Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Untitled

This Article is false...

The very most important reason that you know that Hitler didn't care about animals is because he killed, tortured, and made so many people suffer. Humans are animals, mammals and Hitler did not show any love or emotion to any human except to the ones who were fighting by his side. Oh and he eats pork making him not a vegetarian..

Bree Wilson reference

May I suggest the reference be removed along with it all statements from it? The author clearly doesn't read German on a level that would make the text a reliable source, as indicated by the title of the text. Couldawouldashoulda hearsay through translations or unqualified attempts at one's own translation don't make a reliable source. --OliverH (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the first only ever vegetarian politician who was openly advocating vegetarianism get's attacked by his enemies, full of hate

Someone here wrote, that because his enemies blame him, after death and unable (and illegal) to defend himself, of atrocities, therefore he could have never do anything good, and must hav evil reasons for doing everything in his life...

I could say the same, a man who ordered ration cards for dogs, who stop the torture of animals could not have ordered that which their enemies accused him.

We both can play this card.

And I win because my point can be proven without doubt, there is no discussion about the official published laws protecting animals, stopping vivisection and forcing a better treatment of animals. While you, only have doubted documents, obtained through torture, by the soviets, confession written in English by German officials who didn't speak English, and information proven false and exagerated by the so called Nuremberg trials, which the US Supreme Court considered an insult to law, a joke and a dishonor.

He calmed his Navy Chief of Staff saying he couldn't implement vegetarianism, YET.

Why doesn't this article talked about how the situation of animals changed with the "Liberation"? What happened? I tell you, laboratories were allowed to torture again. With Hitler's laws, mistreatment of animals did end with people in jail, for years, 3 years for killing a pig in unhuman ways.

So, run away from here, you lying cowards! You should be ashamed, all the fake vegetarians and fake nature lovers, grow testicles and accept the facts, free yourself from the war propaganda of the winners (the winner who won because they trully were brutal, merciless and didn't give a damn about animals or humans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.9.203 (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use wikipedia discussions for propagating inane conspiracy theories. The comment you most likely wanted to contend to was just as useless, but it would be better if neither instead of both of you "play this card". And for replying to other comments, please do so within the corresponding section instead of starting a new one.Makrom (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Article has been Highjacked and pushes a POV agenda

I agree, this article has been highjacked long ago by people with an agenda, reffing any old talking head, regardless of expertise.

Bree wilson for a start is completely unsuitable, and Robert Payne is heavily criticised for his broad assumptions and complete lack of any credibility as an authority on Hitler. Just google him and see. I half expect to see a quote from 'some drunk guy I met once'.

Also, the MASSIVE refs at the bottom of the page are entirely inappropriate for wikipedia. Refs are supposed to be REFS, that is, a reference that people can go check to read more. NOT a gigantic extension of the article.

The whole article has become a systematic collection of any duffer who backs up the notion that 'Hitler wasn't reallllllllly a veggie', for an obvious and yet very silly, agenda.

Someone sort this out, I have tried but the revert monkeys are in town. 87.114.2.169 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you talk a lot from "agendas", maybe you have your own. Bee Wilson (in the section "'Hitler was reallllllllly a veggie'", as you would say), seems and expert historian, according to his article, and expert in Hitler's diets. Robert Payne is an important and recognised writer and historian, and an expert in the life of Adolf Hitler. Criticized? As everywhere, but if you want to make a critic from his writings, make it in his own article, and using good and reliable sources. I really don't think either that be appropriate compare Payne with "'some drunk guy I met once'."

And the REFs can be used also as notes, according to a lot of articles from this Wikipedia, but in that point, maybe you have a little reason: some of the notes would be better more short (now I am thinking in the "Proctor 1999, p. 136 ...", the "Arluke & Sanders 1996, pp. 144, 150 ..." and the "Rudacille 2001, p. 88 ..." notes). But I don't believe these notes would simply dissapear, only would be more shorts, showing only the essential information. Akhran (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

BUT where has Bee Wilson gotten her opinion on Hitlers vegetarianism from?

This statement of hers; "For a start, his distaste for meat knew no pity of animals."

Flies quite blatantly in the face of the actual facts of Hitler's concern for Animal welfare.

Germany's Animal welfare laws were the strictest laws in the world at that time and were a direct result of Hitler's distaste for the use of animals for testing, kosher slaughtering and general abuse of animals. This is of obvious importance when considering Hitler's beliefs and directly gives a possible insight into his vegetarian diet.

I added a small section on this (Animal welfare in Nazi Germany), to be improved later, so why has this section been removed by you?

Bee wilson is simply attributing what she thinks Hitler must have been like (bad, evil, madman etc.) rather than actually talking from any scholarly insight into his character. She is a poor source. Hugh Trevor-Roper Alan Bullock or Ian Kershaw are proper historian sources.

And yes the refs should be shortened to the basics, then anyone who wants can look them up.87.114.2.169 (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delete the section about "Animal welfare" you introduced, I only reverted the big quantity of changes you made, by the causes I have said before. But in any way, that section fits more in an article about the article you linked or in a article as Animal welfare. Animal welfarism or environmentalism has really little to do with "vegetarianism". Most of the activist in these movements eat meat (because animal welfare say that can be acceptable kill an animal for food if any unnecessary suffering is avoided and environmentalism say that is OK if is done in a sustainable manner).

About Bee Wilson, I think she is more expert in Hitler that we are, so I will not question his knowledge. You question that, but I think we aren't experts historians. Maybe his cite included in the article isn't really good and could be rewrited (maintaining the meaning of this affirmation of the sentence), but I don't agree his work isn't a reliable source for this article. Akhran (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the legitimacy of the references are a POV in themselves, but generally if the references come from published works (books/journal articles) then they are acceptable. It's up to the readers to decide their veracity. However I agree that the referencing is being abused. Some of them are miniature essays that are irrelevant to the subject. Notes are supposed to clarify information in the article, not to extend it. For instance the reference which includes a min-essay on Wagner's anti-Semitic theories are irrelevant to Hitler's vegetarianism. They only warrant mention to the extent that some of Hitler's views are linked to them. As for the section on animal welfare, I don't see why that can't be brought into the article, but it should be restricted to legislation and policies that were brought in under Hitler to illuminate his compassion for animals, and it should be brief. After all like an editor pointed out the article isn't about animal welfare in Nazi Germnay, but Hitler's involvement in animal welfare in Germany is relevant to a possible vegetarian lifestyle. Betty Logan (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree in the point that the "min-essay on Wagner's anti-Semitic theories" is too long and includes information not linked to the article, but I disagree that is any link between the Nazi animal welfare policies and the vegetarianism of his leader and that section fits in this article. If he would promoted animal rights and vegetarianism, then a section of this type would be neccesarily, but Nazis (and his leader) promoted only animal welfare, position that points that "is morally acceptable for humans to use nonhuman animals for food, in animal research, as clothing, and in entertainment, so long as unnecessary suffering is avoided". An that's not a vegetarian position, referring to food. Referring to "animal research" the Nazi laws that ban vivisection (August 1933) only were running three weeks, after which Nazis permit again vivisection under regulation. So I don't see connection with Hitler vegetarianism. Akhran (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The animal rights section is relevant to the extent that Hitler's vegetariansm is being questioned. There generally is a strong correlation between a person's vegetarian dietary practice and their views on animal rights, so it's relevant in that it may provide motivation for Hitler's private dietary practices. I don't advocate a whole section on it, but I can see a legitimate argument for including a brief overview in regards to Hitler's general views on animal welfare because it provides a context for the pro arguments, and demonstartes consisten behaviour in other areas of his life. If an editor wants to add a brief overview of Hitler's participation in animal welfare to the article I wouldn't have any problem with that. Maybe they can write it up here first so we don't have any edit warring on the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But the the matter is that there isn't an "Animal rights section", is a "Animal welfare section". And "Animal rights" and "Animal welfare" is really a different thing. You say "There generally is a strong correlation between a person's vegetarian dietary practice and their views on animal rights", and that's true, but Nazis didn't have animal rights policies and laws, they have animal welfare policies and laws, and usually for reason different from the reason that makes "ethical vegetarians": to avoid what they called "Jewish science". Akhran (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we actually need an article on such a specialized topic? Why isn't it simply included under "Hitler" or "vegetarianism"? --Maybellyne (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Akhran by his own profile is an animal rights activist and therefore by POV rules should be excluded from editing this article.64.167.16.142 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bee Wilson's opinion

I don't see why this person's opinion should feature so prominently (in a special paragraph, no less), especially considering s/he clearly misinterpreted H.'s words (whether wittingly or not, I don't know). It is not clear (and it should be, considering this is a supposedly encylopedic site) where this person got the impression that H. "knew no pity for animals", but what is certain - to those who have taken care to actually read extensive texts about this topic, including entire dinner-table conversations - is that he did not "boast" about visiting slaughterhouses. He usually closed his graphic descriptions of animal slaughtering - aimed at his blissfully oblivious meat-eating guests - by commenting on their (the guests') "hypocrisy".

Not good table manners, I agree. But it's not the same as "boasting". And it certainly doesn't equal "no pity for animals".

EVERYBODY deserves a fair and intellectually honest treatment. Lies and misinterpretations never amount to any good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.176.156.41 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Change to the intro

The intro starts off by saying; 'Hitler is said to have practised some form of vegetarianism' Countless of the reliabe sources support that he was a vegetarian, so I think it could be said with certainity that he was indeed a vegetarian, instead of this uncertain and 'guessing' opening to the article, a second thing we need to change is the postfix, the 'some form of vegetarianism', again its a vague, imprecise formulation. I believe the intro of the article should, as according to all the sources, settle straightaway that hitler was a vegetarian. Which form of vegetarianism he practiced seems a bit to pedantic and unimportant for the intro. I think we should elaborate later on in the article, which 'form' of vegetarianism he practiced. So to include these 2 changes, I vote we change the beforementioned sentence from the opening to: "Hiter was a vegetarian" -its simple straight to the point and very accurate. Anyone in favour?Averagejoedev (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the opening sentence is loaded; it's unquestionable he practised vegetarianism, the question is to what extent, so I support your revision. The problem with the lead though is that it's too short to adequately summarise the issues that the article covers, but in the absence of a properly written lead I support removing the bias. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have now changed the lead. I think there are a other problems in this article. For instance; The statement that Hitler he was not an 'Ethical vegetarian' and in fact the entire use of Rynn Berry(a vegetarian activist, with no historical expertise)as a source in the "Questoning Hitler's Vegetarianism" section, needs to be questioned, and possibly removed. I'll open a new talk section to handle this.Averagejoedev (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"It's unquestionable he practised vegetarianism, the question is to what extent." Vegetarians dont eat meat. Not a little meat or every once in a while but no meat at all, hence the term. Hitler ate meat. Whether he ate it rarely or not is irrelevant. He was an omnivore (ate meat and non meat to various extent). This is a little like saying Hitler practiced sexual abstinence but had sex every once in a while. The only people being pedantic here are those writing that hitler was a vegetarian. The intro should be reverted from stating an absolute to at the very least stating that there is dispute on the matter. august 2011

There is no hard definition. Vegetarian societies might like to think there is and have their own unambiguous definitions, but in common usage there are plenty of people who eat meat who identify themselves as vegetarian in some capacity. That's why we have phrases such as "strict vegetarian", or "pesco-vegetarian", "semi-vegetarian" or "flexitarian" which is basically a vegetarian based diet with a meat component. Wikipedia can't adopt a single rigid definition since it would violate WP:NPOV. Even the disputers generally agree that his diet was vegetarian based or geared to a reduced meat-intake, so the dispute is really only over his level of adherence i.e. was Hitler a strict vegetarian or a flexitarian. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Vegetarian societies"? They still have those? The Oxford English dictionary defines vegetarianism as:"a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons." Websters dictionary defines vegetarianism as :"1 n. one who believes in or practices vegetarianism. 2 adj. consisting wholly of vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts, and sometimes eggs or dairy products" Thats a pretty "hard definition." Common usage varies from place to place (ive never heard your line of argument before) and belongs in urban dictionary dot com. You say "Wikipedia can't adopt a single rigid definition since it would violate NPOV" then why does the heading say that hitler was a vegetarian when he wasnt? Diets cant be "vegetarian based", they can be vegetable/fruit based and supplemented with meat. Until the modern era most Europeans, excluding the ruling classes, ate mostly a non meat diet based on one or two basic staples which they supplemented with meat whenever they could rarely afford to buy it (or illegally hunt it on rich peoples preserves). This was because meat was expensive and dangerous to poach. This doens't make them vegetarians and they certainly didnt consider themselves as such. Looking at the citations of the "flexitarians" wiki page it seems to me its something made up a few years ago for no reason whats so ever. If you want to write that Hitler was a "flexitarian" whatever. But from i understand he went on diets because he was was in poor health and that's what his doctors recommended to him. august 2011

Well, the whole article should be delelted as this only concerns a very minor aspect of Hitler's life, unless one considers that his long and boring discussion about vegetarianism are one of his most prominent activities. The way the sources are chosen and presented laos raise questions. For instance, the sentence "In his post-war reminiscence The Enigma of Hitler, Belgian SS General, and friend of Hitler's, Léon Degrelle wrote: "He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed."[13] contains several factual inaccuracies. To start with Degrelle never became SS general, but was Standartenführer, i.e. Colonel. How can one furthermore write that Degrelle was Hitler's friend when he did not meet him more that two times (and maybe only once). Thinking that Degrelle - who is furthermore known to have been a liar all his lige long - could have first hand information on Hitler's eating habits is just as ridiculous as taking Degrelle as source. --Lebob (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable?

This version of the Downfall viral(-ly mutating) parodies clip is somewhat tangentially related to Hitler's vegetarianism (but more directly related for H's love of his dog).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert Payne

Copied from user talk pages:
Hi, I noticed your (nirvana2013) alterations to this article. One of the problems of putting Robert Payne's views front-and-center is that Payne's book is universally regarded by historians as complete garbage. A problem with this article is that it gives the view the Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight. All actual specialist historians agree that he was. The "evidence" that he wasn't is an accummulation of gossip articles in cookery magazines and the like which have no real evidentiary value at all, since they are not based any first hand testimony or experience. One of them actually mistakes a joke for a fact (ie that Hitler was a vegetarian but he made an exception for ham - to prove he wasn't Jewish). Paul B (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just following Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article lead was certainly not following NPOV, as it did not include any arguments against him being vegetarian. I disagree that the article "gives the view that Hitler was not a vegetarian far too much weight." If anything to me the article gives undue weight on him being a vegetarian. The article name is "Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism", not "Adolf Hitler's diet." Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The universal view of specialists on the subject is not too much weight. It is precisely due weight. A good case could be made for excluding Payne altogether on the grounds that his book is totally unreliable. It might be more appropriate to say in the lede that some vegetarian activists such as Rynn Berry have felt the need to deny Hitler's vegetarianism and that it was a topic of debate in the popular press at one time. But the view of actual specialist biographers is unanimous - unless you have evidence to the contrary. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the lead to NPOV by incorporating Ryan Berry and other critics instead of Robert Payne, feel free. Although please note Ryan Berry uses Robert Payne's work as a major source in his book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover. By the way, it does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines excluding Robert Payne (a renowned biographer) because you or historians disagree with him. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that Payne is a "renowned biographer", unless "renowned" just means "well known" (but "renowned" somehow sounds more grand doesn't it?). Imagine applying that to, say, Hitler himself: the "renowned political theorist" (well, he is isn't he? He's famous and he had a theory of politics). Being renowned grants no status whatever. It's much better to be an extremely obscure expert as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Whether I disagree with him does not matter, that's true. But you are strangely conflating that with whether historians disagree with him. That does matter - a very great deal according to Wikipedia's rules. That's exactly how we determine what is and is not a reliable source. Experts in the field decide. See WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hence I did not call him "renowned" in the article, as that would be POV. Lets just say the book is a reliable source then, as per WP:BLPSOURCES i.e. not self-published, not primary, not original research, not libel and not tabloid. You can always add a sentence from a secondary source disagreeing with Robert Payne's assessment that Hitler's asceticism was just propaganda e.g. "Although biographer x believes Payne's view on Hitler's asceticism was incorrect because..." Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES? The article is not a BLP (biography of a living person), unless you think that Adolf is still hiding out somewhere in South America, so the policy you point to is wholly irrelevant. The point I was making is that it is highly arguable whether Payne can be considered a reliable sourrce at all. I think not. You seem to be wilfully ignoring the argument. Paul B (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. But isn't BLP stricter on sources due to the risk of legal action? If it meets BLP, will it not meet BDP? I am not ignoring your argument. Wikipedia guidelines define Robert Payne's biography of Hitler as a reliable source. Wikipedia editors like us should not try to get involved with whether the information we write is true or not but just reflect the sources as they are handed down to us, as per WP:VNT. It may well be true that Hitler was vegetarian. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still at a loss to understand why you are raising BLP here. WP:BDP is for recently dead persons, and in any case I think Hitler's surviving relatives may have more problems with his memory than worrying about whether or not he ate dumplings. I think the best way to deal with this is to raise the matter at WP:RSN. Paul B (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Letter from Rynn Berry to the Editor, New York Times

Extensive copyvio removed, was a fairly extensive letter. If you have a link you can add that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Rynn Berry Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a remotely reliable source. Letters to ther editor are not acceptable sources. Berry is an ideologue to start off with. You will notice that he never mentions any of the major biographers of Hitler at all. That's because they completely contradict him. But he's not honest enough to mention that. So he has to go with such third-rate suff as "A Concise Biography of Hitler", which is just a potboiler compiled by someone with no specialist expertise. Fuchs is the man who wrote the following notorious piece of drivel "The principle (sic) function of this army-like organization [the SA] was beating up anyone who opposed the Nazis, and Hitler believed this was a job best undertaken by homosexuals". Most of this stuff just regurgitates the absurd gossip-sources he used before. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Dione Lucas not reliable? It appears anyone who noted Hitler was not strictly vegetarian is an unreliable source in your eyes. Perhaps the issue here is terminology. There are many people today who call themselves vegetarian, and are referred to as vegetarian by media/biographers, but they occasionally eat meat or fish. These people (as defined by the Vegetarian Society) are not truly vegetarian but flexitarian or pescetarian. I would suggest the article is moved to Adolf Hitler's diet to maintain NPOV. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course she isn't reliable. She's writing a cook book containing gossipy stories. There is no evidence she ever even met Hitler (she never says she did). It's just a story to liven up the book for readers of the time. In any case she is a primary source. Reliable sources such as Kershaw got their information directly from Hitler's own cooks. It's Berry who is ignoring sources, not me. He simply blanks-out actual testimony from close associates of Hitler, cooks and kitchen staff, instead, preferring as "true, gossip in magazines written by people who probably never even met him. Doesn't it strike you as odd that no actual major biographers of Hitler are mentioned by Berry, but instead he relies on potboiler books written by non-experts. Why would that be? Paul B (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We are going round in circles. Yes Dione Lucas is a primary source, but Rynn Berry is not. However, if meeting Hitler makes the source more credible then please note that Robert Payne met Adolf Hitler in 1937 (which is more than can be said for his present-day biographers), an incident which Payne describes in his book Eyewitness. If Berry, a vegetarian, cannot be considered NPOV on this article because of his dietary choice, then by the same token Christian biographers should be excluded as reliable sources on the article Jesus. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What a fatuous remark about Berry. Rynn Berry is not reliable bacause he is not an expert, not because he is a vegetarian. He systematically trawls through the most unreliable sources to find any that backs up his preferred view and systematically ignores the overwhelming evidence against it. I have no idea whether, say, Kershaw, is a vegetarian or not. It does not matter. He is an expert. Daniel Goldhagen, who, as it happens, is a vegetarian, does not dispute that Hitler was too (though I'd never be too happy relying on him, for other reasons). You are producing straw man arguments and you are repeating Berry's methoids by simply 'blanking' all the reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My remark was in response to Churn and change's comment at WP:RSN: "I think the books on Hitler's vegetarianism per-se are unlikely to meet WP:NPOV (for some reason vegetarians seem to think the association denigrates them, and write books to prove Hitler was not one [e.g. Ryan Berry's Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover])." Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism". The suggested target is not gaining consensus and the previous title had substantive opposition. DrKiernan (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism → Adolf Hitler's diet – It is disputed that Hitler was vegetarian (see Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism). The current title does not adhere to NPOV, unlike other neutrally titled articles such as the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. The current title is Godwin's New Coatrack against vegetarianism. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  The title isn't coatrack unless the reader is stupid enough to believe that vegetarianism is bad just because Hiliter might have been one, and if the reader is stupid enough to believe that then renaming alone wouden't fix it. The only way to fix that "Coatrack problem" is by saying that Hitler definitely wasn't a vegetarian.

If the article is Coatrack it's because of it's content not the title. The only thing I can see that could be Coatrack agents vegetarianism is the Deborah Rudacille quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 November 2012‎

• The article title places the words "Hitler" and "vegetarianism" right next to each other, parroting an age-old anti-vegetarian staple. This is not my interpretation but plain evident for anyone unless they're blinded by bias. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• This talk page is like jumping into a hornet's nest! Having read through the page and tried to understand the arguments it is clear there are agendas driving many opinions about the content and titling. It is up to us as contributors and editors supposedly not to edit / title an article so it does not represent a POV. There is clearly enough evidence in the controversy about Hitler's diet and alleged vegetarianism to try to make sure that no statement is made such as 'Hitler was a vegetarian' or 'Hitler was not a vegetarian'. There is simply controversy about this. Too many contributors have made statements in the talk pages (without with references) defending one or other of the positions. Hitler may have lived some time of his life as a vegetarian or he may not have. It is not up to editors / contributors to draw conclusions. It is up to us to collaboratively create an article that presents all reasonable and verifiable views and let the reader make their own conclusions. Following this line of reasoning I think that the title is too POV. Hitler's vegetarianism is not undisputed fact and therefore an alternative title should be created. Robynthehode (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is just about his alleged vegetarianism, not his diet in general. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• The topic should be Hitler's diet in general, because an article specifically about Hitler and vegetarianism automatically turns into nothing but a coatrack for anti-vegetarianism. Please don't feign ignorance of the public discourse. You know very well what I'm talking about. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• It wouldn't surprise me to hear that some idiots were saying that vegetarianism was bad because Hitler might have been one, but I've haven't herd of a public discourse about that. Please don't feign ignorance of WP:AGF and the fact that that that not everyone is aware of the same public discourses that you are. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, well, I've stumbled upon it so often that I honestly find it hard to believe that any media-savvy person has never heard of that meme. Consider just this: The second result a Google search for "adolf hitler vegetarian" yields is titled "Vegetarians are Evil - Adolf Hitler Was a Vegetarian".
  But anyway, you don't need to know of the meme to follow my argument. My point is that perception of the title as denigrating toward vegetarianism by association is plausible, and by no means only the reading of "stupid idiots". Maybe some people are more prone to be influenced by suggestion, but there actually is the intrinsic spin of having the words Hitler and vegetarianism right next to each other in big letters at the top of the page. By having this article and especially this title we're not reporting on the discussion so much as demonstrating it by example.
  Let me ask you the same question as BDD below: Would you actually oppose the addition of more general information (i.e. unrelated to vegetarianism) to the article because the article is only about Hitler's vegetarianism? Do you want the scope of the article to be limited to Hitler's vegetarianism? --213.196.214.177 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Emmette's right. Hitler's diet isn't notable on its own; the entire article is about whether Hitler or not was vegetarian, not about other aspects of his diet. It's unfortunate that anyone would think it a legitimate criticism of vegetarianism that Hitler was one, but that's a poor reason for a rename. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• the entire article is about whether Hitler or not was vegetarian -- In other words, the current article is intrinsically POV.
  Hitler's diet isn't notable on its own. -- That doesn't strike you as remarkable when vegetarianism is directly and exclusively an issue of diet?
  Let me ask you this: Would you actually oppose the addition of more general information (i.e. unrelated to vegetarianism) to the article because the article is only about Hitler's vegetarianism, or would you support a move at that point? Asking because I'm confident that the article could easily be expanded with more general info on Hitler's diet. Should I look for sources and add a section to the article? Or do we want this article to be solely about Hitler's vegetarianism even though we could have a more useful, more comprehensive and more neutral article? --213.196.214.177 (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with anon. The scope of this article is diet i.e. whether Hitler was an omnivore, flexitarian or vegetarian. An expansion of the article into what he ate on a typical day would be useful in establishing his dietary philosophy. The article is not about Hitler's wider animal rights/welfare beliefs and actions e.g. how could Hitler reconcile the collateral destruction of livestock, pets and wild animals through the action of war (0.5 million horses in Operation Barbarossa alone)[1], plus the Nazi's taste for uniforms made out of black leather. I still don't understand the reluctance to change the article name to NPOV. I suspect there would not be the same objections moving Adolf Hitler's homosexuality to the Sexuality of Adolf Hitler. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I wouldn't object to such a move. Note that the latter title is where that article is. And "there is considerable evidence that... [Hitler had an] antipathy to homosexuality, and no evidence he engaged in homosexual behavior." Here, we have pretty broad agreement in reliable sources that Hitler was a vegetarian, and he also self-identified as such. Doubts about his vegetarianism are a minority view, and should weighed appropriately. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true. "Doubts" about his vegetarianism are based on more contemporary sources that define vegetarianism in a way that differs with the definitions used by previous writers. They are neither undue nor a minority view. Therefore it may be argued that Hitler practiced semi-vegetarianism but not strict vegetarianism. This could make the current title inaccurate. Based on this evidence, I've always thought the proposed title Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism was the best title for Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article properly focuses on the issue of how he classified himself and how others thought of him. As the article shows, his dietary identity relates to Nazi propaganda, his social relationships, and so forth. What kind of broth or vitamin pills he ate is trivia. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is fact no doubt that Hitler was a vegetarian, but even if there were real doubt about it, this would still be the subject of the article. It is not about his diet - how much he ate, whether was balanced, if he liked cabagge. It's all about his vegetarianism. Nothing else. The sexuality article is about what it says its about. Alleged homosexuality is just one of the many claims that have been made. Again the truth is simple, but people love stories about Adolf. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The article is in fact about his diet: whether it was vegetarian or not. As pointed out above, putting his vegetarianism in the title loads the article towards that, apparently disputed, conclusion. At any rate, "Hitler's vegetarianism" is an awkward title (to my eyes at least). "Hitler's diet" is more natural. For example, we generally would title a section "Hitler's religion" or "Hitler's religious beliefs", not "Hitler's Protestantism", especially if the nature of those beliefs is disputed in the article itself. Glaucus (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It could also be expanded to other notable aspects of his diet. I see claims in there disputing his non-consumption of alcohol. Without knowing the literature, that alone might be too minor a viewpoint to warrant its own article, but be worthy of a section inside a larger article on his diet. Glaucus (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion. Per other comments, I can't support moving to "Adolf Hitler's diet" unless there are multiple aspects of his diet that are noteworthy. However, "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" could address the POV titling concern. Formerip (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Glaucus (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be fine with that also. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Support for Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. Much better than the current title, and it shouldn't pose a problem for any of the opposers who are concerned about the article scope. In case this request is closed unsuccessfully, we should immediately resubmit this proposal instead. --195.14.223.86 (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Singalongschmee (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Singalongschmee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support I am not particularly swayed by the arguments that the title exists to slur vegetarians in any way. That's a non-starter for me. But the argument that Glaucus makes seems cogent and relevent and has swayed me that a name change is in order, even if the current one does not violate NPOV in any way (I don't believe that it does), there is still a good reason to move it nonetheless. FormerIPs suggestion seems like a good second alternative, but I prefer the "diet" title better. --Jayron32 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It doesn't matter that some people try to redefine the word "vegetarianism" to exclude Hitler's or other people's behavior, if he identified with the movement or if other people identified him with it (which they do, and "vegetarianism" is the word that our sources use), then our title should indicate that clearly. Shrigley (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The point here seems to be that sources are in dispute with one another, which I think cuts the feet off your argument. Formerip (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Mild oppose, though the proposal seems well-intentioned. I don't see this as a neutrality issue. The topic of the article is "the question of whether Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian"; the title is simply a shorthand for that. I think FormerIP's suggested move to "Hitler and vegetarianism" (now a redirect) is worth considering, as that title doesn't imply an affirmative answer to the question. Would the nominator consider that as an alternative? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My preference is still "Adolf Hitler's diet", but if there is no consensus I would support either "Hitler and vegetarianism" or "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" as alternatives. They are an improvement over the current title at least. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Notable and extensively discussed that it warrants a focused article. General question of his overall diet isn't the concern in the literature. Let's reflect the literature, not our own POV. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• We're not "reflecting" the literature so much as parotting the anti-vegetarian propaganda therein. If that matches your POV, I'm happy for you, but it isn't a valid reason to keep the POV title. --195.14.223.86 (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hitler's biographers are not "anti-vegetarian" propagandists. Show me a single source from an "anti-vegetarian" propagandist (who are these people anyway?). Paul B (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Diet is too general. The comparison with sexuality or religious view is not quite accurate, imo. With the title "hitler's sexuality", reader would know it is about whether he was gay or not. On the other end, if the article titled, "religious view of hitler" is about his view on Christianity, the the title is spot on. If it is about his occultism, then the title should be changed to "occultism of Hitler". Vegetarianism of Hitler is the title which make appropriate reference to the issue discussed here. Vapour (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with everyone else that the subject of the article is Hitler's purported vegetarianism, so eradicating the 'vegetarian' aspect from the title is being deliberately obtuse. It is pretty much accepted that Hitler adopted some vegetarian practices, even if he didn't completely convert to a full vegetarian diet so I don't think the title is particularly misleading. That said I wouldn't have any objection to the suggestion above of Hitler and vegetarianism, it seems to be free of any non-neutral connotations. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While the current title is POV, the proposed new title is inaccurate. I suggest calling the article "Hitler and vegetarianism". TFD (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is inherently POV, to the point that it could reasonably offend. The article covers more than simply whether or not this individual was entitled to describe himself as a vegetarian, so a title referring to his diet more widely is both more accurate and more clearly neutral.Wedensambo (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe that arguments for and against the move are supported by good evidence. The current title is more a matter of convenience than anything else. It should be possible for both sides to compromise and choose a neutral title. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree a compromise title could be 'Hitler and vegetarianism' but 'Hitler's diet is better. Reasons: Most, maybe all contributors here are approaching the subject/title knowing something about that subject. All the best encyclopedia articles are written assuming the reader doesn't know anything or very little about the subject. That is why someone would look up the subject in an encyclopedia to be informed by a succinct and balanced article which also directed them to sources and further reading. So: 'Hitler's vegetarianism' is clearly biased because if you put yourself in the position of someone who knows nothing about the subject such a title immediately suggests Hitler was a vegetarian. Despite ill informed comments by Paul Barlow above and others in the talk page there is dispute about whether Hitler was a vegetarian AND for what reasons he may have followed a vegetarian diet, if he did at some time in his life. Furthermore the logic followed by Vapour above is simply wrong. We cannot assume that a reader would know that an article entitled 'Hitler's sexuality' is about whether he was gay or not. There are other sexual orientations other than gay or straight. Similarly re an article entitled 'Hitler's Religious Beliefs: it cannot be assumed that it would be about his Christian beliefs or not. Again lots of other religions out there. Vapour is erroneously thinking that what he knows about these subjects, everyone knows. That is not the case. The point I am making, to state it again, is that an article should be written and titled as far as is possible assuming the reader doesn't know about the subject. Further to other points made: a vegetarian diet has and is straightforwardly defined. It is precisely because people who eat only white meat, or only meat on a Friday, or only fish or etc etc that those who ARE vegetarian have had to add such prefixes as 'strict'. It is not vegetarians (strict) who are trying to redefine vegetarianism but people who have followed, for whatever reason, diets that partially resemble a vegetarian one. All those who have opposed a title change however strongly or not, simply do not seem to comprehend that the title 'Hitler's vegetarianism' implies he was a vegetarian. Such a title is not short hand for the ensuing discussion in the article about whether he was or not, it instead sets the article up to be POV. Let's go with 'Hitler's diet' (and this is not too broad because the essential discussion about Hitler's diet is precisely about the controversy over his purported vegetarianism so it wouldn't include other details about his diet unless they were relevant to other beliefs of Hitler) or at a push 'Hitler and vegetarianism. Robynthehode (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "Hitler's diet" might infer that he was on a diet, or that he invented a diet. Compare with Atkins diet. The interest to readers is whether or not he was a vegetarian, not specifically how many calories he consumed. TFD (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The comparison makes no sense. The proposed name is "Hitler's diet", not "Hitler diet". And the meaning of the word diet in "Atkins diet" is in fact the same as in "Hitler's diet". In neither case does it refer to "diet" in the sense of caloric reduction. Glaucus (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A comparison of "Hilter's diet" to the "Atkins diet" is incorrect. Grammar, namely the apostrophe, is all important here. Perhaps TFD means "Atkins' diet" (article does not exist) instead of "Atkins diet" and the "Hitler diet" (again, article does not exist) instead of "Hilter's diet." Diet is the general term for "food consumed by a person or other organism" as opposed to fad diets and dieting; "the practice of eating food in a regulated fashion to decrease, maintain, or increase body weight." Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Were Germans expected to follow the Hitler diet? TFD (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know. Does it matter in terms of this discussion? Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Germans were not expected to adhere to Hitler's diet. It was his personal choice. Even his inner circle did not adhere to this, as many drank, smoked, and Herr Goering was a drug addict. King of Nothing (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The only aspect of Hitler's diet that is in any way noteworthy was his vegetarianism. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But that is the issue here. It is disputed that Hitler was vegetarian, at least by dictionary and the Vegetarian Society definitions. Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with Nirvana2013 and Glaucus. 'Diet' is a simply defined in dictionaries and critically is NPOV in regard to this discussion. Can we come to some sort of compromise or decision about the title? I have made extensive arguments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynthehode (talk • contribs) 13:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your 'arguments' are a compendium of irrelevancies. All of the major sources on Hitler written by actual specialists agree that he was a vegetarian. He did not eat animals. (Obviously he became a vegetarian. There was a time before that). There is no dispute in the major sources. All of the sources quoted in opposition are potboiler books containing notorious egregious errors of fact or they are gossip articles written in popular magazines that have no claim to any scholarly authority whatever. Paul B (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Paul B. You may be right about Hitler being a vegetarian but that should rightly be part of the article itself and not the title. You need to show in the article with relevant references your strident view that he was incontrovertibly a vegetarian. The discussion here is about the title and that there is doubt presented by other authors about his vegetarianism. Your repeated insistence that YOU are correct on this subject is turning into self righteousness. Do you have a hidden agenda? Robynthehode (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: At least "Hitler and vegetarianism" would be an improvement over the current title. And there are other aspects of Hitler's diet besides the supposed avoiding to eat animal flesh ("strict [or true] vegetarianism" is called like that for a reason…) readers would want to know. For example, what are the historic positions in favor or against that he were teetotal? Algorithme (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Strong Oppose: There is definitely more than enough historical evidence that Herr Hitler was a vegetarian (the fact that some revisionists historians have attempted to cast doubt does not change the overwhelming evidence). The title is no way offensive, as some here have tried to suggest. Just because Herr Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't in any way imply any negative connotation to vegetarianism. That being said I would definitely be okay with "Hitler and vegetarianism". But including a large portion of the article and/or changing the title to put increased weight towards those who doubt his vegetarianism absolutely violates WP:Weight as the overwhelming majority of historical sources say he was a vegetarian. King of Nothing (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you support the alternative "Hitler and vegetarianism," if not my recommendation. An article on Paul McCartney's vegetarian views, diet and activism would most likely be called "Paul McCartney and vegetarianism," not "Paul McCartney's vegetarianism" which is both clumsy and grammatically incorrect. "Paul McCartney's vegetarianism" sounds like he has invented his own version of vegetarianism, per Sepp Holzer's permaculture. Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because Herr Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't in any way imply any negative connotation to vegetarianism. -- You're clearly not a vegetarian. --87.78.45.126 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So the fact that Hitler had a moustache implies negative connotations to moustaches? Paul B (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. How many people today do you see wearing a Charlie Chaplin/Hitler-style moustache? Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You still, do, but yes the "toothbrush" is not very popular these days, and I guess that's probably because it is almost exclusively associated with Hitler. But moustaches in general are not. That's the analogy with vegetarianism. If non-meat eating were largely associated with Hitler and hardly anyone else, you might hasve a point, but it is not. I'd guess the vast majority of people could draw a picture of his square-moustache, but don't have a clue that he was vegetarian. It's not distinctively associated with him. Even if it were, of course, that would not be a valid argument of any kind. See Reductio ad Hitlerum. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nirvana2013, After thinking about this for awhile I absolutely support moving the Article to "Hitler and vegetarianism". However, I still have three problems. 1. Some of the Users on here feel that we should not call Hitler a vegetarian, even though the overwhelming historical evidence says he is, simply because it may offend some vegetarians: this is just ludicrous (see above moustache analogy by other User, and Hitler was a socialist does that mean all socialists are Nazis???) and even if it does offend vegetarians or others, that is no reason to change it. We can't white wash history because it might offend people. 2. I object to moving the article to a name that puts more weight on the extreme minority (of historical sources) that questions the validity of his vegetarianism. and 3. The Article itself puts way too much Weight on the aforementioned minority of sources. I inferred from your original comment (although it may not have been what you intended to imply) that you want a Title that puts more weight on the minority of sources that say he wasn't a vegetarian, instead of less (which it should be under WP:Weight). As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone supporting a move here, but certainly I am not offended that Hitler was or was not a vegetarian. I must say I find his attitude towards animals (and humans in general) misguided (0.5 million horses killed in Operation Barbarossa alone), but this is no reason to suppress an article or truth. I am just trying to create some balance here and a NPOV as the sources are in disagreement. There does seem to be some unexplained issues on the article if Hitler was vegetarian. Why was Hitler vegetarian? If it was for health, why did he complain of suffering from flatulence and various other ailments on his diet? If it was for a love of animals, why was there a disconnect with his actions (e.g. Operation Barbarossa, banning of vegetarian societies etc)? Sometimes a vegetarian biographer is handy in exposing some of these inconsistencies, as they understand the general vegetarian mindset. I doubt Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister) can be thought of as a reliable source. It seems everyone (omnivore or vegetarian) has a POV on this controversial topic. Yours in peace, Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, all of a sudden we're saying Herr Doctor Goebbels is an unreliable source?????, lol, just kidding. I'm trying to find a quote by Hitler from back when I studied back at University it was something to the effect of "I would never harm one of God's beautiful creatures" in reference to not hunting animals. Herr Hitler was a complex man and the Nazi regime was complex. Hitler did some good things, most were beyond horrible, but he did do some good things. And Herr Hitler the man, did have some qualities that were not evil (some of his qualities were morally neutral, like his vegetarianism, and some were even good) and we should not just remove these qualities (or the good things the Nazis and Hitler did for Germany) from History just because we object to the bad things and are offended by them and him to the core of our being. But, my only point of view and position in this discussion is from a purely Wikipedia Policy point of view in regards to WP:Weight as stated in my previous comments. As Always, With Thanks King of Nothing (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Glaucus' argument that similar articles would be (actually is) named Hitler's religious beliefs not Hitler's Christianity, and Hitler's weapons, not Hitler's automatic pistols. LK (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: this poorly sourced article is nothing else than a POV-Fork and should never have been created to start with. As if knowing whether Hitler was vegetarian or not is of any importance with respect to his "achievements". Anyway most of the prominent biographs of Hitler,i.e. Kershaw, Fest, Maser, and so on..., (none of them is even cited in this "article") do not deal much with Hitler's vegetarism. They do however not put in question this fact. Contrary to Robert Payne who seems to question Hitler's vegetarism. The problem is that Payne has published 110 books in 40 years, i.e. more than two per year), on all kinds of topics while a man like Kershaw has spent his whole life to study Hitle and nazism. And that Payne must be the only "historian" who writes that Hitler would have travelled to London in 1911 (which makes me have doubts about Payne's reliability; and I could express the same kind of doubts about others sources used here as many of them do not seem to be historians, but rather pro-vegetarism activists). Hitler's vegetarism should not have made more that the short section that can be found in the main article as it has no historical interest and only accessory biographical interest. Changing the name of this article into "Adolf Hitler's diet" would definetly make it even more POV-fork than it currently is. I could however agree to "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" (although I do not like titles as "X and Y") since it is a well established fact that Hitler's diet was mainly - if not totaly - vegetarian and that he never missed an opportunity to promote vegetarianism towards his interlocutors (and there are enough records of that fact). Lebob (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that no other WW2 leader (Roosevelt, Churchill etc), no other vegetarian (Gandhi, Einstein, Tolstoy etc) and no other person on Wikipedia (Julius Caesar, Jesus etc) have their own article specifically devoted to their personal dietary choice, then I too would be equally happy to see this "POV-Fork" article deleted. It makes me wonder whether the motivation behind creating this article was just because Hitler is perceived to be "evil" and vegetarianism (at least by vegetarians) to be "good." I fail to see how "changing the name of this article into 'Adolf Hitler's diet' would make it even more POV-fork than it currently is." Is that even possible? Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The article would be "even more POV fork" simply because the title would hide any relation between Hitler and vegetarianism. --Lebob (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you say. A change of title however would mean the article is not filed under either Category:Vegetarianism or Category:Semi-vegetarianism (both of which are POV). Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is getting sillier and sillier. The point of a category is to link readers to articles that are related to a particular topic, which this one is. Your are merely demonstrating Lebob's point that you belong to a POV that wants to "bury" this topic by hiding it from readers who may be interested in issues related to vegetarianism. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Paul B (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view...Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. Wikipedia:Categorization Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's entirely neutral. The article is about vegetarianism, therfore it belongs in the category. There is nothing controversial about this at all. Your whole approach is defined by POV, not by the desire to improve the encyclopedia by making content visible to people with a particular interest in a topic. Paul B (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it neutral if some sources claim he was not vegetarian? You have a different understanding of neutrality to me. Nirvana2013 (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources that claim he was not vegetarian have not been written by historians and are are based on interpretation or gossip. The only exception is Payne but one could really wonder whether Payne is an historian. He has written a certain number of biographies, but one can have doubts about the reliability of what he writtes about Hitler (e.g. Hitler travelling to London in 1911). As a matter of fact, most of the direct sources, i.e. people who shared Hitler's dayly life emphazise the fact he was vegetarian and actively promoted vegetarianism in his discussions while the mainstream and reference historians consider he was vegetarian. I really do not see how one could not categorise Hitler as vegetarian. --Lebob (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not really relevant to the issue at hand. If you think the article should be deleted then AfD it and test those arguments—this is not the discussion for it. As for the categories, they group articles by topics, and the subject matter of the article is vegetarianism, ergo the category is entirely appropriate. As an aside the counter-claims of Hitler not being vegetarian are pretty weak in the article: Dione Lucas recalls that he wasn't vegetarian pre-WW2; however, this is not exactly pertinent if Hitler converted 1941–1942, since someone does not have to be vegetarian their whole life to be identified as such (see Einstein, who only converted in the final year of his life). The section depends on comments by his cook, dietician and physician slipping him animal supplements without his knowledge, which strongly suggest he was omitting meat from his diet. If you ask me, the neutrality of the article is compromised by having a section called "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" when at no point in the section is any evidence presented of Hitler choosing to eat meat during the period after his conversion, when he self-identifies in early 1942. I think given the relative weakness of the counter-claims the current title as it stands is acceptable, but if some readers perceive a bias then when we have the entirely acceptable Hitler and vegetarianism. However, it seems there is an agenda at work here to completely remove the connection between Hitler and vegetarianism which i don't agree with. Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The category is not a POV because it is not endorsing any claims, only grouping, as Betty says, the article by topic. Even if there was strong evidence that Hitler was never a vegetarian, it would still belong in that category, because vegetarianism is the subject of the article. Paul B (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was asked to have a look here. Fitting, I guess, to write about this on Armistice day, given the Treaty of Versailles and its messy outcomes, very broadly put, seem to have doomed Germany to having someone like him come along. Even more unlucky it wound up being him, some might say. So far as I am aware, the meaningful secondary and primary sources on this topic overwhelmingly echo that from sometime in the early 1930s until he killed himself in 1945, Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, so far as that label meant "Ovo-lacto vegetarianism" in the mid twentieth century (what that may mean in the early twenty-first century has little or no bearing here). He does seem to have gotten there in steps and fits, as happened in other areas of his life. His vegetarianism has long been held to have brought on an annoying flatulence, for which he sometimes took sundry remedies. As a humble aside, Hitler was also a non-smoker, said he didn't like make up on women, liked riding in fast cars, enjoyed watching Disney movies, had a thing for linseed oil, could be very charming in close gatherings and as a politician was often deeply charismatic in public, moreover quite beloved among women and children. He was also, knowingly, with forethought and through very clever means, the leader behind industrial-scale genocide and warfare that brought on the deaths of tens of millions, Germans and Austrians among those, going by the many sources. Taken altogether I don't believe it's at all untowards to say, both non-smoking vegetarians and meat-eating smokers have done utter evil in this world, which I think readers might helpfully ponder for themselves. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Except, in reality, vegetarian diets increase flatulence not reduce it. This story of Hitler as a vegetarian has the look and feel of an apocryphal folk tale intended to turn Hitler into a spiritual figure. The fact that he banned vegetarian societies and did nothing to promote vegetarianism among his own people speaks louder than the propaganda. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you must have misread what I wrote above: It's likely Hitler's vegetarianism indeed gave him flatulence ("His vegetarianism has long been held to have brought on an annoying flatulence, for which he sometimes took sundry remedies."). Gwen Gale (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Gwen, my point is that the sources don't say his vegetarianism was responsible for the flatulence—quite the opposite actually. For example, British physician D. Doyle (2005) says Hitler had the flatulence problem "from childhood" and he was "not a vegetarian in his younger days."[2] Hitler's doctor was treating his gas problem, a health issue he had since he was a child and before he ever allegedly became a vegetarian. So we know that vegetarianism was not responsible for his gas. Therefore, it is quite strange that one would allegedly turn to a diet that is known to produce more flatulence. As you well know, historian Robert Payne attributes this "vegetarianism" to myth-making on the part of the Nazis. Regardless, we have historian of science Robert N. Proctor who notes that Hitler occasionally ate meat and was a "vegetarian of sorts" later in life. I'm curious, what makes you think his lifelong problem with flatulence had anything to do with his vegetarian diet? It doesn't, therefore it doesn't make any logical sense for him to have realistically become a vegetarian when it is well known that such a diet makes flatulence worse. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

From the very source you cited above: "He became a vegan, as well as tee-total, after the suicide of a much-loved niece..." Truth be told, my understanding is that he was a vegetarian, not a vegan. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It's problematic because Doyle's observation of Hitler's "vegan" diet relies on David Irving's book The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor (1983).[www.fpp.co.uk/books/Morell/Morell.pdf] Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Viridias, your arguements are pure OR (and rather irrational OR at that). You somehow don't think it's "logical" to turn to vegetarianism if you have a flatulence problem. Well most people who become vegetarians do so for reasons that override such concerns or are completely irrelevant to them. Then you say "I'm curious, what makes you think his lifelong problem with flatulence had anything to do with his vegetarian diet?" What an amazing example of double-think, since you've just argued that it does ("a diet that is known to produce more flatulence"). You appear to have great difficultly maintaining some degree of coherence and consistency in your assertions. You start off with the uninformed assertion on the basis of your pure intuition that the "story of Hitler as a vegetarian has the look and feel of an apocryphal folk tale". When you discover it is no such thing, you, characteristically, cannot backtrack or admit any kind of error, so have to resort to aggressive insistence at the expense of the evidence, double-think and invented "logic" which has no logic at all. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken on every single point, which I will directly address in order: 1) "OR" cannot occur in a discussion on a talk page, it is a term specifically reserved for a type of editing when a user adds content to an article that isn't based on reliable sources. 2) Hitler did not turn to vegetarianism because of flatulence. That's either an error you made or an error Gwen made. According to the sources, Hitler allegedly turned to vegetarianism after his niece committed suicide. The same sources also note that Hitler's stomach problems began as a child, and if he did become a vegetarian (or a "vegetarian of sorts" as Proctor describes his diet), it wasn't until 1931. Please correct your errors. 3) I have summarized the sources, which you would have known if you were familiar with this topic. I believe it was Theodor Morell who wrote in his 1941 diary, "Trouble is, it's getting very difficult to make suggestions what with his being a vegetarian, because carbohydrates lead to a build-up of gases." And it was Payne's opinion that the story of Hitler as a vegetarian has the look and feel of an apocryphal folk tale, not my own. Feel free to apologize at any time. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's quite straightforward I didn't say Hitler went vegetarian over his niece (though many sources do say this, I'm quite neutral on that) and even more straitghtforwardly, I didn't say, nor would I ever say, Hitler went vegetarian owing to flatulence (moreover I'm unaware of any source that says this, something so odd). Meanwhile, you cite Theo Morel, who (quack that he was), acknowledges Adolph Hitler was indeed a vegetarian. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not in dispute. The dispute (as far as I can tell from the above) is concerned with naming conventions. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the old "never concede, instead change the subject" tactic. Feel free to stop misrepresenting the facts at any time. Of course OR can occur on a talk page, and regularly does. It's just not disallowed on a talk page. Big Difference. You are too lazy to even bother to check what was actually said about Hitler and flatulence, so you misrepresent and distort to cover your increasing self-contradictions. No-one as far as I know ever said that. Certainly I did not. Certainly Gwen did not. She's already explained that you misread her comment. You said it has the look and feel of a folk tale. You did not attribute your "folk tale" comment to Payne, and in any case he didn't say that. Of course Payne is completely unreliable in any case, for reasons that have already been discussed at length. I know you wont apologise, because you are congenitally incapable of it, so I wont even bother to ask. But do look in the mirror. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any source that says Hitler took "sundry remedies" for flatulence brought on by his vegetarianism. This story of Hitler as a vegetarian has the look and feel of an apocryphal folk tale intended to turn Hitler into a spiritual figure, according to Payne's opinion represented in the article, an opinion that the proposers are using to bolster their argument for a move. You're engaging in the fallacy of rotten apples by claiming Payne is an unreliable source about Hitler's diet simply because he made an error about a separate incident that has nothing to do with his observations about Hitler's diet. We already have other sources indicating Hitler ate sausages, ham, and caviar between 1931-1945. If you wanted to refute Payne, all you would have to do is show that Hitler didn't drink beer or wine, eat sausages or caviar or keep a mistress. You can't do that, so you are reduced to attacking his credibility on a different subject, which is essentially distracting us from the issue at hand. Historian Robert N. Proctor supports the notion that Hitler ate meat, so Payne isn't alone in questioning the perception of Hitler's "vegetarianism" over the reality of his fondness for eating meat. Payne's claim that "Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany" is also followed up on by Proctor:

Hitler's vegetarianism was remarked on prior even to 1933, however, when the Führer-to-be's personal asceticism was held up as the model Nazi lifestyle. Foreigners eventually took note, recording also some apparent backsliding. Otto D. Tolischus in 1937 in the New York Times pointed out that the Führer was a vegetarian who "does not drink or smoke" but who also "occassionally relishes a slice of ham" along with delicacies such as caviar and chocolates. Postwar observers have often—and understandably—used this to question whether Hitler was in fact a vegetarian.[3]

[...]

Hitler was indeed, for the most part, a vegetarian—though he did occassionally allow himself a dish of meat. Gestapo chief Rudolf Diels after the war wrote that HItler would sometimes eat Bavarian liver dumplings (Leberknödel), but only when they were prepared by his photographer friend, Heinrich Hoffmann. The New York Times mentioned ham and caviar, but HItler was also said to have enjoyed squab[4]...Hitler is said to have been unable to tolerate the idea of animals' being killed for human consumption, but at least one author has countered that this was an image deliberately crafted to popularize the German leader as kind and gentle. Animal-rights historians Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax have noted that both claims may be true.[5]

It therefore appears that Payne's claims remain intact and the notion that there is a legitimate dispute over Hitler's vegetarianism is repeated by a respected historian of science. This is essentially what is driving the editors who are asking for a change of article name and it appears to be a complaint backed by evidence, not unreliable fringe sources as you maintain. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - It's commonly believed that Hitler was a vegetarian, and this article is about that belief. The article's title should reflect that directly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

True. It is also commonly believed that "Hitler was probably not entirely consistent in his vegetarianism, and there has been much debate about the reasons for it."[6] Perhaps another title would allow for this perspective? I've been thinking that it would make more sense to broaden, not narrow the topic, by merging this article into Animal welfare in Nazi Germany as a subtopic pertaining to vegetarianism and the Nazi Party as a whole. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be good except that Herr Hitler didn't advocate for or force vegetarianism on others. Vegetarianism was not a part of the Nazi platform or part of public policy in Nazi Germany. Hitler did not drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or cigars, or eat meat; but, even his inner circle (and the vast majority of Germans) did all of those things (Even Herr Goering was a drug addict). A more appropriate avenue would be to, as the User below suggests, simply delete this article altogether and include some of the material in the Adolf Hitler Article or simply rename the article as "Hitler and Vegetarianism" and balance the content per WP:WEIGHT as the vast majority of historical sources say that Herr Hitler was, in fact, a vegetarian. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Your response indicates that you may not have visited the link above.[7] Vegetarian meals were sometimes mandated for the ruling party and Hitler planned on mandating vegetarianism for all Germans once an effective means of food production was in place. The vegetarianism in question is more relevant in the context of animal welfare in Nazi Germany. More current sources report that while Hitler was most probably a vegetarian after 1931, his "vegetarianism" is disputed due to his meat intake during that same time. (Proctor, Sax, etc.) There is absolutely no weight issue here at all. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Again your talking about the extreme minority of historical sources (in regard to your source), which must be balanced, per WP:Weight. And Yes, this whole thread is about WP:Weight (in my opinion), that is the issue. The whole discussion is about whether or not we rename the article in a manner that indicates he was a vegetarian (as "Hitler's vegetarianism") or a neutral way (like, Hitler and Vegetarianism) or in a way that makes it seem like the sources are split on whether he is a vegetarian (which I am against since the historical sources overwhelming say that he was a vegetarian). This is the whole discussion. I'm not here to engage on any side issue, the only thing I'm here to do is participate in the discussion as to whether we should rename the article. (I'm absolutely not saying that the sources that cast doubt on his vegetarianism should be removed from the Article.) Anything regarding Nazi policy, Hitler, or actions of Hitler or the S.S. (especially there non-public actions) should be backed up by multiple reliable sources (as there is loads of contradictory information out there and it tends to get propagated by authors who rely on less than dubious sources (re. Kiplings books on the Nazis, lol)). As to whether Herr Himmler may or may not have tried to get some of the S.S. to eat veggie or as to whether Herr Hitler got Herren Goebbels and Hess to be veggie may be interesting and maybe should be added to Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. But they are but two of the many people in the inner circle (of which almost all ate meat, drank, and smoked). I would not add the bit in your reference about the possible future policies (or planned mandates) regarding vegetarianism (unless you can find other multiple, unrelated, and reliable sources to confirm it as a matter of fact and not as speculation or argument (as Boria Sax does in your reference)). But, I'm okay with pretty much anything, moving the info into the Hitler Article, renaming the article "Hitler and Vegetarianism", or your suggestion, or just deleting the Article. The only thing I object to is renaming the Article in a way that makes it seem like there isn't consensus (or at least overwhelming agreement) among the vast majority of historical sources that he was a vegetarian. As Always, With Thanks King of Nothing (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Fairly OT, but the next time someone writes "Herr Hitler", I'll start calling him Adolf. --87.79.178.85 (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm German, I say "Herr" instead of "Mister", especially in reference to other Germans. P.S., don't call me Adolf, lol King of Nothing (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this article altogether. At the most Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism could have been mentioned in the main article. It was stupid to write a whole new, POV article on this subject. You will not find anything like that in any respected encyclopedia. 31.193.133.160 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Is there anyone involved in this discussion that opposes a move to the frequently suggested alternative title, Hitler and vegetarianism? If no-one does then we have a title acceptable to everyone and we can just wrap this discussion up. Betty Logan (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, I support it. King of Nothing (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed, but I still prefer the current title, as it describes what the article is about - Hitler's vegetarianism. "Hitler and vegetarianism" is really another topic. It would include not just his personal diet, but his wider opinions, policies etc. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• As a matter of fact, I do not like titles like "X and Y" that make a link between a person and a concept as they are often an open door for WP:OR. Furthermore I share Paul B's comment above on the fact that Hitler and vegetarianism" would be another topic. However I will not oppose to this change if there is a consensus for it. --Lebob (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• would be another topic -- Exactly! A better topic, which could finally include meaningful meta-analysis of the phenomenon (i.e. that Hitler's vegetarianism is very frequently brought up in discussions not even remotely involving Hitler but instead topics like factory farming). All based on reliable sources, of course. A section of well-sourced meta-discussion is desperately missing from the current article -- and from its current scope. --87.79.176.62 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The proposed change is already being used an excuse to expand the scope of this article into a WP:COATRACK article, and yes, that article would be an invitation to OR and POV pushing. There would have to be serious consensus for changing the scope of the article, and that cannot be inferred from this RfC, which is on a different question altogether. Sorry, I see this as a way to sneak in a major change to the article under the pretext of simply changing the name. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nice try, but obviously it's the current title and scope which make this article a COATRACK against vegetarianism. Nice try though. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To the IP: It's not a "coatrack" or any kind of attack on vegetarians. Rather, it's the opposite - since it is full of dubious claims that he was not one. As for Dominus Vobisdu claim that a change of title would make it a "coatrack", I am at a loss for words, since he is presumably referring to my comments below. I think Dominus needs to actually read WP:COATRACK. Expanding the scope of an article is not in any sense coatracking. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support / comment as I'd say the title as it currently stands carries the understanding/assumption that Hitler was a vegetarian. But, as already demonstrated, that's disputed. The "Hitler and vegetarianism" suggestion sounds suitably neutral. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Move instead to Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism, as suggested by several above (and also opposed by at least one, but contrary to their objection the article is already about Hitler's attitudes not just about his personal practice). This appears to be NPOV and also an accurate and recognisable description of the topic. Agree the current title is POV, but the suggested new title Adolf Hitler's diet is a significant change of scope and does not do the current article justice. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reply to Viriditas

As I said above, you respond by simply producing Walls of Text filled with misdirection that function to bludgeon editors into silence. Your comments systematically misrepresent sources and also misrepresent what other editors have said to create fake "answers". I find this approach to dealing with any topic morally and intellectually repugnant, as it stops proper debate and proper evaluation of sources. Even your first sentence has no relevance to anything ("I am not aware of any source that says Hitler took "sundry remedies" for flatulence brought on by his vegetarianism") Yes, he took remedies for flatulence. Whether it was specifically brought on by his vegetarianism is arguable, but wholly irrelevant. This is Agument by misdirection.

Payne is unreliable in this matter beause he is a potboiler biographer, not an expert, but also because this - and other books of his - are known to contain egregious errors. That is one of the ways we determine reliability. Payne is simply talking crap when he says that Hitler's vegetarianism was a fiction invented by Goebbels. If Hitler tucked into Steak and Kidney pies every night, he might have an argument, but the fact that his diet was vegetarian is a reality commented upon by numerous witnesses, so it obviously is not made up by Goebbels is it? You know that to be true. It is also true that he lived a frugal lifestyle; did not smoke; did not drink, except the odd glass rarely. He seemingly didn't much care for sex either, by all the evidence we have of his relationship to Eva. So, yes, he was frugal. Lots of mass killers have been puritanical in their lives. There's nothing inherently "good" about not enjoying life. Indeed one can argue there is a short step between puritanism and fanaticism, but that's another topic. Incidentally, it's not a "fallacy" that a rotten apple spoils others. It's a fact. However, it's true that one mistake does not invalidate a source. Even highly reliable sources contain slip ups. The point is that Payne is generally sloppy about facts, preferring a good story. And, of course, not a single other biographer agrees with him. You can find others saying that Hitler was not veggie all the time at various periods, but not a single one says anything so wild as Payne: that the whole thing was a fairy tale made up by Goebbels (or by Hitler himself, or by anyone). WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG put Payne way way "out there", by any reasonable standard.

As for the liver dumplings, squab etc, it has already been pointed out repeatedly that this information comes either from unreliable original sources (gossip articles), or refers to a transitional period when Hitler generally avoided meat, but was not rigid in doing so. It is clear that he became more "fixated" on vegetarianism as he got older. It is also clear he promoted it and that he asserted that it was the future for the western diet. That was about as accurate as most of his other insights into the future, but it is an undisputed fact, however you or anyone wriggles. Paul B (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hitler did not take "sundry remedies" for flatulence brought on by his vegetarianism as Gwen suggested above at 22:18, 12 November 2012. I hope that clears up your confusion. Robert N. Proctor, an historian of science, is not an unreliable source for information about Hitler's diet, so you're mistaken. Feel free to question the sources he uses in another venue, preferably in your own published work, because your criticism of his sources isn't supported. Payne is welcome to his own opinion, and we can represent his opinion using reliable sources. We're not in a position to disqualify all of Payne's opinions because of a separate error, nor to throw out Proctor because you don't like the primary sources he uses. Viriditas (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring this article

I think this article needs to be restructured. The way it is split "Hitler as a vegetarian/Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" introduces POV and original research. It seems to me some sources are being taken out of context to make a case that they don't really back up. Case in point: Letter writer Carol Jochnowitz wrote: "On page 89 of The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964), Dione Lucas, recalling her pre-World War II stint as a hotel chef in Hamburg, Germany, states: 'I do not mean to spoil your appetites for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though.'". Two problems here—we shouldn't be sourcing letter writers to newspapers, and secondly, it refers to a period of Hitler's life before he was actively self-identifying as a vegetarian. It doesn't really prove anything, since it doesn't pertain to the period of his life when he was supposedly vegetarian. Given the RS issues I would prefer to this quote and source pulled.

Secondly, the section depends on quotes by his physician, dietician and cook and presents their comments/actions as proof of Hitler's non-vegatarianism. Again, this is drawing unfounded conclusions: if they are slipping him animal by-products you can argue that Hitler isn't vegetarian on a technicality, but at the same time these are quotes from the people who would be the most informed about his diet and they strongly suggest that he had chosen to omit meat from his diet, otherwise there is no logic to their actions. They simply don't belong in a section called "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism", they just provide a factual basis to the claims for and against.

I suggest scrapping the current structure, and replacing it with a chronological structure: start with his diet in the pre-vegetarian period of his life, move on to the factual stuff and the contemporary claims of his vegetarian period, and then move on to the modern day analysis of those claims. As it stands, we have a huge section that just isn't neutral, because it misrepresents sources and twists facts, and these shouldn't have any spin put on them. The facts can speak for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think your last sentence is slightly problematic because the facts are not known with absolute certainty. We can only report on what scholars and their sources have said. If there are contradictions, we have to recognise that in the text. I do think we should have a section on the "questioning", but in the context that in the post-war period (and perhaps earlier) some vegetarians were keen to dissociate themselves and their beliefs from Hitler. I don't know whether there ever was a stong association between the two in many people's minds, but it clearly is an emotional issue for some, as this talk page demonstrates. It might also be relevant to address changing definitions of vegetarianism, which seems to be relevant to the section in which his use of medication containing animal products is used as "evidence" against his vegetarianism (even though it's not even clear whether he knew the content of the medication). Paul B (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether we think that he was a vegetarian or not, and applying a dictionary definition ourselves would be OR. The only thing that counts is what the best reliable sources have to say. Exploring the changing definitions of vegetarianism is far, far beyond the scope of this article, and is toally irrelevant to the subject. As for the post-war reaction or public opinion on the matter, we require SOLID sources to say anything about that. That means real academic sources, only, as described in WP:HISTRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Exploring the changing definitions of vegetarianism is far, far beyond the scope of this article, and is toally irrelevant to the subject." No, it is not, as I have explained below. The changing definitions are part of the debate about what it means to say whether or not he "was". I'm surprised you cannot see the point. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: You have my support. The letter/cookbook material is not reliably sourced by any stretch of the imagination and con be omited entirely. The opinions of his physician, dietician and cook do not carry any weight UNLESS they have been seriously mentioned by more serious reliable sources. They certainly don't trump or "balance" his own self-identification, the recollections of people who knew him better, or the conclusions drawn by more serious and qualified sources. And yes, evidence that others adulterated his food is no grounds for claiming that he was not a vegetarian. The chronological presentention you propose would be a vast improvement on the article. Great job! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I generally agree with Betty, and fully support the restructuring, but I think the bad sources should not simply be excluded altogether, but included in a section on the "Ryan Berry approach", as it were, otherwise they will be repeatedly reinserted. There are numerous websites out there that reiterate Berry's claims. Paul B (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That is completely at odds with our policies and guidelines, and is tantamount to OR. Bad sources are of course to be completely excluded, as is any material based on them, unless they are seriously discussed in real serious sources, and even then can be used to illustrate and support what the reliable sources have to say. It is completely and utterly irrelavent what "numerous websites" have to say, unless they have a demonstrated reputation for serious scholarly competence. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand you. It is not OR to report on someone's views. What matters is whether the views are notable. Even highly unreliable sources can be used to report on fringe ideas, theorists, etc, if those ideas are notable. As for OR on the general topic of vegetarian opinion, that would depend on what sourcing exists for the undeniable fact that vegetarian activists have tried to dissociate themselves from Hitler. There are several discussions of this fact in newspapers and other sources. BTW, the "numerous websites" were mentioned to point out that this is a notable view. I was not suggesting that the websites should be quoted, though some may useable. I also thought it was strategically sensible to refer to the claims in context to avoid their being repeatedly added as facts by people who have read the websites. Paul B (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't actually intending omitting the Berry book (since it probably still meets basic RS criteria even if it is a sloppy source), but I think generally the first hand accounts from people who knew Hitler should take precedence over any revisionism, which is why I suggested the chronological approach. I've tagged all the sources I have real problems with so you can see what I intende to pull from the article, but I would prefer to see a distinction between facts (in this case knowledge that is known to be true, or at least isn't contested), contemporary first hand accounts and revisionist accounts. Betty Logan (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, if the title is changed to "Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism", a section on post-war arguments about attitudes to the relation between Hitler and vegetarianism would be entirely on topic. It's not difficult to find sources, say, on the relation of all this to the Reductio ad Hitlerum [8] or see Rod Preece's Sins of the Flesh: A History of Ethical Vegetarian Thought pp295-6 for a discussion of post-war vegetarian responses to Hitler's adviocacy. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please! A section discussing the "meme" would make the article truly interesting and useful. I'm all for it. --87.79.176.62 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Betty, that material appears to have slipped in under the radar when an IP added it back in 2009.[9] It looks like it should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)