Jews sent to death camps would qualify. A source saying that it is counting deaths in the ghettos or work camps also qualifies (death is a predictable result of putting people in those conditions). POWs shot trying to escape would not qualify, but Hitler ordering them all to be lined up and shot would.

If the source says it is counting German war dead, then we need to talk about whether "world war two resulted in" is more correct -- otherwise we are saying that every American death was the result of Roosevelt's policies.

At this point I don't need full citations or the actual numbers. We can check those later once we establish what we are measuring, and I doubt that anyone is making stuff up. I just want the wording in the sources that supports the "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." Then we can move on to the next part of he disputed statement. --Guy Macon (talk)

I would like to point out that we cannot say what a source says, we need to paraphrase any source and thus find a wording that is supported by a source— we need to be mindful of copyright issues, and especially with some sources being used frequently, fair use may no longer be applicable.

In regards to your specific question, Kershaw on page 476 of "Hitler: Nemesis" says (referring to General Plan East, Hitler's military plan for acquiring "Lebensraum" in eastern Europe),

He (Rolf-Heinz Höppner, an SS Sturmbannführer in charge of laying out plans for implementation of this plan) envisage deportations once the war was over 'out of German settlement space' of the undesirable sections of the population from the German Reich and of peoples from eastern and south-eastern Europe deemed racially unfit for Germanization. He specifically included the ultimate (endgültige) solution of the Jewish question, not just in Germany but in all states under German influence, in his suggestions.

This particular section of Kershaw's work may not be currently referenced in the entry (although the book is), but could be included in the 'Legacy" section because it provides evidence that Hitler's policies were racially motivated. Note that the "ultimate solution of the Jewish question" refers to the annihilation of Jewish people by various means, including execution-style killings, forced labour intended to cause death, and exposure to unsanitary conditions resulting in death by diseases or starvation. Malljaja (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Kershaw (2008) pp. 148-149 discusses "Mein Kampf" where Hitler spelled out, rather clumsily, his plans for rebuilding Germany into a new society based on race, including genocide. It gave insight to his thinking; the mission was "to destroy 'Jewish Bolshevism'...at the same time provide the German people with 'living space' needed for the 'master race'. He held to these beliefs for the rest of his life. "Once head of state, Hitler's personalized 'world-view' would serve as 'guidelines for action' for policy-makers in all areas of the Third Reich." This is info. para-phased in the "Beer Hall Putsch" section where "Mein Kampf" is discussed (briefly, due to article byte size and due to the fact it has its own article which is linked). One could look to p. 150, as well, where Kershaw states, "Once the link with Bolshevism was made, Hitler had established his central and lasting vision of a titanic battle for supremacy, a racial struggle..." (this one page can be added, if need be) If one ties the above in with what I cited in my "opening statement section", it supports the lede. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, that establishes that Kershaw clearly supports the "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in..." language. Does Kershaw also give us the eleven million figure? If so, that part of the disputed statement is verifiable and not a result of synthesis or original research.

If it seems that I am being pedantic, it is because I want the archive of this DRN case to be something you can link to any time this comes up in the future, rather than you having to have yet Another Long Discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Kershaw says, "[Hitler was] the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead and millions more grieving their lost ones ..." ("Nemesis" p. 841.) He does not break down this number into those murdered by genocide and those killed in the war; these exact numbers are sourced to, for example, The Holocaust Memorial Museum and Rummel. However, combining these sources is not advancing a new position, ie, synthesis; the field of scholarly historical research has long moved on from ascribing these deaths to Hitler's actions and policies to other pursuits, such as identifying the underlying reasons for the complete moral and political breakdown occurring during this period. That's why it will be difficult to find a current and authoritative source that would assign exact figures of victims to any one of Hitler's specific policies and actions. Again, the sentence in question does not advance a new position; it summarises well-sourced content reflecting extensive scholarly research. Malljaja (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as the Devil's Advocate here, (I don't believe it is a new position or that any serious scholar questions it), WP:SYNTHESIS does not use the word "new" in the same sense I used it just now. That page makes it quite clear on what is and is not allowed:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."

Thus, combining as you describe above is not allowed: Either we find a source where the claim is explicitly stated or we cannot make the claim. I know that it is frustrating, not being able to put a claim in an article that anyone can see is true just by reading two sources, but that's not how Wikipedia works. The answer to this is to present A and B as separate properly-sourced statements. I have never seen a case where using a few more words didn't resolve the synthesis problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as long as this is not in relation to wording and is strictly a calculation it is acceptable per: WP:CALC which states:

Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.

--Amadscientist (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the article's lead, so I don't think that such a literal reading of WP:SYNTHESIS is appropriate - leads are meant to summarise the main points raised in the article per WP:MOSINTRO, which inevitably leads to material being worked together a bit. A better question might be to ask why the material in the lead needs specific citations given that it's cited when it appears in the body of the article (I think). Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that Nick-D beat me to it, so I apologise for the repetition, as he and I are essentially making the same point: Guy, I appreciate your use of the devil's advocate position, but I do not think it applies the concept of synthesis correctly. The sentence in question is in the lead. As per its main function, the lead succinctly summarises content given elsewhere in the entry. Accordingly, were we to strictly apply the definition of synthesis to this section, as far as I can tell, much of the content in the lead in this and other entries probably would have to go. The Legacy section contains the content (which clearly delineates statements and sources) the lead sentence refers to, with detailed sources provided, and the lead sentence summarises this content; it does not reach a conclusion. This means that the rule, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion [emphasis mine] not explicitly stated by any of the sources." does not apply here. Now, one could argue that this lead sentence "slips in" an angle or position that is new or even contradicts content, but this is not the issue here—the broad consensus has been that this sentence appropriately reflects the content in the main body of the article. Malljaja (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the citations can be lower in the article and summarized in the lead, but they do need to be in the article somewhere.

The problem I have is that this particular "routine calculation" adds together one source that says that (some of) Hitler's policies were racist (clearly not every policy was racist; Hitler had policies that were aimed at reducing unemployment and building railroads and highways, for example) and another source that says that (some of) Hitler's policies resulted in 11 million dead. That doesn't add up to all of the dead being dead because of racist policies. Our article on The Holocaust says:

"Some scholars argue that the mass murder of the Romani and people with disabilities should be included in the definition, and some use the common noun "holocaust" to describe other Nazi mass murders, including those of Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, and homosexuals. Recent estimates based on figures obtained since the fall of the Soviet Union indicates some ten to eleven million civilians and prisoners of war were intentionally murdered by the Nazi regime."

Clearly some of those groups mentioned were murdered for reasons other than race. "people with disabilities" and "homosexuals" come in all races, including the Nazi-preferred "Aryan race".

Thus, claiming that all 11 million deaths were the result of racist policies is not a matter of "routine calculation", nor is it merely summarizing two separate sources. One source says that (some of) Hitler's policies were racist and killed (some number of) people and the other source says that (some of) Hitler's policies resulted in 11 million dead. Not only does no source say that the racist policies killed all of the 11 million, but it looks like the second source counts people with disabilities and homosexuals -- groups that include all races, including blond-haired blue-eyed Germans. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible to refer to the deaths as just a result of policies alone then? The additonal peoples murdered were still a direct result of Hitler's policies.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. The previous comments in this thread have clearly shown that 11 million people (including six million Jews) died as a direct result of Adolph Hitler's policies, and that this was purposeful. That's clearly sourced with no synthesis or original research needed. Likewise, it is well-sourced that Hitler started WWII and that WWII directly and indirectly caused roughly 50 million people to die.

The problematic portions of the current wording are the claim that all 11 million died because of racist policies, and possibly the term "murdered" instead of "killed". The latter isn't clearly wrong, and I wouldn't object very strongly if it stayed in, but our Murder article defines murder as "unlawful killing". If you accept the idea of a nation being allowed to make its own laws, then clearly it wasn't "unlawful". That's a big if, though; see Nuremberg Trials#Criticism. Because of the POV problem, I would advise sidestepping the issues raised in Nuremberg Trials#Criticism by using "killed". Other than those two issues, I see no problem with the current statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re "racist", strictly speaking, Hitler's antisemitism doesn't fit this definition, because both Germans and Jews belong to the same - Caucasian - race, so I see no more racism in killing of Jews by Germans than in killing of Tutsi by Hutu. However, Hitler's views are described as "racist" by many, if not an overwhelming majority of authors, and that is probably because of his obsession with the idea of Nazi invented "Aryan race". By the way, killing of homosexuals, mentally ill etc also fits this racist concept, because the goal was to improve the Aryan race by elimination of undesired individuals.

Regarding "murder" versus "killing", Wheatcroft argued that we can speak about murder, not just killings, "of at least 5 millions innocent people largely" (for details, see Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353), and, in contrast to, for example, Stalin's executions (when some attempts were made to maintain a visibility of legality), Hitler "was not concerned about making any pretence at legality. He was careful not to sign anything on this matter and was equally insistent on no documentation." (ibid)--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to start by thanking Guy for volunteering your time to try and solve this. I think you expressed and pinpointed the nature of this discussion very succinctly so I repeat it here "the question before us is not what the numbers are or whether it is OK to add numbers from different sources, but rather what those sources are counting."

To answer the initial opening arguments ( I number them for ease of reply):

I answer briefly that Snyder's book on pg 421 makes no mention at all of any deaths planned or otherwise, that I could see. Nor mentions "systematic murder". (Perhaps that page number was given incorrectly). Also, Longerich's The Holocaust, p 181 also DOES NOT say anyone was "systematically murdered" nor were planned to be so. He in fact writes that the 30 million projected lives at risk were expected to either die or "emigrate to Siberia". And in context, Churchill enforced a a blockade against Germany from 1939 that resulted in death by starvation and disease of many in mainland Europe and particularly in Poland. He also implemented racist and supremacist ideologies and policies in his execution of war (e.g. "I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.") His policies resulted in the death by starvation of 3 - 5 million Indians in the Bengal famine of 1943 (Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill's Secret War, etc). Anyone is free to believe that Churchill's racist and supremacist ideologies and policies resulted in the "systematic murder" of all those people in Poland and Bengal, etc. But if they want to write that in the Churchill wiki page and to compile lists of numbers of those dead victims, they obviously have to provide a reliable source that states exactly what they write. The situation is exactly the same here on the Adolph Hitler page. So, as another editor has written: "keep any breakdown to two or three major examples or editors will start 'listing'."

The questions are i.) what are the sources for the numbers specified PLUS ii.) whether there is a synthesis of those numbers with uncited allegations of causation, responsibility and motivation for the deaths.

5. Two editors argued that this source: "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead..." supports the disputed sentence. But it DOES NOT state that Hitler and his "racist, supremacist policies" were responsible for over 50 million dead, but that the resulting war was. Also by stating Hitler was the "main author" infers he was only one "author" among others. So this actually argues against the disputed sentence and confers responsibility for all these deaths on ALL the "authors", not just Hitler. The article we are contributing to is about Adolf Hitler, NOT about the war (WW2).

That concludes my reply to the opening arguments.

Regarding the fifty million figure: "...how inadequate is our traditional way of understanding it [WW2]. It is not enough to to portray the war as a simple conflict between the Axis and the Allies over territory... Some of the most vicious fighting was not between the Axis and the Allies at all, but between local people who took the opportunity of the wider war to give vent to much older frustrations... Given that the Germans were only one ingredient in this vast soup of different conflicts, it stands to reason that their defeat did not bring an end to the violence. In fact the traditional view that the war came to an end when Germany finally surrendered in May 1945 is entirely misleading: in reality their capitulation only brought to an end one aspect of the fighting. The related conflicts over race, nationality and politics continued for weeks, months and sometimes years afterwards." (Savage Continent by Keith Lowe, p.366. Publication Date: 5 April 2012. ISBN-13: 978-0670917464). Please note this part: "the Germans were only ONE ingredient in this vast soup of different conflicts". Therefore we can NOT infer by cobbling together different sources that Hitler and his policies were responsible for all those deaths as the disputed intro sentence incorrectly does (AND does without providing a verifiable source).

Regarding the eleven million figure: What is the source for the eleven million systematically murdered? I am assuming this is a composite of six million Jews plus another five million. Is it? (If so see The Eichmann trial by Deborah Lipstadt. Pgs. 8, 9 and 10. Also The holocaust in American life by Prof. Peter Novick. Pg.225).

7. To avoid arguing over non-contested aspects, maybe it will help if I state that I accept that of course Hitler's policies were racist and supremacist; of course millions of people died in camps; of course he was one of the main authors of a war that resulted in more than fifty million deaths; of course some civilians were systematically killed. The problem is way the sentence adds all that together to form a new position to these uncontested aspects.

I think we all agree that the numbers being used can NOT be attributed soley to Adolf Hitler, which is what the article should be about. I assume we agree that none of the cited sources we are using attributes all these deaths to Hitler alone, nor to his policies. The current unspecific citations used at present of "Yad Vashem, 2008" and "Holocaust Memorial Museum" I suggest are not adequate as a verifiable citation. I myself and one other editor see no need to have this sentence at all in the lead unless it is to try to attribute deaths to Hitler. The difficulty with this is that then we have a complex numbers problem that we then have to over-simplify. We already say in the lead: "Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust." I suggest that is enough. The details can be in the appropriate sections. So we don't really need this disputed sentence in the lead, and it will likely always be an inaccurate over-simplification because of the complexity of the numbers issue.

For all the above reasons I suggest and request that we delete the sentence under discussion immediately and suggest we do not replace it with anything, if we do at all, until this discussion here is resolved and an agreeable solution is reached. What do you think, Guy?.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of jumping in and changing an article before a DRN case is closed. There is no hurry. Also, so far my discussion has been with a few editors who disagree with you, but that's just because they happened to post first. I have every intention of going over your preferred version with the same fine-tooth-comb. I think we are making progress, but it still remains to be seen whether we can resolve this or whether we have to pass it on to another of Wikipedia's dispute resolution steps. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, outstanding claims need outstanding evidences. If you want to challenge the universally accepted fact that Nazi led Germans were a central players during the WWII, and that the WWII associated mass killings essentially ended in 1945, you need to present a source that says that more unambiguously (your source does not explicitly contest Kershaw or other sources named during this discussion). In addition, the source you quoted is an opinion of just one author, and it is not clear if this author reflects mainstream, minority or fringe views.

Regarding your other points, I think it would be ridiculous to blame Britain in starvation of the Poles (the sooner you abandon such ridiculous arguments the better, because that just makes your own position weaker). It is insufficient to concede that people were dying in German camps: in actuality, they were being systematically murdered there, especially in the extermination camps, which were established after Wannsee Conference. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

To Paul. Huh!? I do not see how "central players" is responding to what I have written? (I numbered my points so editors could make it clear what they are replying to). I am making no such claims as you have written. I am disputing the claims made in this sentence under discussion. I gave an example of Churchill only to serve to clarify what I think is going on with how this sentence has been arrived at. Could you please read it again in that light (as of an example only). Regarding the starvation of Poles due to the British blockade. There was a British blockade. Poles did starve as a result. U.S. politicians did criticise Churchill for it at the time. I can provide you with a page number and source if you like. It's in 'Human Smoke' by Nicholson Baker. BUT this a distraction (my over-arching point); a side-show to my request again that we stick to the exact topics that require sources, and not get bogged down in only slightly related 'history lessons' to each other, that will require answering how individual editors view the history. This will merely distract from the main issues, has no relevance, and wastes time. Ermm, ironically exactly as is happening now. ;-) Remember, verifiability NOT truth.

Can someone provide a reliable authoritative source that says exactly what the disputed sentence says and which doesn't contradict other sources such as Lowe, Lipstadt, Prof. Novick, etc? Everything else is superfluous.

I am arguing that the Kershaw quote does not say what the synthesis-sentence claims (as I have attempted to show) and Lowe, Lipstadt and Novick contradict aspects of the sentence. So I'm still arguing that until someone provides the required sources, the sentence remains unverifiable original research. These were and still remain my points.

To Guy. I am only suggesting it's removal till a resolution has been arrived at. We have five editors - since I have been involved - who are agreeing it is problematical. And two of us think it is unnecessary and an inaccurate oversimplification. We can put it back again once it has been improved and/or something else agreed upon. My thinking is 'why keep it in, in its present form, if we are intent on an online encyclopedia that values verifiable accuracy'?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I am going to arbitrarily declare that if three editors who are involved in this page (not DR volunteers) agree, we will change

"Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and indirectly and directly caused the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II."

to

"Hitler's policies resulted in the death of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and contributed to the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II."

While we discuss this.

I know it isn't perfect, but I hope everyone can live with it for a short period.

Mystichumwipe makes one. Are there two others? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, you had struck out all of Paul B's and part of my opening comments because they contained views on user conduct. I completely understand your reasoning. In the interest of fairness and a productive outcome of this discussion could you please apply the same principle to Mystimwipe's comments? Many of his comments focus on user conduct, not on sources (eg., among others: "Previously, editors have refused to discuss on the talk page as they said they do not want to waste their own time." and ˇeditors refused to engage by arguing I was a lone voice"). Thank you. Malljaja (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about not catching that earlier. --16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 2

Thanks Guy for your prompt attention to this.

Could you please first explain your rationale for your suggested change of this sentence? As I and several others have shown above, Hitler's policies were racially motivated and that the nature of the killings was systematic. The systematic conduct of the mass killings is a hallmark of the Holocaust and is supported by the sources given above and by many others.

Also, serious doubts have been raised by several editors (Kierzek, Nick-D, Paul Siebert, and myself) and one of the DR volunteers (Amadscientist) about the assertion that synthesis has occurred, and I am unsure what your views are now in light of these rebuttals. You have made a valid point about the use of "murder" versus "killing," and I do not see a problem changing this particular wording as you suggest. However, I do not agree with your suggested change that would eliminate "racially motivated" and "systematic" since these qualifiers you have acknowledged are properly sourced and provide important detail.

I concur with Paul Siebert's analysis that the term "racist" is very broadly used to describe the underlying rationales for many of the Nazi actions that were spurred or sanctioned by Hitler's policies; besides organised killings in death camps it included euthanasia [which was carried out extensively during the Nazi programme "Tötung lebensunwerten Lebens" ("killing of life not worth living"), which targeted people who were physically or mentally handicapped], and also experimentation on human subjects deemed racially inferior. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no preferred wording. That's for those who have been involved to decide. I did pick a wording above in response to repeated calls for changing the article while we discuss -- and picked a criteria (three editors support, no editors object), but that was just a minimum information version, not something I would support long-term. My only requirement is that whatever wording you pick is supported by a source without original research or synthesis. Which is what we are discussing now and have not agreed upon. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeated calls from whom? Aside from Mystimwipe, who has been aggressively arguing for removing or changing the wording in the lead sentence, no other editors have come forward advocating for such change. By contrast, several editors have argued for its retention, have provided sources, and provided counterarguments for the alleged occurrence of synthesis or original research. To say, "that's for those who have been involved to decide," does not address the issue—it postpones it. However, as stated above, I agree with your thoughts on changing "murders" to "killings." Malljaja (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeated calls from Mystimwipe. It looks like nobody else has signed up as agreeing that an immediate change to the article is needed, so it is a moot point and not thus worth discussing further. --Guy Macon (talk)

Addendum: In regards to your continued concern over synthesis and OR, Dianna has done most of the research on the number of victims killed in the genocide and in the war. She has provided most of the relevant sources given in the lead (and the Legacy section) and will be able to elaborate on what exactly these sources are saying. She may be on a well-deserved weekend break, however, and not currently following this. Malljaja (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I will make sure everyone has plenty of time - there is no deadline for resolving this. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Random thought from uninvolved user: I don't argue systematic killings, however were they racially motivated? Isn't there a possibility that, like most corrupt leaders, he'd do anything to keep his power? It was through Nazi propaganda that he came into power in the first place. At this point do we have a document from Hitler prooving his racism? MGray98 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's main centrepiece of most of his political speeches was that "the Jews" (and "Jewish Bolshevism") were responsible for Germany's misfortunes, including the loss of World War I and economic post-WWI calamities. He and other high-ranking Nazi officials couched this in terms of race, and the intended acquisition of "living space" for "Germanic" (or "Aryan") people was predicated on his view that these area were inhabited by "inferior races" (i.e., Poles and Slavs). Kershaw's two books "Hubris" and "Nemesis" contain ample probing and discussion of the origin of Hitler's views and how he used them to gain popular support and how they eventually got enshrined in policy. In short, there's strong evidence for scholarly consensus that Hitler's policies were racially motivated. Malljaja (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

From what you just said, Hitler used "the Jews" to gain power. Was he really motivated because he believed his speechs? Is there proof of his racists views before he came to power? (I'm asking questions here, not arguing) MGray98 (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The exact time when Hitler became an anti-Semite is subject of a current debate. Kershaw investigates and discusses this in "Hubris" and, using abundant caution, concludes that although there may have been some evidence for his antisemitism developing before WWI (mainly resting on testimony by a close friend of Hitler, August Kubizek), records of his speeches and of private conversations and also letters indicate that his antisemitism became more clearly articulated after WWI when he embarked on his political career. More recent studies (e.g., by Othmar Plöckinger, see here have confirmed this . Malljaja (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

To add further confusion, almost everyone agrees that Hitler's definition of "race" was bogus, and a significant number of scholars today think that the way most people define "race" today is also bogus. Of course killing people over a bogus definition of race is still racism, but for Wikipedia to say that all eleven million were killed over racism requires a reliable source that says exactly that. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am now for the statement, "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic killing of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and indirectly and directly caused the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II." MGray98 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The above series of arguments are interesting, but cannot be used to support any particular wording. Any claim we make must be explicitly stated in a reliable source or we cannot make the claim. If you want a particular wording, tell us what reliable source explicitly states it (not just something related), with a direct quote. If you can't find the quote and instead have to explain your reasoning, then what you are doing is almost certainly original research (WP:OR) and/or syntheses (WP:SYNTH). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They were not meant to be; I was just responding to this volunteer's queries. Malljaja (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree - the comments in regards to Churchill are totally wrong and reflect a fringe viewpoint (there was mass starvation in Poland due to the Nazi occupation policies, and not because Churchill was racist towards Poles - see Commission for Polish Relief for a discussion of this issue). Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the claim that Longerich does not support the claim of systematic killing is not supported by the sources given here by you and others, but unless someone is trying to use a specific citation by Longerich to support removing or adding specific wording from the lead of this article, it is outside of the scope of the dispute resolution noticeboard. It is our goal to focus on the content of one small part of one particular article and to leave all other issues to be discussed on the article talk page (or on WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U if there is a behavioral issue to be addressed after the content dispute is resolved.) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, with all respect it's not actually possible to separate the editor conduct issue here from the content issues, and the content aspects of this matter are not going to be resolved in a sensible way by going down the current path

Nick-D (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, This is your last warning. The next time you break the rules of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard I am going to ask you to leave this conversation. You are free to disagree with the policy, or with my enforcement of it, but not here. Post any such complaints at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I must agree with Nick-D. As with mediation in the real world, factors in a case in voluntary review should not be arbitrarily thrown out when they have a direct bearing on points being presented; and have an affect on the decision making process. Kierzek (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Kierzek,I realize that you disagree with DRN policy, and I invite you to bring up the issue at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I would also note, and thank you for, the fact that you have not violated the policy even though you disagree with it. That was and is the right thing to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that simple arythmetic is not original synthesis. Take 6 million killed Jews, 5 million killed Soviet POWs and you're already near the figure, add also 15 million killed Soviet civilians.--Anixx1 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So I can add together worldwide highway fatalities in 2000 and fatalities from the Black Death in the middle ages and call the total "people murdered by Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies"? After all, all I am doing is simple arithmetic, right? Or would you prefer that each of the sources we add up say that what they are counting is people murdered by Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies? According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, you need to [A] make sure that each source you add together clearly states what is being counted, [B] make sure that they are counting the same thing, and [C] make sure that what the Wikipedia page says is being counted matches. Do that, and getting a total by simple arithmetic is fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Longerich quote I claim does not use the wording "systematic murder". The Novich quote that I cited argues against the eleven million figure. Not that there weren't any plans for the systematic murder of Jews. My original point on talk and again here was that he disputes the 11 million figure, as does Lipstadt. And I have asked and am still asking what is the source for the "eleven million" figure and for saying this eleven million were "systematically murdered". If someone has supplied that, I have missed it. If I have missed it, can someone repeat that for me please.

The Lowe quote I provided does not represent a fringe view, as Professor Scheck has also written on this topic. E.g. "Croatia left one of the bloodiest legacies of Germany's satellites: without pressure from Germany the Croat regime established its own death camps and murdered thousands of Serbs and Jews. Serbia had strong partisan movements, one communist and one monarchist-conservative. The partisans managed to liberate their country even before the Red Army arrived, but there was much infighting. The fact that more people in Yugoslavia died as a result of infighting than as a result of German or Italian brutality (which took place on a considerable scale) shows that a Yugoslav civil war was taking place already during World War II."

Another quote, I previously supplied was: “It sufficed for the purposes of the Nuremberg trial to assume that the outbreak of war, and all its exertions, were purely due to Hitler’s aggression. But that is too simple and shallow an explanation. The last thing that Hitler wanted to produce was another great war. “ -Sir Basil Lidell Hart, History of the Second World War. Pg 6. Published by Konecky & Konecky; 1st edition (May 18, 2007).

I provide these quotes to show that it is an inaccurate oversimplification to attempt to add up death tolls from various sources and then attribute them to Hitler and his racist and supremacist policies.

I also think we need to consider what have been called the 'functionalist' versus the 'intentionalist' ways of understanding Hitler's motivations and intentions. I feel this article needs to avoid being perceived to be biased in favour of any one of these approaches. But... Over and above all that...

Q1. remains, what is the source for "eleven million" and for them all being "systematically murdered"?

Q2. remains what is the source for saying Hitler's "supremacist and racially motivated policies ...caused an estimated 50 million deaths" --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree that my Churchill assertion was unsourced and violates synthesis and OR, the very principles alleged to have been violated in the lead sentence. This was exactly my point. We would not allow such to happen on the Churchill wiki page, (the collecting together of separate facts from varied sources to construct a sentence that forms a new and different position to that stated in any of the original sources). I only used this as an example to show what I am arguing we are allowing on the Hitler page. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, could you rewrite the above without the bits that are responses to other editors improperly commenting about other editors? I am trying to get everyone to follow the rules here, and responding just encourages responses to your response. Make sure you keep in the parts that address article content and sources. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Is it better now? Do you want meto rewrite other points that you have disallowed also? I will do that if you think it will help.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! One small change; I would like the first paragraph to not say "I am not saying..." and "I have not written...". This just tempts others to reply "yes you are!" an "Yes you did!", and suddenly we are talking about users instead of content again. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Britmax which as yet have not been commented upon: "Stick to the sources, leave out the 'systematic' as not all of them were or can be proved to be, and make it clear that the deaths resulted from the war that grew from the policies that Hitler advocated rather than blaming him for the deaths of fifty million people. ...Its more complicated than that."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 3

If the issue is the mention of Racism and murder for the total sum then just call it from "policies" that caused "deaths". This shouldn't be that difficult unless I am missing something major here. Some editors want accuracy and they are correct in asking for that but other editors are not wrong in wanting to summarize totla amounts of people who suffered and died by the policies that were set in place by Adolf Hitler. I have to agree with the latter and suggest that we just drop the mention or racsim and maybe replace it with "bigoted" as the term would indeed be verifiable and replace the word "murder" with "deaths". This seems to be encyclopedic in value and is not down grading or diminishing anything.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution. Does anyone have a good reason why we shouldn't do this? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(Temporarily breaking commitment to not particpate; sorry) There were a large number of trials which established that these killings were in fact murders, so it shouldn't be considered a controversial statement (see, for instance, pages 759-760 of Richard J. Evans' book The Third Reich at War in which he repeatedly uses the term 'murder' when summarising the results of Nazi rule of Germany and Europe; this book forms part of a trilogy which is often identified as the current standard work on the history of Nazi Germany). Ian Kershaw (2000b, p. 841) also characterizes the non-war deaths Hitler was responsible for as a "genocide", which is obviously murder, in his biography of Hitler (also often considered the current standard work on this topic). Note that there's a controversial aspect to only using 'deaths' given that many fringe far right historians argue that the bulk of the deaths they concede as having occurred (which they greatly minimize) were essentially accidental and not the result of deliberate policies (a view dismissed by mainstream historians). I agree on removing 'racist' as its rather simplistic though. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Which, of course, brings us right back to the core question: is there a reliable source that says there were 11 million murders, or is WP:SYNTHESIS being used to add together the numbers of two sources, one of which does not specify whether or not all the deaths it is counting are murders?

If a fringe far right historians comes by and argues that the bulk of the 11 million deaths were accidental, I am going to ask them the same question I am asking you; where are the sources that support that?

There is another problem with your argument above. You equate "the result of deliberate policies" with "murder", but they are not the same thing. For example, many German soldiers and even a couple of cities full of Japanese civilians were killed as the result of deliberate policies by FDR. Likewise, recent deaths by drone strikes are the result of deliberate policies by Bush and Obama. If your sources say "the result of deliberate policies". use that wording or a close paraphrase.

Our article on Murder starts with "Murder is the unlawful killing..." It is by no means clear that Hitler's policies were illegal in Nazi Germany. I am aware of the argument that Nazi attempts to hide the killing prove that it was illegal, but the Obama administration has simultaneously attempted to hide various drone killings and asserted that drone killings are legal. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted, the sources I've noted above explicitly use the words 'murder' and 'genocide' in relation to the deaths Hitler's policies lead to, which was the specific topic for which views were being sought in this sub-thread - I'm not sure why we suddenly need to also lump in the 11 million figure into this discussion (for the record, these sources don't provide this figure and I concur it needs a specific references somewhere within the article or a figure with a specific reference inserted in its place) or have some kind of discussion over whether these deaths were unlawful; to characterise the deaths as being the result of 'murder' is supported by the references and not controversial given my understanding of the historiography of this era. I'm assuming that your comparisons of FDR and Obama to Hitler and suggestion that what Hitler is responsible for might not be illegal are a debating tactic and don't reflect your actual views. However, they're pretty extraordinary things to suggest in this context given the baggage which is attached to such viewpoints and the fact that this is meant to be a source-based discussion (eg, what non-extreme sources compare Obama's policies to Hitler's for instance?). Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to ask that the same verifiability criteria be used in the Bush/Obama articles and the Hitler article. That sort of "comparing" is perfectly legitimate. I probably should have used F.D.R. as an example instead -- did he murder 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We don't change our verifiability policy just because the page is about Hitler. If you have a reliable source that says that Hitler murdered X number of people, use that wording and that number. The comparison above is for use when you try to hang "murder" on a source that doesn't say that or try to pick a number that isn't in the sources that do use the word "murder". --Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I genuinely don't get what you're working towards here - the specific question asked by Amadscientist at the start of this thread was whether 'murder' and 'racism' should be dropped, and I've provided a response with supporting references for the use of 'murder' (eg, two of the standard works on this topic use 'murder' and other words to that effect when summarizing the results of Hitler's policies); if other editors are aware of sources which provide differing views on the suitability of using these words that can provide a basis for discussion. I can dig up references to support an argument that 'racist' isn't appropriate if needed (the obvious reason though is that many thousands of Hitler's political opponents (including in resistance movements in occupied countries) were murdered as a result of policies which weren't directly motivated by racism). An approach where one of the volunteers asks editors to respond to a specific question about specific wording and another of the volunteers endorses this approach but then demands that a different topic be addressed in the thread once one of the involved editors provide a response simply isn't workable. I think that I'll bow out again - I regret sticking my head back. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Q.was "If the issue is the mention of Racism and murder for the total sum then just call it from "policies" that caused "deaths". This shouldn't be that difficult unless I am missing something major here. I suggest that we just drop the mention or racsim and maybe replace it with "bigoted" as the term would indeed be verifiable and replace the word "murder" with "deaths". Does anyone have a good reason why we shouldn't do this?

Yes I do. I think Amadscientist is missing something major. Viz. that what is being attempted to be simplified into one sentence is a way more complex and nuanced topic than he (and the sentence) conveys (as myself, Britamx, Timestheyareachanging, STFX1046190 and even Woogie10w have argued).

Quick answer.: Mention of Racism and murder is not the problem. This proposed slightly amended sentence would STILL remain an innaccurate imprecise oversimplification via synthesis from beginning to end. Because the numbers are and have been disputed. Because the causation and responsibilty for the deaths would remain unsourced so would still remain a result of unverifiable sythnthesis. Because WE DON'T EVEN NEED THIS SENTENCE as the details can be in the appropriate sections, and we are already saying in the lead that Hitler was at the centre of WW2, the holocaust, etc., etc.

Long answer. 1. Mention of Racism and murder is not the problem. The whole sentence is about attributing deaths to Hitler, as was made clear by the title of a previous discussion. Even in that discussion, the the numbers of deaths that could be attributed to Hitler were disputed. The article is about Hitler not about WW2. So we should not and can not fairly attribute ALL the total of deaths in WW2 to him. Its way more complex than that, as I and Britamax maintain, and as Liddel-Hart, Keith Lowe, Professor Scheck, A.J. Taylor and other historians have stated. 2. The problem with this solution still remains that a synthesis is being made to attribute all deaths in WW2 to Hitler and a new unsourced word 'bigoted' is being used. 3. ALL the deaths from starvation are being applied to Hitler and his "policies" with a description of "systematic" and "murder". And then a disputed figure of 11 million is being slapped in there with no verifiable source. As I have shown Hitler was only one of the main authors of the war, and that is according to the cited source Kershaw. (I.e. the sentence is contradicted by the very source it is citing). The deaths from starvation in Poland were ALSO a direct result of the policies of Churchill, as I have demonstrated with as yet unconstested sources. So ALL the starvation deaths can NOT be attributed just to Hitler's policies, racist, bigoted or otherwise, plus we have no verifiable source stating that they can be. YES, Hitler had racist policies, there is no argument abou that. But there is a difference of opinion whether all the deaths from his racist policies can be ascribed to an intended and systematic plan (intentionalism) or were an unintended outcome of the developement of war (functionalism). The sentence should not push a point of view on this difference, which it does at present PLUS does so without even the basic required verifiable sources to back it up. I will provide a suggestion of a replacement sentence using verifiable sources later (I also have limied time at my disposal;). I agree this much with those arrayed against me , this is a complex topic and so it requires editors well versed in the topic who have an understanding of the broader issues and context (i.e. not just are well-versed in Hitler's policies and actions alone in isolation from the actions of other players/leaders)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A question was asked "why we need to lump in the 11 million figure with use of the words 'murder' and 'genocide' in relation to the deaths Hitler's policies lead to". The obvious answer is because that is precisely the figure referred to in the disputed sentence with the words 'murder' and 'systematic'.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Quotes from The holocaust in American life by Peter Novick disputing the eleven million figure:

1.) "For those including myself who value precision of expression,... 'eleven' [million], even apart from being invented and arbitrary, is unacceptably mushy." Page 225

2.) "The eleven million figure - or rather the notion of five million... added to six million jews - makes no historical sense" Page 215 --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Quotes from The Eichmann trial by Deborah Lipstadt (Pg.8) disputing the eleven million figure:

"Wisenthal decided to broaden the poulation of victims - even though it meant falsifying history. He began to speak of eleven million victims: six million jews and five million non-jews. Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer immediately recognised that this number made no historical sense."--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D lays out the argument well and the historians cited are certainly held in high regard. I am not going to write pages 549-550 from the footnotes of Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust by Robert N. Rosen, but it gives a nice quick overview for numbers. Now, I would agree that there is a point that all 50 million are not "attributed just to Hitler's policies"; but certainly millions are directly and in-directly; and he should not be let off the hook for that. As I stated in the past, Hitler was the driving force behind the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy aimed ultimately at conquest. The point is that certainly the unsettled aftermath of World War I, along with the Great Depression and other factors helped create the environment at hand in Sept. 1939, but Nazi Germany, led by Hitler and his minions, made the decision to invade Poland in Sept. 1939, which was the overt act which started the Second World War in Europe. Those same policies led to the Holocaust.

I would put forth the following: Hitler's policies ultimately resulted directly and indirectly in the death of millions of Jews and non-Jews (footnote added here as to disputed numbers with cites, if need be). Said policies also contributed to the estimated total of 50 million who died during World War II. And this is open to tweaking, ofcourse. Kierzek (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Another tweaking suggested to me: Hitler's racially motivated policies ultimately resulted directly in the death of more than six millions Jews and non-Jews. His policies also contributed directly and indirectly to the estimated total of 50 million people who died during World War II. Kierzek (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Snyder gives a figure of ten million dead in the geographic area covered by his book, which does not include deaths in Western Europe (Snyder, Bloodlands, page 416)
• Rummel gives a figure of 16.3 million killed via genocide.

Rummel's chart is the only place I have found so far that collects all the information together into one place, so here's a collection of other sources that give a breakdown of the deaths:

• Jews: 6 million (Snyder, Bloodlands, p 380 says 5.4 million in the area covered by his book; Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, gives 5.6 to 5.9 million; Shirer, page 978 gives 5.7 million; Evans, The Third Reich at War, p 315 quotes Eichmann as saying 6 million. Evans says a bare minimum of 5.5 million, also on page 315)
• Soviet POWs: 3 million were intentionally starved to death (Snyder, Bloodlands, p 416; Shirer, page 952)
• Executions at Katyn: (21,892 - Snyder, Bloodlands, p 415; 20,000 - Evans, The Third Reich at War. p 44))
• Non-Jewish Polish civilians: 1.8 to 2 million (Piotrowski, 2005; USHMM)
• Non-Jewish Soviet civilians: at least 1.3 million (Snyder, Bloodlands, p 415-416, says 300,000+ were shot during reprisals in Belarus and 1 million were intentionally starved during the siege of Leningrad alone. USHMM says "millions")
• Aktion T4: 70,000 (Longerich, The Holocaust, p 141; Evans, The Third Reich at War, p 100)
• Romani: 150,000+ (Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, p 565 says 200,000; Longerich, The Holocaust, says 150,000 to 211,000)

Total: 11.8 to 12.6 million people, based on multiple estimates drawn from multiple reliable sources. -- Dianna (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere! That looks like a reliable source that adds up the numbers, thus avoiding the WP:SYNTHESIS problems that I have been talking about. So, what does Rummel call the total? Murder?, killing? death? I have no opinion on what the wording should be other than to make sure that it is supported by the sources, so Rummel's wording and Rummel's numbers are fine with me. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa, outstanding and rigorous work as always; I agree with your suggested wording. The 50 million war dead in the second sentence can be sourced to Kershaw (Nemesis, p. 841)(though I don't think that any of the above sources need to be given in the lead). Malljaja (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Great work, Diannaa. I will say the first sentence is okay with me; I do like: "His policies also contributed directly and indirectly to the estimated total of 50 million people who died during World War II"; for the second sentence better but will go with consensus. Kierzek (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I think the 50 million war dead is only applicable to the European Theatre of operations, per our research of May 2012, so we may want to tweek that wording. I would like to point out that sourcing to Longerich (2010), Snyder (2010), and Evans (2008) takes advantage of the latest information – facts and sources that were still behind the Iron Curtain at the time of the Eichmann trial. Looking at Rummel's chart, he uses the terminology "institutional killings", and cites a figure of 11.28 million, which includes (of all races and nationalities) forced labour, forced euthanasia, intentional starvation of prisoners of war, and concentration camp deaths. He gives a total for the "democide", which he defines as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder", as 19.3 million. Most of these additional deaths took place in Poland and the Soviet Union. -- Dianna (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The chart is tricky to read; the totals for each grouping are at the top of that group. The first category is "genocide"; he tallies 16.3 million people in this group. The second category is "institutional killings", 11.28 million (some of which are included in the "genocide" tally). The third group is "democide in occupied Europe"; this includes people in the first two categories (which overlap with each other). The fourth group is "European war dead" (European soldiers; does not include American/Canadian/Australian soldiers killed in European theatre); this group comprises 28.7 million people. -- Dianna (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rummel is used in the article as a source for these facts. It's there right now, and it's been there since May 2012. Rummel's tally tells us there were 11.28 million "institutional killings", which includes (of all races and nationalities) forced labour, forced euthanasia, intentional starvation of prisoners of war, and concentration camp deaths. The other list of sources is not synthesis, but a way of verifying that Rummel's figures are accurate, since we do not want to rely on a sole source for such an important piece of information. These other sources confirm that Rummel's numbers are indeed accurate, and may in fact be a bit too low.

I would be interested in hearing your comments on my current suggested wording, which is "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of at least eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews. An estimated 50 million people lost their lives during World War II." -- Dianna (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 4

I know Rummel is already used. We are here discussing what is the verifiable source for this "the systematic murder of eleven million people".

If we must have a sentence attributing deaths to Hitler, here is my suggestion with the appropriate sources. You will see I am using Rummel’s figures for consistency: "Hitler is considered the principle antagonist for the outbreak of World War II which left over fifty million dead*. In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity, Aryan superiority combined with his anti-semitic policies resulted in the deaths of over five million Jews*."

• 1. (Kershaw Hitler: Nemesis, p. 841.)
• 2. (Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Pg 10, Table1.5,

Regarding the inherent difficulty of dividing up responsibility for deaths, in Raul Hilberg's book ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’, he estimates 5.1 million Jews died during the Holocaust of whom "over 800,000" died from "Ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 were killed in "Open-air shootings"; and "up to 2,900,000" perished in camps. Hilberg estimates the death toll in Poland at "up to 3,000,000".

So if we accept Rummel as our source for democide figures then we have to accept this from him also: “…food blockades that cause the indiscriminate death of civilians is democide, as was the largely British Blockade of the Central Powers during and after WWI. As Article 14 to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions affirms, “starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited.” --Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Pg 40

Put that together with the quotes from the British General Staff’s report (Churchill inspired ) and the letter of Hoover regarding Churchill’s democidal starvation policy against Poland and you can see how complex and nuanced this topic of attributing responsibility for wartime deaths is in reality. Which is why I advocate not having this sentence, as we already have the sentence "Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust" We instead detail these subtleties in the article, with the appropriate sources previously cited here in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see several issues with your suggested sentence, but before going into detail, I first would like to suggest a wording that makes sense in terms of diction and meaning. Please note that this does not mean that I agree with your suggested changes; I just want to get my head around what you're trying to express here. Here's my suggested wording based on my reading of your sentences: "Hitler is considered the principal player (or perpetrator) responsible for the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead*. In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority along with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of over five million Jews*." Is this what you want to say here? Malljaja (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I won't be replying to the properly stricken comments above, near the end of "Discussion 3". As to the above suggested sentences, I would say that the first sentence would need to be changed to point out we are talking only about the war in Europe (including the West and Ost fronts). In the second sentence I would take out: "In the execution of that war"; while it is true that the majority of the killing and deaths occurred during that time, the ideology and even the beginning of those policies were in place before that timeframe for Hitler and his minions. Kierzek (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Mystichumwipe: "Antagonist" is definitely the wrong word; I do not think it means what you think it means. I don't agree with using figures from Hilberg's book as it is dated 1960 (revised 1985); we have much more up-to-date sources, such as Evans and Longerich. How about this wording: "Hitler's political programme led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in the European theatre of the war. His ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." -- Dianna (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For the first sentence, what about: "Hitler's aggressive political programme (or foreign policy* --too vague?*) led to the outbreak of the European theatre of World War II, which left over fifty million dead." Kierzek (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How about "Hitler's political programme and war of aggression led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in the European Theatre." -- Dianna (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the alternative version suggested by Mystichumwipe uses some wrong word choices. I've attempted to write a cleaner copy of his suggested wording, but he hasn't responded yet. And I'm not altogether sure whether this alternative wording is really the way to go. The alternative phrasings are somewhat wordier than the current sentence. It the object is to indicate that the 50 million war deaths are those in the European theatre only, one could simplify this to, "Hitler's policies and strategy of aggression led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in Europe alone." (I've changed "war of aggression" to "strategy of aggression," because "war" is a form of aggression.) In regards to the second sentence, I believe that "racially motivated" more appropriately describes the intent of Hitler's policies than "Aryan superiority" and "racial purity" since the latter two sound more like the vernacular the Nazis themselves used to describe their programme objectives. I'm happy to follow consensus on this, but I'd caution against phrasing that has the potential to attract additional concerns further down the road. Malljaja (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you just say "Hitler started World War II, which left over fifty million dead in Europe alone"? Is there any controversy over who stated WWII in Europe? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Stalin invaded Poland at the same time to reclaim land lost in a previous war, since both shared a border with Poland, it resembled more of a regional border dispute. GB and France declared war Germany but not the USSR, France came to the aid of their Polish ally by bombing an aspirin factory or something, GB helped with the blockade, the USSR had been at war, kinda, with Japan 6 month previous, who had been at war with China for years, not to mention Italians in Africa. Did one person really start ww2? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

4.1. I agree that all which Darkstar1st has written is correct. Plus there was the 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania and resulting invasion of Poland/reclaiming of Lithuanian territories(*take your pick) by Lithuania also in 1939, as a continuation of the Polish–Lithuanian War over territories taken by Poland in 1920, etc., etc. So... we have to choose the wording carefully. No one person started WW2.

4.2. If we use the current Kershaw quote I feel we need to change it as otherwise by repeating it verbatim ("main author of a war") we have a copyright infringement. I chose the word 'antagonist' carefully, for reasons I can explain if required, but will not do now, for brevity of reply (i.e. avoiding 'wall of text' replies;-)

4.3. To Guy, you ask who started WW2. I feel the answer to that question by the subject of this page should also be mentioned, viz. Hitler himself. He is supported by other historian in his opinion that he did not want war nor start it. He wrote in his last will: "It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. ...I have made too many offers for the limitation and control of armaments, which posterity will not be cowardly enough always to disregard, for responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be placed on me. Nor have I ever wished that, after the appalling First World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America."

So... here's a new expanded and slightly tweaked proposal:

"Hitler is considered the principle antagonist in what led to the outbreak of WW2 in the European theatre (*1). He himself maintained in his speeches and in his final testament that he never wanted war (*2), an opinion which is shared by certain historians (*3). In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity, Aryan superiority combined with his anti-semitic policies, resulted in the deaths of over five million Jews." (*4)

(*1. Kershaw), (*2. Hitler), (*3. Liddel-Hart, A.J.Taylor), (*4. Rummel).

4.5. To Diannaa. I am not using Hillberg as the source, but Rummel, as I made clear. I used Hillberg only as an example for this discussion to show the problems in attributing responsibility. I wrote that I used Rummel as the source, who gives a figure of 5.2 million. I mentioned Hillberg ONLY as he gives a breakdown of that figure. I did so to show that Churchill's democidal and illegal policy of deliberate starvation must also be attributed responsibility for the deaths from "Ghettoization and general privation" and "starvation" in Poland and elsewhere in the Axis occupied territories.

4.6. I would tweak your proposal thusly: "Hitler's political programme is considered the principle cause for the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in the European theatre of the war(*1). He himself maintained in his speeches and in his final testament that he never wanted war(*2), an opinion which is shared by certain historians(*3). In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." But there is a problem here that Hiilberg and Rummel do not say "at least 5.5 million", which is why I wrote "over 5 million".

4.7. To Kierzek. As we agree the deaths of over five million Jews only occurred during the war, (and most of these in the latter stages of it), I therefore feel it is important to make that clear in the replacement sentence.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition: Regarding the above point 4.5. "January 1942. ...In Greece, people were dying of starvation at a rate of 2,000 a day. Winston Churchill completely opposed any lifting of the naval blockade to allow food in, as he claimed this would prop up the Nazis."

QUESTION: Why do editors feel we need to state: "which left over fifty million dead in the European theatre of the war". In what way does this figure relate specifically to Hitler?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs)

None of the sources agree on the number of Jews killed but 5.5 million is the bare minimum according to most of the sources I have looked at. I already stated above that Rummel's numbers are lower than everyone else, so 5.5 million is the bare minimum that should appear in the lede. The sentence "He himself maintained in his speeches and in his final testament that he never wanted war(*2), an opinion which is shared by certain historians" has to be removed. It's not historically accurate, as Hitler himself started the war against Poland. What he did not want was to start a major war; he thought the war would be a minor one, and people would just let him take what he wanted, like happened in Czechoslovakia. But that's too much detail for the lede, which needs to be a concise overview. Here's my latest suggested wording, which is based on Mystichumwipe's latest version: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II, which left over fifty million dead in Europe alone. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." -- Dianna (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ofcourse as stated more than once, we are only talking about the war in Europe not including the Asiatic-Pacific theatre of World War II, which "officially" started in 1937. I can agree to your new wording, Diannaa, above. Further I concur that Hitler's self-serving statement as to not wanting war, should not be placed in the lede. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, your suggested sentences had included the statement that Hitler was responsible for WWII, which had left 50 million dead. So I'm not sure why you now have second thoughts about including this information. Also, I agree with Dianna's assessment that the level of detail has to be appropriate for the lead and that Hitler's view on war expressed in his speeches and final testament have no place there.

Dianna, I agree with your latest suggested wording. Malljaja (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

To Dianna. The sources of Rummel and Hillberg are lower than 5.5. (If we don't trust Rummel here, why are we using Rummel as the source elsewhere?) Gerald Reitlinger's 'The Final Solution' (1953) has 4.2 to 4.5 million. A study led by Wolfgang Benz of the Technical University of Berlin suggests the lowest estimate could be 5.29 million. As there is no no precise figure, writing "over 5 million" covers ALL estimates except Reitlinger's.

Stating what we personally believe is "not historically accurate" does not help us, as it verifiability NOT truth that is the criteria for inclusion. Which is where we came into this discussion here at DRN. Hitler definitely did state in his last will that he didn't want a war, nor start it. Some historians agree, as has been cited here. That is a verifiable statement of fact.

Your new tweak of my sentence is problemeatical as it does not paraphrase the sources that I am citing and is therefore again getting back towards a synthesis.

Would anyone care to answer my recent question on the inclusion of the 50 million figure?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

* Rummel's numbers are too low, so there's no reason to go lower still. Outdated sources such as Reitlinger (1953) and Hilberg (1960) should not be considered authoritative. We need to use reliable mainstream current historians. To include outdated or fringe views, especially in the lede of the article, gives undue weight to those views. WP:FRINGE says that material not broadly supported by current scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight.

* What Hitler said in his last will should not be given undue weight by including it in the lead in my opinion. Hitler himself would be considered a primary source; Hitler's own statements about his motives and behaviour would have been worded to show himself in the best light. That's not the point of view that should be presented in this article; we need to give a NPOV view based on current scholarship.

* The 50 million figure is basic information to give the reader (many of which will be high school students learning about the subject for the first time) a sense of the scope of WWII. If we leave it out, my suggested wording becomes "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." -- Dianna (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The figure as I cited way back in my opening statement was really "over" 50 million (but I can agree to the present sentence as Diannaa suggests); cited to Kershaw in either of his works, "Hitler: A Biography" (2008) p. 969 or "Hitler: Nemesis", p. 841. Hitler's foreign policy was clearly a desire to enact long held racial and territorial expansion goals; with opportunistic action and reaction over time, as to events. I agree there were conflicts which occurred during the 1930s, which along with the Great Depression gave rise to the atmosphere which culminated in the overt act of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany on 1 Sept. 1939; the fact remains that the majority of main stream historians place the start of World War II in Europe on that overt act which was ordered by Hitler. See: Glantz, "When Titans Clashed", pp. 13-17; Gerwarth, "Hitler's Hangman", pp. 138, 139; Snyder, "Encyclopedia of the Third Reich", p. 157; to name a few. Therefore, the 50 million number should remain, in proper context; which I thought from reading the comments above had already been agreed to (and which has been present in the article lede, all along). Kierzek (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

To Diannaa.

• Is Wolfgang Benz of the Technical University of Berlin a reliable mainstream current historian in your opinion? His research was conducted in the late 90's and published around 2000. He gives a lowest possible estimation of 5.29 million. Should we disregard his research, in your opinion?
• What is your source for stating Rummel's numbers are too low? bearing in mind WP:VNT? The low end of Benz's research confirms his estimate. And why do we use Rummel's figures elsewhere then?
• We would not be "going lower". We would be saying accurately and fairly a figure that includes all of what are admitted are only imprecise estimates. Therefore I prefer "over 5 million" as it include all the estimates and does not unnecessarily exclude Rummel, Hillberg AND the more recent Benz estimates.

• We can make a reference to Hitler's own opinion on the war and its cause on a page about himself. "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. E.g., an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot,..." So a biography page article can quote perintent words from that person. We would not be quoting the words, or putting an interpreation of them, merely informing that they exist. Or do we not want the reader to know that Hitler denied he caused the war and claimed that he never wanted war? A NPOV view based on current scholarship would allow the opinion of the discussed personality on his own biography page be at least referred to in brief. Not allowing even that, nor allowing a reference to that opinion being supported by certain respected historians would be not only a neutrality violation but would be a form of censorship. Hitler did write this in his last will: "Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem — similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied." We can refer to that without quouting it.

• If the 50 million figure is "basic information to give the reader (many of which will be high school students learning about the subject for the first time) a sense of the scope of WWII", do you think we should also include this info on pages of Churchill and Roosevelt, etc?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Accuracy of sources? The sources given previously were incorrect for "systematic murder". Despite what was claimed one source given was to an unrelated index page. The other made no mention of the term "systematic muder" and instead also talked of 'emigration' to avoid deaths. In regard to this, I notice also that in the figures given to support the disputed 'eleven million' the figures for the Katyn massacre ("21,892 - Snyder, Bloodlands, p 415; 20,000 - Evans, The Third Reich at War. p 44") were attributed to Hitler as a source for the challenged his "racist policies". But the Katyn massacre was a Soviet crime! :-0 --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 5

In order to help those who are following along to evaluate the progress we are making, could each of you please post what you believe to be the wording that should go in the article along with a direct quote from the citation or citations that support it? Please put any commentary in a followup comment; I just want to see what the person reading the article will see.

Example:

Article wording: "Adolph Hitler is best known for his role in the hit show "Hitler on Ice." Other than that little is known about him."

Quote supporting the above: "I like your approach, now let's see your departure."

Source: http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION: I was hoping for direct quotes from the sources so that the reader can easily identify any WP:SYNTHESIS problem such as adding the numbers from a source that says that 100,000 people watched his "Hitler on Ice" show in Europe and another source that says that 50,000 people watched him skate in the US without specifying the show and claiming that 150,000 people watched the "Hitler on Ice" show. This of course would miss Hitlers performance in the Ill-Fated July 4th Death Valley Winter Olympics and overstate the numbers for the "Hitler on Ice" show.

And no, the sources don't have to be cited in the lead. Anywhere in the article will do. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Hitler's political programme is considered the principle cause for the outbreak of World War II in the European theatre of that war (*1), though he himself maintained in his speeches and in his final testament that he never wanted the war nor caused it (*2), (an opinion which is shared by certain historians) (*3). In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of millions of people deemed racially inferior including over five million Jews." (*4)

(*1. Kershaw), (*2. Hitler), (*3. Liddel-Hart, A.J.Taylor, Frank McDonough, Ian Kershaw, Alan Sharp), (*4. Hillberg, Rummel, Benz).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As requested direct quotes from sources.

• Citation 1. -- Ian Kershaw, Hitler: Nemesis, pg 841. Publ. 2000.

“Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead and millions more grieving their lost ones and trying to put their shattered lives together again."

• Citation 2.1 Hitler's final will: It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. ...I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem—similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war..."

• Citation 3.1 -- Sir Basil Lidell Hart, History of the Second World War. Pg 6. Published by Konecky & Konecky; 1st edition (May 18, 2007).

“It sufficed for the purposes of the Nuremberg trial to assume that the outbreak of war, and all its exertions, were purely due to Hitler’s aggression. But that is too simple and shallow an explanation. The last thing that Hitler wanted to produce was another great war. “

• Citation 3.2 --Frank McDonough, in his foreword to 'Origins of the Second World War: An International Perspective'. Pgs 2-4. Publication Date: November 24, 2011.

"What we now call the Second World War is generally thought to have started with the German attack on Poland on 1 September 1939. In fact, that did not start a ‘world war’, only a limited conflict involving five European powers: Germany, Poland, France, Britain and the Soviet Union. It was really a five-week German–Polish War."

"British historian A.J.P Taylor [wrote that] a second war between Germany and Britain and France over Versailles was implicit from the moment that treaty was signed. ...Alan Sharp claims that if blame is assigned fairly, then it should be spread between those who concluded the settlement and subsequent leaders who had ample opportunity to rectify its alleged deficiencies between 1919 and 1939."

"Precisely what objectives the Nazi dictator was pursuing in foreign policy has been at the centre of ceaseless wrangling among historians.* Two key points of discussion have revolved around the questions of whether Hitler was pursuing a consistent programme – a ‘timetable of aggression’ – or whether he was merely an unprincipled opportunist. Lars Lüdicke explores these questions..." (*citing Kershaw, 'The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation'. London, 2000, 4th ed., pp. 134–60)

• Citation 3.3 :-- A.J.P. Taylor. 'The Origins of the Second World War', Penguin books. 1991. Foreword pgs 8- 18. he also discusses the opinion of Hitler wanting war to create Lebensraum in this foreword (pg. 23-24)

"...some critics made a great fuss about Hitler, attributing to him sole responsibility for the war or something near it. Far from wanting war, a general war was the last thing he wanted. This is not guesswork. It is demonstrated beyond peradventure by the record of German armament before the second World war or even during it. It would have been obvious long ago if men had not been blinded by two mistakes. Before the war they listened to what Hitler said instead of looking at what he did. After the war they wanted to pin on him the guilt for everything which happened, regardless of the evidence. This is illustrated, for example, by the almost universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have boasted. However, the record is there for anyone who wishes to use it, dispassionately analysed by Mr Burton Klein. ...The one thing he did not plan was the great war often attributed to him. ...[to those who] complained that my book had been welcomed, mistakenly or not, by former supporters of Hitler. This seems to me a disgraceful argument to be used against a work of history... It is not my fault that, according to the record, the Austrian crisis was launched by Schuschnigg, not by Hitler; not my fault that the British government, according to the record, not Hitler, took the lead in dismembering Czechoslovakia; not my fault that the British government in 1939 gave Hitler the impression that they were more concerned to impose concessions on the Poles than to resist Germany. If these things tell in favour of Hitler, it is the fault of previous legends which have been repeated by historians without examination. These legends have a long life. I suspect I have repeated some. For instance I went on believing until the last moment that Hitler summoned Hacha to Berlin; only when the book was in proof, did I look at the records again and discover that Hacha asked to come to Berlin, not the other way round. No doubt other legends have slipped through. Destroying these legends is not a vindication of Hitler. It is a service to historical truth, and my book should be challenged only on this basis, not for the political morals which people choose to draw from it."

• Citation 4. Raul Hillberg. The Destruction of the European Jews' revised 1985.

"Hilberg's own detailed breakdown reveals a total estimated death toll of 5.1 million Jews. Only for the death toll at Belzec does Hilberg provide a precise figure, all the others are rounded. When these rounding factors are taken into account a range of 4.9 million to 5.4 million deaths emerges.

( Raul Hillberg, 'The Destruction of the European Jews' revised 1985 = 5.1 million; R. J. Rummel. 'Death by Government', Pg 10, Table1.5 = 5.2 million; Wolfgang Benz. University of Berlin 'Dimension des Völkermords', Oldenbourg, Munich 1991 = 5.29 - 6 million; Reitlinger, 'The Final Solution', = 4.2 to 4.5 million)

Regarding the statement being proposed here to write that Hitler or his policies caused WW2, Kershaw has said: "we have this curve that Hitler is determined by the society at the beginning but by the end he is determining the fate of the society. It does move inextricably from a macrostructural account to a more personalized account. However, I do not see this as a process where Hitler is in control of what's happening, like a programmed development, but rather Hitler is himself shaped by these forces."

• Citation 2.2

As this article is about Hitler, I hope editors will not misinterpret or get upset that I here include relevant excerpts from Hitler's speeches regarding his statements that he did not want a war:

April, 1939. Wilhelmshaven speech.

"Germany has no intention of attacking other people. What we, however, do not want to renounce is the building up of our economic relations. We have a right thereto and I do not accept any condition from a European or a non-European statesman....We are not thinking about making war on other peoples. However, our precondition is that they leave us in peace. In any case the German Reich is not ready everlastingly to accept intimidation or even a policy of encirclement. I once made an agreement with England - namely, the Naval Treaty. It is based on the earnest desire which we all possess never to have to go to war against England. But this wish can only be a mutual one."

October 6th, 1939. Speech to the Reichstag, Berlin.

"I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to go to work together. To assist in assuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people. To achieve this great end, the leading nations of this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept, and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will insure for them all a sense of security, of calm - in short, of peace. Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation; this is, without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which is to determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannon are thundering or mobilized armies are bringing pressure to bear upon it. If, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, then it would be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to death and milliards of riches destroyed. Continuation of the present state of affairs in the West is unthinkable. Each day will soon demand increasing sacrifices. Perhaps the day will come when France will begin to bombard and demolish Saarbruccken. German artillery will in turn lay Mulhouse in ruins. France will retaliate by bombarding Karlsruhe and Germany in her turn will shell Strasbourg. Then the French artillery will fire at Freiburg, and the German at Kolmar or Schlettstadt. Long-range guns will then be set up and from both sides will strike deeper and deeper and whatever cannot be reached by the long-distance guns will be destroyed from the air. And that will be very interesting for certain international journalists and very profitable for the airplane, arms, and munitions manufacturers, but appalling for the victims. And this battle of destruction will not be confined to the land. No, it will reach far out over the sea. Today there are no longer any islands. And the national wealth of Europe will be scattered in the form of shells and the vigour of every nation will be sapped on the battlefields. One day, however, there will again be a frontier between Germany and France, but instead of flourishing towns there will be ruins and endless graveyards. Mr. Churchill and his companions may interpret these opinions of mine as weakness or cowardice if they like. I need not occupy myself with what they think; I make these statements simply because it goes without saying that I wish to spare my own people this suffering. If, however, the opinions of Messrs. Churchill and followers should prevail, this statement will have been my last. Then we shall fight."

January 30, 1940. Speech at the Berlin Sportspalast. :

"in 1939 these Western powers decided to drop the mask behind which they were hiding, they declared war on Germany against all of our endeavors, even though we tried to accommodate and oblige them. Today, they are unembarrassed to admit: yes, Poland would have probably acquiesced, but we did not want that. They admit today that it would have easily been possible to effect an understanding. But they did not want that. They wanted war. Okay! ...Often, I reached out a hand towards them. They slapped it back. They also cried: no, not reconciliation, not communication, we want a fight! So they got their fight! ...the second [phase] begins. Mr. Churchill cannot wait for it to begin. He lets his middlemen - and he says it himself too - express the hope that the war with bombs may start soon. And they have already written, that this fight will naturally not respect women and children. Well! When has Britain ever respected women and children? The whole blockade war is deliberately against women and children. The war against the Boers was solely against women and children. That was when the concentration camp was invented; this idea was born of a British brain. We only researched it in the encyclopedia and later copied it,..." --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As per Dianna's suggestion (and sources): "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II.¹ His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.²"

¹Kershaw [“Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead and millions more grieving their lost ones and trying to put their shattered lives together again." (Hitler: Nemesis p. 841); and "Hitler had sought the conflict. He was the main author of a war which had been a central element in his thinking for almost two decades." (Hitler: Nemesis, p. 388)]

²as given below in Dianna's posting

In my opinion, these sources do not have to be given in the lead, but should be provided in the Legacy section.Malljaja (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II.¹ His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.²

¹Kershaw (Nemesis, p. 841)

²Goldhagen (1996) p 411 - 5.6 to 5.9 million; USHMM website - nearly 6 million; Evans (2008) page 315 - a bare minimum of 5.5 million, and quotes Eichmann on the same page as saying 6 million; Snyder (2010) p 411 - 5.4 million in the geographical area covered by his book, which does not include events in Western Europe. Snyder is also the source for "millions of others" as he states 10 million intentionally murdered in the geographic area covered by his book. Citations do not need to appear in the lead, as long as the facts are repeated and cited in the body. Self-serving remarks Hitler made on his deathbed do not belong in the lead. -- Dianna (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Per the suggested versions and cited sources given above, I believe it should state: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." (*then in The Holocaust section a further footnote can be added if consensus calls for it as to the estimates of Jews killed; the Legacy section already speaks to the total numbers therein; additional sources can be added, if consensus calls for it). Kierzek (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Kershaw says, "[Hitler was] the main author ..." ("Nemesis" p. 841.) "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources" Kershaw does not state that Hitler alone started WW2. Nor even that his policies ALONE led to the war.

Kershaw is saying that Hitler was one of numerous authors of the war, and in his opinion was the main one. And as Kershaw's view is contradicted by Liddell-Hart, A.J.Taylor, etc., wouldn't it therefore be better to write this not as a statement of uncontested fact. I.e. instead we write it with wording that says he is considered the main author... etc. or something similar?

mallaja's suggestion also goes beyond the sources it is citing. Rummel's figures contradict, the "at least" wording. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 6

If there's no reason to exclude Rummel's calculations there's no reason to exclude the higher-end calculations either. Here is my latest suggested wording: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main factor led to the outbreak of World War II. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of between 5.2 and 6 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." – Dianna (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you using Snyder as a citation for the "millions of other people deemed racially inferior"? I thought that Snyder counted the killing of handicapped, homosexuals, and Soviet prisoners of war, many of whom were (by Hitler's definition) members of the so-called "master race". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Jews, Hitler also considered Gypsies and Soviets (Slavs) to be racially inferior. Poles, Ukranians, and Russians were not considered "Aryan"; Jews and Gypsies were at the very bottom of the racial continuum, Slavs were somewhere in between, and "Aryans" were at the very top as the master race. Rummel lists 10,547,000 Slavs and 258,000 Gypsies on his chart which is from his book Death by Government (page 112). This is being used as the source for "millions of other people deemed racially inferior", but Snyder and any number of other sources also mention the 3 million Soviet prisoners of war and other Russians and Poles that were shot or intentionally starved. The Soviet prisoners of war were placed in open pens in the countryside without food or shelter, and they died. Here's some quotes from the other sources, as requested. These sources detail how many Jews were killed, and also give some insight into the way the top Nazi officials expected the war in the east to unfold. These sources contradict Mystichumwipe's proposed addition stating that Hitler did not want or expect his actions in the East to lead to war, and I strongly oppose that addition. My proposed wording remains the same.

• Snyder, Bloodlands (2010) Page 416:

Hitler imagined a colonial demodernization of the Soviet Union and Poland that would take tens of millions of lives. The Nazi leadership envisioned an Eastern frontier to be depopulated and deindustrialized, and then made the agrarian domain of German masters. ... A hunger plan would starve to death some thirty million inhabitants of these lands in winter 1941–1942, as food was diverted to Germany and Western Europe. ... A Generalplan Ost foresaw the deportation, murder, enslavement or assimilation of remaining populations, and the resettlement of Eastern Europe by German colonists ...

When the Soviet Union defended itself and no lightning victory could be won, Hitler and the German leadership adapted ... to the new situation, killing about ten million people, which was fewer than originally planned. ... A million people were purposefully starved to death in besieged Leningrad and more than three million Soviet prisoners of war died of starvation and neglect.

• Snyder, Bloodlands, p. 411 (remember he is not including victims in Western Europe):

The count includes ... 4.2 million Soviet citizens (largely Russians, Belarusians, and Ukranians) starved by the German occupiers in 1941–1944; 5.4 million Jews (most of them Polish or Soviet citizens) gassed or shot by the Germans in 1941–1944; and 700,000 civilians (mostly Belarusians and Poles) shot by the Germans in "reprisals" chiefly in Belarus and Warsaw in 1941–1944.

• Evans, The Third Reich at War (2008) p 318:

Altogether during the war, some 3 million Jews were murdered in the extermination camps. 700,000 were killed in mobile gas vans and 1.3 million were shot by SS Task Forces, police units and allied forces or auxiliary militias. Anything up to a million Jews died of hunger, disease or SS brutality and shootings in the concentration camps and especially the ghettos that the Third Reich established in occupied territories. A precise total is impossible to arrive at, but it is certain that at least 5.5 million Jews were deliberately killed in one way or another by the Nazis and their allies. Since the opening of the archives in the former Soviet bloc in the 1990s it has become clear that the probable total is around 6 million, the figure given by Adolf Eichmann at his trial in Jerusalem in 1961.

• Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (2010) p 180–181:

'Russian Bolshevism', in Hitler's words, represented 'the attempt by the Jews to achieve world domination for themselves'; the regime allegedly established in Russia by 'the Jews' looked like a house of cards that only needed to be nudged from the outside for it to collapse. It was precisely this ambivalent assessment of 'Jewish Bolshevism' ... that offered a form of legitimation for a war in the East that bordered on self-delusion: from this angle it appeared both as a legitimate means of self-defense against alleged plans for world domination harboured by the 'Jewish Bolsheviks' and a historically unique opportunity to conquer a vast empire with relatively little effort. ... German plans for the ruthless occupation of Lebensraum and for the economic exploitation of the countryside would necessarily also deprive the native population of its basis for survival and thereby bring about the deaths of many millions of people. This policy had to be directed primarily, but by no means exclusively, at those who were at the bottom of the Nazi's racial heirarchy—Jews, Gypsies, and other 'racially inferior groups'.

From the beginning of 1941 the Germans' early thoughts on the exploitation of the areas to be conquered for food-supply purposes were developed into a full-scale systematic starvation policy, which would inevitable lead to the deaths of millions of people. This policy formed the basis for economic planning in the eastern territories under attack. ... The figure of 30 million people—a number corresponding to the increase in population in the areas to be conquered since 1914—was evidently a rough estimate being used for purposes of orientation. According to the Higher SS and Police Commander, Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, it was given by Himmler at a meeting with senior officers in Wewelsburg Castle in January 1941; the same figure was used by Goering with the Italian minister Ciano, in November 1941. ... Reducing the population of the areas to be conquered by millions in this way was seen as a necessary measure by the NS leadership ... in order to secure Germany's 'food autonomy'. It was also seen as a measure designed to create the necessary conditions for controlling the Lebensraum they viewed as essential.

• USHMM website presents its estimate of the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust in the following chart (Click on "How many Jews were murdered in each country"):

• Goldhagen Hitler's Willing Executioners (1996) Map page 411: Estimated number of Jews killed in the Holocaust:

– Dianna (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Longerich's The Holocaust, p 181 DOES NOT state that millions of lives were planned only to be systematically starved to death, nor that this was done on racial reasoning. There was a war going on. All sides resorted to attacks on civilians; by bombings (started by Churchill and the British); by blockades that were intended to cause populations to give up or starve (also started by Churchill and the British); by forced evacuations and killings based on pre-existing racial and ethnic fault-lines, as evidenced by Keith Lowe, Prof Scheck, etc.

Longerich in fact writes that the 30 million projected lives at risk were expected to either die or "emigrate to Siberia". This part has been left out of the above quotes from pg.181, as it was also done previously in this discussion.

And the last two charts appear to detail how many Jews remained in the mentioned countries after the war. (Populations prior to war compared to numbers afterwards). These sources detail diminished populations of Jews by country. There is no mention anywhere in that site that I could see which detailed numbers of emigrations. Wouldn't that need to be taken into account for these to be reliable figures of deaths? And aren't these figures ignoring the effect of Churchill's 'starvation' blockade?

But, ...whatever, ...this is not relevant to my suggestion for wording as I am not disputing this aspect of the sentence.

What is relevant is that I also don' t see how these sources and details "give some insight into the way the top Nazi officials expected the war in the east to unfold." Could you explain how these sources specifically state that or even imply that? Also could you explain how these sources contradict my proposed addition stating that Hitler said he did not want war. That he said and wrote that is an indisputable statement of fact. That Liddell-Hart, A.J.P.Taylor, and others agree is also indisputable fact. Could you explain why you are strongly opposed to including reference to indisputable statements of fact? This is an article about Hitler. We have other pages about WW2, etc. What is your reasoning based on wiki policy for excluding a reference to Hitler's own viewpoint and that of distinguished historians?

If the sentence we end up with only presents the view that Hitler wanted, planned and executed a war with the clear intention to kill millions of people deemed racially inferior in order to create lebensraum for his own people, and any source that contradicts that is excluded, then that would be a WP:NPOV infringement.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Our task is not determine what the methods were that USHMM and Goldhagen used to arrive at the above numbers. That would be original research. Our task is to determine whether these two sources are considered reliable and authoritative. The USHMM is a very well-respected US institution devoted to education about and research into the Holocaust; Daniel Goldhagen's work has been controversial because of his thesis that the Holocaust was a continuation of 19th century antisemitism. However, Ian Kershaw cites Goldhagen several times in Nemesis as a source for the extent of the antisemitism during the Weimar Republic and for first-hand accounts of the Nazi atrocities. Kershaw (on p. 848) characterises Goldhagen's interpretation of antisemitism as "contentious," but his use of Goldhagen indicates that he considers him an authoritative source for important accounts of the Holocaust. Therefore, Goldhagen can also be considered a reliable and verifiable source.

In regards to Liddell and Taylor cited by Mystiumwipe in earlier posts, Liddell was a military historian who did research on military strategy in WWII, but cannot be considered an expert on Hitler himself—neither Hubris nor Nemesis (both seminal and recent works on Hitler) refer to Liddell. Using AJP Taylor's The Origins of the Second World War as a source is questionable for several reasons: (i) it was published in 1961, so information therein is very dated, and, more importantly, (ii) its central thesis that Hitler was an ordinary leader who did not mean to go to war was and still is highly controversial. And although some contrarian views may turn out to be correct, Taylor's hasn't stood the test of time, as it has not been accepted by the consensus of historical scholarly research.

That Hitler said in some of his speeches and declarations that he did not want to go to war is immaterial—he was a shrewd politician and any of his statements cannot be considered reliable reflections of his true views and intentions. Moreover, actions speak louder than words, in his actions are well documented and clearly indicate that he pursued a very aggressive foreign policy including military operations and illegal annexations (e.g., even preceding WWII, the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 in contravention of the Versailles Treaty and the annexation of Austria in 1938). Lastly, Hitler's speeches or testament are primary sources and thus they cannot be included here.

The observations of Frank McDonough—given above by Mystiumwip—about the exact start of WWII are not relevant here. The overwhelming majority of historians consider Hitler's invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 the start of WWII. That the war was initially a regional one does not contradict this. Moreover, Hitler's other military operations, such as the invasion of France, the Benelux countries, and the Soviet Union along with the air war against Britain dramatically broadened the scope of WWII. Malljaja (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As to the start of the war in Europe-"Hitler adopted an aggressive foreign policy." Snyder, Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, p. 157. Hitler had only wanted to delay the war not avoid it happening at all. Kershaw: "Hitler had led Germany into a general European war he had wanted to avoid for several more years." Hitler: A Biography, p. 510. Now it is true others played a part, as did the Great Depression, as I stated before; however, irregardless of which school of thought is used (whether the Second World War was only an extension of the World War I or not), Hitler's invasion of Poland is considered the start of the war in Europe. "Already on 12 August, Hitler had set the likely date of the 26th for the invasion of Poland." Kershaw, p. 502; of course the invasion was delayed, as you all know, until 1 Sept. "An angered Hitler...said privately, 'I am 50 years old, and prefer war now to when I shall be 53 or 60'." Snyder, p. 157.

It is clear by further example text that Hitler always wanted war but originally hoped it would be are a later time-table; he relied over time on nerve, lying and bullying to try and get what he wanted. That is why Hitler stating he "wanted peace" is not credible. "Internationally, Hitler's combination of bullying and blackmail could not have worked but for the fragility of post-war Europe...The western governments, backed by their war-weary populations, anxious more than all else to do everything possible to avoid a new conflagration, their traditional diplomacy no match for unprecedented techniques of lying and threatening...went out of their way to placate Hitler." Kershaw, p. 511. "Hitler had felt time closing in on him, under pressure to act lest the conditions became more disadvantageous. He had thought of war against the West around 1943-5, against the Soviet Union-thought no time-scale was ever given-at some point after that. He never thought of avoiding war." Kershaw, p. 512. "Hitler adopted the technique of deliberately lying in order to lull his future victims into a false sense of security." Snyder, p. 157. Kierzek (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the wiki policy of WP:VNT here are two questions which I would like to hear viewpoints upon:

Q1. Regarding my proposal for the lead: do the cited sources verify the statement that a.) Hitler stated that he did not want war nor start it and b.) that certain historians concur with this view? I say they do. Does anyone disagree? If so, on what grounds?

Q2. Regarding Diannaa's proposal and versions of it from others: do the cited sources verify the statement that Hitler or his policy started WW2? I say they do not, and that these sentence proposals actually contradict the cited source from Kershaw, as explained a few times previously. Does anyone disagree? If so, on what grounds?--

To avoid cherrypicking and to maintain a neutral viewpoint I feel we need to acknowledge there is no unanimous opinion on Hitler's motives: "precisely what objectives the Nazi dictator was pursuing in foreign policy has been at the centre of ceaseless wrangling among historians." Frank McDonough--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Answer to question 1: Almost all historians say that Hitler and his policies were the leading cause of WWII in Europe and date the start of WWII to his invasion of Poland, so to put an opposite point of view into the article, and especially into the lead, gives undue weight to fringe theories. Hitler said plenty of things to try justify what he did, but they don't belong in the lead, as he is a primary source and naturally is going to attempt to present his own behaviour in the best possible light.

Answer to question 2: Hitler's foreign policy was to seize other people's countries and kill or displace the inhabitants and supplant them with immigrants from Germany, as he felt the Germans were a master race entitled to more living space. He himself said so, and historians are pretty much unanimous about this. Being ambivalent about this, especially into the lead, would give undue weight to fringe theories. -- Dianna (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 7

I believe per WP:NPOV, there has been shown what the majority view of current main-line historians is, as stated with citations above in answer to your queries, Mystichumwipe. Please keep in mind, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Now we have made, I believe, some progress for these lede sentences, lets work towards continuing that and move forward. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you both saying that Frank McDonough, Professor of International History in the School of Humanities and Social Science at Liverpool John Moores University is expressing a "fringe" view? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as Frank McDonough's view differs from the majority view -- that the invasion of Poland was the start of WWII (See Timeline of World War II) they are indeed fringe. Please note that "fringe" does not equal "wrong". Sometimes the fringe theory turns out to be right, as seen in our articles about Alfred Wegener and Ignaz Semmelweis. Nonetheless, we don't have a crystal ball, and so we treat all fringe theories according to how much acceptance they have, not according to our prediction that they may someday become the majority view. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Prof. McDonough's 2011 book (Origins of the Second World War: An International Perspective) and the view that there is no unanimous opinion on Hitler's motives: "precisely what objectives the Nazi dictator was pursuing in foreign policy has been at the centre of ceaseless wrangling among historians." I claim is the opposite of fringe. It represents the current consensus view. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I could very well be wrong -- I am far less familiar with the history of WWII than any of you (that's one of the nice things about volunteering at DRN; this week i might be learning about WWII, and next week it might be My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic or the Nordenfelt gun.) One thing I do know is what to do when there is a disagreement such as the above. Obviously taking it to DRN is out -- you are already here. Our methods (content discussion only, no authority to make anyone do anything outside of DRN) resolve a lot of disputes, but not all. The way to resolve this is to post a WP:RFC on the article talk page. Unlike here, where what I say carries no special weight (again, that's how DRN is designed), an RfC ends up with an experienced closer who determines what the consensus is, and you all have to abide by it. Not just the consensus among the editors who are working on the page, either; RfCs usually attract a wide variety of outside opinions. I am going to go back to quietly watching your progress now. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The proof of the accuracy of my quote from Prof. McDonough is that even Snyder and Richard Evans are themselves not totally in agreement []. Here is Evans discussing Snyder:

"...one of the many reasons Snyder’s book made me so cross, is that Snyder devoted almost all of what was meant to be a review of The Third Reich at War in the New York Review of Books to making erroneous and unsubstantiated claims about my supposed ignorance of Russian and East European history. At the time I wondered what made a supposedly serious historian fall into such egregious error. After reading his book, I now know: it’s Snyder, not me, who has an incorrigible desire to drive out fellow historians he sees as ‘interlopers’ from what he considers to be his own ‘parish’."

Regarding the reliability of these authors themsleves, Evans starts his review of Snyder's book 'Bloodlands' with a quote attributed to Hitler, stated as if accurate, but which has been the subject of much controversy.

several historians examining Lochner's version of Hitler's speech (the L-3 document) concluded that it was a heavily distorted version designed to arouse a reaction against Hitler in various countries."

The difference of view of American historian Francis L. Loewenheim and Richard Evans over the German historian Andreas Hillgruber is another indication of the fierce disputes over this WW2 history:

Loewenheim said: "Andreas Hillgruber was probably the leading West German historian of his generation - a scholar of indefatigable energy and fierce independence, a scholar of weighty judgment even if one did not always agree with him". Other historians were more hostile, with the British historian Richard J. Evans taking the view that Hillgruber was a great historian whose once-sterling reputation as a historian was in ruins.

Hillgruber argued that World War II began with the Anglo-French declarations of war on Germany on 3 September 1939 and NOT with the German actions on 1st September 1939. (Hitler, König Carol und Marschall Antonescu: die deutsch-rumänischen Beziehungen, 1938-1944 by Andreas Hillgruber). Hillgruber also acknoweledged that Hitler had believed that he could retake German territory acceded to Poland in the Treaty of Versailles in 1939 without provoking a war with Britain and France, and was surprised by the British declaration of war. In the 1980's there was what has been called the Historikerstreit ("historians' quarrel") about all this. Evans wrote his 1989 book In Hitler's Shadow to publicise his views on this Historikerstreit. Ernst Nolte, Joachim Fest, Andreas Hillgruber, Michael Stürmer, Hagen Schulze, Imanuel Geiss and Klaus Hildebrand were historians/academics who disagreed with Evans. In other words there HAS been ceaseless wrangling over all of this. From Liddel-Hart, and A.J.P.Taylor in the 60's, with the Historikerstreit in the 80's and even to more recent times.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The exact start date of WWII is not relevant to the discussion here, so whether or not Frank McDonough's views should be included or not is unimportant. It's a distraction. The entry had and passed a very thorough GA review not long ago, and one of the GA assessments was, "Uses high-quality sources where possible, such as Hitler's principal biographers." In order to keep the article at GA level (or bring it to FA) it is imperative to use authoritative sources from noted scholars and to exclude material that does not meet these criteria. Malljaja (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think we were arguing what is "the exact start date", but whether the proposals stating that Hitler and/or his policies led to WW2 or started WW2 are accurate and verifiable using reliable sources. Kershaw isn't saying that and Frank McDonough and his team (e.g. Alan Sharp) confirm that the origins of WW2 are complex and guilt for starting it does NOT lie with one person or one persons foreign policies. That is what I have been discussing. It is not being suggested that we include McDonough's quote in the article sentence. So I agree all the above discussion is slightly unnecessary, especially if we could we just concentrate on discussing the first half of my proposal for a moment. ;-)

It starts with Kershaw's quote (which even he also slighly contradicts at other places in other writings/interviews, as quoted previously), it uses the neutral wording "is considered" and then proceeds to mention Hitler's own view and how "certain historians" concur with it. Its not promoting any particular view, merely stating that differences of viewpoint and understanding exist and have always existed from the time of the events themselves. Thus nothing fringe is being promoted; the differences ("ceaseless wrangling") are alluded to; and all sides of that "wrangling" are covered.

Plus I still don't understand the requirement to keep out Hitler's own stated view of what he did and why on the page specific to Hitler? Even if the argument is that Hitler's view and those that agree with it are fringe (which I dispute), how is Hitler's own stated view not relevant to the wiki article about him? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's own stated view does not belong in the lead paragraph, which should be a concise summary of what the majority of academics believe. It could be used lower in the article (properly attributed of course) -- that's an editorial decision that should be decided by consensus. You cannot shoehorn all possible complexities and controversies into the lead of an encyclopedia article. Some things need to be expanded on in the sections below. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler discussion 7

Getting back to the question at hand, it appears that at least some of you are converging on this wording:

• "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II.¹ His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.²"

• "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II in Europe.¹ His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior.²"

I am satisfied that the above does not violate WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. Other than that I don't care what wording is chosen.

Mystichumwipe, would you be so kind as to post the exact wording you prefer, keeping as much of the above as you are comfortable with? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just as an add on to Guy's above comment, that Hitler's motives (the focus of McDonough's comment) are a topic of recurrent debate among some historians is again not relevant to the lead sentence in question. It may still not be very well understood why Hitler embarked on his aggressive policies (though Kershaw's work and also Speer's insight provide some good hypotheses on that point), but the consensus among reputable historians is that Hitler's policies did precipitate WWII. I agree with the revised wording in Guy's comment immediately above. Malljaja (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, remember, we are only talking about lede sentences here which are to be a summary of sections cited in the article. I agree with Guy's proposed revised wording suggested above; I would suggest the addition of: "in Europe" at the end of the first sentence proposed. Please do reply to Guy's wording; I hope we all can reach an agreement. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this wording is acceptable and agree with Kierzek's small amendment. -- Dianna (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Have I missed my chance to respond?

For, as you hopefully have noticed by now, (;-) I didn't agree that the cited Kershaw quote ("Hitler was the main author of a war") is saying the same thing as "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy led to the outbreak of World War II." Its saying he was the main one of numerous authors (not the only one). So "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe" would have been my preference.

"Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe. In the execution of that war, his ideology of racial purity and Aryan superiority combined with his antisemitic policies resulted in the deaths of millions of people deemed racially inferior including over five million Jews."

I agree with the suggested revision of the first sentence, but prefer the old wording in the second sentence: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." Malljaja (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I also agree to the suggested revision of the first sentence but also prefer the more detailed prior second sentence put forth by Guy. Kierzek (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence but prefer Guy's version of the second sentence as well. It's far simpler in its construction yet conveys more information, and is actually slightly more accurate, because people were also being killed before the start of the war (Kristallnacht, for example). "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered the main cause for the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other people deemed racially inferior." -- Dianna (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

CLOSING

It appears that we have pretty much gone as far as we can go within the constraints of DRN. I am going to wait another 24 hours and then close this as "failed".

The good news is that we have settled the synthesis issue and now the matter can be decided by consensus.

To determine what to do next, please see WP:DR.

Finally, I would like to thank all of you for being so cooperative and for focusing on content and citations. It has been a pleasure working with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.