Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Separate pages
As there seem to be plenty of Hitler quotes on this subject, I don't really have a problem with having a separate page - the only question I have is: are these quotes also shown on the Adolf Hitler page? If so, they should be removed from there and a link to this page should be added to the top of the Adolf Hitler page. ~ UDScott 13:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that if we are to go this way then duplications should be eliminated. However, although this page is not an unreasonable idea in itself, it could set a dubious precedent. We might do the same thing with Albert Einstein, whose views on the subject are also of interest to many people. What about all of the innumerable politicians, philosophers, and other notables who have expressed views on the subject? What about other subjects? Is there a clear distinction between this and, say, Barack Obama's views on taxation, Roger Ebert's views on humor, or Madonna's views on herself? Since we generally eschew organizing quotes by subject within an article on a person, it might be wise to avoid forking separate articles about a person along these lines. ~ Ningauble 16:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree with UDScott. Props to Miguel for putting so much work into it. ~ Robin Lionheart 16:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with everyone above. A few thoughts on why I believed this topic needed to be independent and distinct from the Adolf Hitler Wikiquote. First, there is so much material on this topic that I believed it would have unfairly overwhelmed Hitler's quotations on other subjects. Second, this page functions very well as a companion piece to the Wikipedia page on this topic, which cannot by any means encompass all of the published material, and do so fairly. Third, the Hitler Wikiquote organizes the material chronologically, and breaks up the material published in Mein Kampf. This makes it terribly difficult for readers who are interested in this topic to find what they're looking for, and forces them to wade through much extraneous material. And lastly, the topic has garnished so much public attention that it didn't seem so unreasonable to merit its own page. Best, Miguel Chavez 22:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As with the above, I don't have a problem with this page existing. The topic is notable enough to merit a separate article in Wikipedia, and clearly has a substantial number of quotes relating to it (although there should be more quotations about these views by persons other than Hitler to signify the breadth of the discussion; certainly notable people have made many claims on the topic. Quotes on this page should not be duplicated on the Hitler page for obvious economical reasons, that page being quite long enough without them. BD2412 T 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually am more inclined to agree with Ningauble that it should not exist, and the quotes should remain entirely on the Hitler page, but accept that the current effort which has been undertaken will be an interesting experiment, but one that I remain extremely dubious as to the worth of, and cannot provide my approval, only my acceptance, and willingness to let others do as they will, at least until a time of need of further scrutiny. Kalki 15:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What are your concerns precisely? Ideally, I too would like to see all the quotations on one page, but this doesn't seem practical by any means. Originally the vast preponderance of quotations on the Adolf Hitler–Wikiquote seemed to be about religion. Several editors have already expressed concerns over the excesses (one is tempted to say, obsessive focus) over this one narrow topic. By breaking up the religious quotations from his general quotes everyone seems to win. Readers can now find his religious beliefs more efficiently (as they were interspersed chronologically between other material), and readers curious about Hitler's general attitudes do not have to wade through quotation after quotation regarding his religious views. (Also, I don't wish to speak for Ningauble, but I believe he has expressed caution, not elimination.) Best, Miguel Chavez 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can provisionally recognize the validity of such measures as are being taken in response to those who have exhibited genuinely obsessive focus on gathering religion related quotes in relation to so generally and historically vile a figure, to either discredit various religious impulses or perspectives, (thus often unconsciously exhibiting their OWN authoritarian impulses to be absolutist judges in regard to the worth of others opinions, emotions or fates); OR, conversely, to deliberately and less subtly attempt to lend support to authoritarian ways with open embrace of the supposed "principles" of Nazism — which is to a great extent founded upon the promotion of hatreds and fears of one's fellow human beings, as the most corrupted and corruptive forms of political and religious ideologies always are. Yet, though I accept it might be a proper measure for an indeterminable amount of time, I can also see many potential dangers in allowing this to stand as if it were an entirely adequate or generally admirable permanent "solution." Such a stance could provide much more traction to such people as are motivated primarily by such subtle or open bigotry (which prompts the actions and attitudes of most authoritarians), to argue for all manner of "special" pages to let even more forms of bigotry escape some of the present bounds and be used to actually promote all manner of stances without any easily or directly manifest opposition. This is ONE of the reasons I have generally rejected "PRO- and ANTI-" position pages in relation to themes in the past, such as the long problematic "Abortion" page and related issues — beyond the necessary INTERPRETIVE role this puts one in, in assessing what authors of statements actually have meant — which is often fraught with MANY forms of peril, especially when one might be dealing with subtle forms of sarcasm and satire — it provides entire pages which zealots could fill with nothing but one-sided propaganda for or against some particular groups or causes or persons. The page created in THIS case, at least has a WIkipedia page upon the issue, which permits people to more fully examine the quotes in context, and allows those studying that WP page to have more direct access to some statements supporting assessments and declarations made by the editors there. Thus, I am willing to accept this as a long-term experiment, but not willing to give it my full endorsement as an entirely satisfactory measure. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 14:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC) + tweaks
 * Suggestion: move the most important quotes to the main Hitler page, and retain the rest on a subpage for reference, with a link to them on the talk. --A Divine 16:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that would make anyone happy. Best, Miguel Chavez 03:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I really do empathize with your moral concerns. However I think you're casting this issue in a very black and white way. It could also be true that people are just interested in the topic for philosophical and historical reasons, and they are neither trying to cast a religious view in a negative light, nor support authoritarianism in any way. As it happens there is much public and scholarly debate over this issue, and with this fact in mind, it raises the question: what indeed did Adolf Hitler believe on religion? This topic has captured my attention over the past few weeks and I have read much published material on the subject, and I have helped add new information, and correct some errors, published on the Wikipedia page. Hitler happened to speak very often about religion (both publicly and privately) and frequently used religious language in his speeches. There is no way the editors at Wikipedia could even put a meaningful portion of this material into the article. It just wouldn't be possible. Since creating an article solely using quotations is not encyclopedic, I thought what better place than here. I can only ask that you to have some good faith that this page will be of use to many people, even if it upsets your (well justified) sensibilities. I would also argue that removing the quotations from this page, and incorporating them into the main page does nothing to solve the issues you raised. They are still going to be used and published. But what it does do, however, is make it much harder to access the information. Best, Miguel Chavez 03:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to have confused my sincere objections and reserved acceptance of the current experiment with the alternative suggestion made by . I did acknowledge this page has utility to Wikipedia users in relation to the Wikipeida page, and this is one reason I am more inclined to accept it as a rather irritating but reasonable measure, without my full endorsement. I personally would not have created this — but I am accepting that it might be the best option in the current situation. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 03:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that you’re willing to go along with it (for an "indeterminable amount of time"). I was just hoping to persuade you that it makes sense as a long term solution. Best, Miguel Chavez 03:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree completely with Miguel on this issue. Furthermore, I think we could come to a compromise with A Divine's proposal by allowing a handful of "the most important quotes" appear on both this page and the main Hitler page, which would not require this page to be oversighted for the avoidance of duplicates. Although we generally try to avoid such duplication, it is inevitable in a work that covers both people and specific topics (i.e. the page on Love contains many quotes by John Milton that are also contained on the pages for either Milton himself, or his specific works; and I have fairly recently created pages on William Shakespeare quotes about death, William Shakespeare quotes about love, and William Shakespeare quotes about war just because each topic had so many Shakespeare quotes that they bloated the pages they were on. BD2412 T 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a few of the most significant quotes duplicated on the Hitler page would be fine, but that does open up contentions as to which ones they are — and as for duplication on general theme pages — there SHOULD be duplications on those and the authors pages — people shouldn't need to hunt around as to which author said what, or what theme page it might be judged to best fit on, if they are looking for quotes related to some ideas — many quotes can properly fit on many different theme pages — and I believe the most significant statements will tend to accumulate on these, over time. ~ Kalki (talk &middot; contributions) 17:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I think the end I was leading towards is that a page on Hitler's religious views is really a "theme" page that will inevitably end up having a preponderance of quotes by one individual who is central to that theme. BD2412 T 17:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Painting?
The image in the article of a painting by Hitler depicting Mary and Jesus is dubiously sourced. The link trail leads back to a neo-Nazi source. I've done some searching and cannot find a reliable source to support it as a Hitler painting. May well be accurate — but can anyone find a reliable source? 153.106.54.176, 13:44 19 April 2013‎  (UTC)
 * It would be useful if we had the name of the painting in German. I have seen variants of this image used on the Internet, but nothing so far in a published volume. I did notice a faint signature on the bottom right, which seems to match the signature found on known oil paintings created by Adolf Hitler. From what little I know, it was unusual for Hitler to paint human forms. Most of his paintings depict architecture, everyday urban views, and simple landscapes. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias?
Every quote from Hitler where he seems to be even nominally Christian seems to be accepted w/o question, but every quote where he derides Christians (and religion in general) seems to be "disputed" or "misattributed". This is not a neutral article. 70.248.223.70 26 January 2014‎ (Talk)‎
 * Obviously quotes recorded in public speeches and from Mein Kampf are easily authenticated. Can you provide an example of any quote on this page which is "accepted", but which should not be, or an example of a quote that is labeled as "disputed" or "misattributed", but which is in fact undisputed or correctly attributed? BD2412 T 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can wiki link the original German speeches instead of the authored Book versions which came 20+ years later? It puts them into some doubt and provokes the arguments for rewriting history.
 * Rather than replace the links to the English translations, it is probably preferable to add additional links to the original German. I suspect most native users of the English Wikipedia would not find the original German very useful. However all the quotations used in this article are derived from reputable publications, by qualified translators, in volumes edited by reputable historians. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed/Misattributed
I have merged these two sections. The quotations in question may be disputed but there is no actual reason to think they are misattributed or fraudulent based on this one article. Carrier does not speak German, makes no attempt to place the quotations in context, deliberately mistranslates 'Christentum' as 'Catholic' and has no grasp of the secondary literature that discusses their context. Carrier set out to prove Hitler was a Christian to back his own fanatical atheism and hey presto! he did so. Who'da thunk it? Eleven years after his article came out, it continues to be rejected by German speaking experts in the field as at best hyperbolic (Steigmann-Gall) and at worst a deliberate attempt at fraud for ideological reasons (Hastings). It shouldn't be ignored - Wikipedia is after all about what the secondary sources say, and it is one -but it should definitely be treated with suspicion. Therefore these quotations are 'disputed' rather than 'misattributed'. And, of course, it shouldn't be double-cited to a religious apologetics website like the FFRF. The GSR is the one that needs to be included. 86.183.139.158 16:17, 6 May 2014‎‎ (UTC)


 * Carrier does speak German. The original source is published in a peer reviewed journal. If it was discovered that he didn't even speak German, the academic world would have erupted in scandal. Not only that, but you didn't "merge" anything, you deleted it. Putting it back now. Greengrounds 07:33, 3 August 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Greengrounds, if you had taken the trouble to actually read the sections, you would have noticed they were still there, just moved to reflect reality so that the handful of quotations that were disputed by Carrier were noted as disputed and the rest were left as blank with a rider that questions have been raised. What you have done is insert duplicate material, which is not exactly helpful. The two citations refer to Carrier's analysis and reject it, in a footnote in Steigmann-Gall's case, in a sentence in that of Derek Hastings (both of whom I have restored to the article). Carrier's claim to speak German is not verified by any outside source and the fact that he required a translator raises serious questions about his competency in it. Finally has it not occurred to you that perhaps the academic world has not 'erupted in scandal' over it because a minor article in a mid-ranking journal by an MPhil student (as he then was) is perhaps not the most important thing in the known universe and academics have better things to do with their time than dispute fringe materials? I have put the article back the way it was. 31.52.239.219 11:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The German Studies Review is the official scholarly journal of the German Studies Association (GSA), the world's largest academic association devoted to the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary study of the German-speaking countries. It is published by Johns Hopkins University Press, and the journal includes papers by historians John S. Conway and Doris L. Bergen, for example. Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that Carrier's paper has been "rejected by German speaking experts in the field," as you claim. In fact, his findings have been incorporated into the new forward to The Table Talk, written by historian Gerhard Weinberg. The citations by Steigmann-Gall and Hastings are by all indication positive. There is nothing within them to suggests that they have rejected Carrier's thesis. His paper has also been cited positively by historians Rainer Bucher, Diethelm Prowe, and Klaus Fischer. I'm afraid most of the arguments you employ against Carrier are ad hominem (and your attempt at mind reading is purely imaginative). Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Opinions on the Wikipedia Page for This Topic
Hello all, I would like to solicit your opinions on the Wikipedia article for this same topic. I think the Wikipedia article is woefully incomplete and thus misleading, in large part because it omits or dismisses most of the information present in this Wikiquote article. It seems to strongly advocate for the view that Hitler was not religious or Christian. Here is the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Please join us on the article's talk page, in the section titled "Incomplete/Misleading Lede", to discuss this topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Incomplete.2FMisleading_Lede

I am new to Wikipedia and doing my best to keep up. I need your help! :)

A typo in the source?
"From the time when the Movement I consisted of seven men, until we took over power in January 1933..." Is "I" needed here?Adûnâi (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Quotes
Don't see why this page doesn't make any use of the Rosenberg diary or Goebbels diaries. I will be adding some entries from both. I don't see a problem with that seeming as there is currently a entry from another diary, the so-called Engel diary. Which isn't even a diary. They are post-war memoirs.

I don't see why the monologues are under disputed. You have to treat the monologues like how you treat the diaries. They are an account of what he was saying. It's not what he was saying verbatim.

Ithinkusergoeshere (talk) 07:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)