Talk:Adolf Hitler#Changes I want to make

A discussion to move  "20 July plot"  to  "Hitler assassination attempt of 20 July 1944"  is in progress. More opinions are needed. -- 00:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This 1935 video might be a good addition to the article as it exhibits Hitler's charismatic oratory. JJARichardson (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:We could add it to the external links section.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand Diannaa’s first reversion of my edit in the Ancestry section: I should have been unambiguous, concise, leaving no speculative opening in the phrasing or citation. These issues I corrected on the second pass which is why I don’t understand Slatersteven’s second revert. If the Frankenberger case is dismissed as spurious (which echoes in Ullrich: that stands as the current standard’s judgment) then why is that issue elaborated here but the non-spurious evidence legally documented interfamilial relations is not allowed a single line with more than adequate citation attached to the statement? If this can’t be mentioned, should the entire section be removed as spurious and irrelevant?

To say that this is legally established is water-tight—to claim that it is otherwise than legally established would be false. That there is speculation that questions the legally established narrative: this may be so, but that’s outside the constraint of expectation on this page as I understood from Diannaa’s revert of the first edit.

I understand that this is a strictly patrolled page, and for excellent reasons. Leaving the several paragraph length exposition and dismissal of the Frankenberger thesis in place, but suppressing the parish record and notarized document on legal parentage indicating interfamilial relations—this I don’t understand. I actually am of the opinion that both could or perhaps should be maintained, but if not shouldn’t the whole issue be demoted to a subpage or merged with the family tree page? I wonder what Diannaa’s opinion might be on this. I would be just as interested in hearing why Slatersteven applied the second revert. ThomasMikael (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:You need RS making these accusations. not your own research (read wp:primary). Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::I’m sorry does RS refer research? I cited Volker Ullrich, and Wolfgang Zdral (who is cited by Ullrich) as well as the facsimile documents which they cited. Was my mistake to over cite? ThomasMikael (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Reliable sources wp:rs. Note as well wp:v, an RS must say it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Effectively the line and citations compresses p. 14-16 in Ullrich v. 1 (Ascent 1889-1939), also citing the secondary sources that he cites (Kershaw, Maser, Zdral) as well as the facsimile sources of primary documents that he cites. If Ullrich is not a reliable secondary, then who is? Is the inclusion of the sources the problem here and I should have just stuck with a single citation to Ullrich? ThomasMikael (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for your response by the way, I appreciate your time and attention to this. ThomasMikael (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Read wp:v, it must say it, not "effectively say it", so what does it say? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Fair. A direct quotation of the text:

::::::*“That means, if the notarized declaration of 1876 was correct, that Alois and Klara were second cousins; and if Johann Nepomuk was actually Alois’s true father, Alois would have been Klara’s uncle.”

::::::In the same paragraph it says:

::::::* “The local pastor refused to marry the two because they were so closely related. Alois Hitler this had to petition the local bishop’s seat in Linz for a special dispensation and, after some back and forth, it was granted.” Page 16.

::::::This is after a three page set up weighing everything out, that dispatches the Frankenberger theory introduced by Han Frank then turns to the verified and unambiguous fact of the interfamilial relations in Hitler’s family tree. Maser and Zdral are heavily inclined towards Nepomuk as the father. Ullrich is neutral in his consideration of the two Hiedler’s—the second paragraph of the chapter seems to lean toward J.G. Hiedler but here he provides no citation and seems to be reproducing the official mythos. He indicates openness to the theory of J.N. by discussing it at length and providing a dozen citations in that area. But Ullrich does not even suggest during his presentation of the evidence that it might not have been one of those two candidates. The preponderance of secondary sources Ullrich cites are Zdral and Maser. Maser is the more serious scholar and introduces Nepomuk as a candidate into mainline scholarship. Maser [https://archive.org/details/hitlerlegendmyth0000mase/page/n19/mode/1up?q=Nepomuk is unequivocal and persuasive] on this point, incidentally. Ullrich includes several of the secondaries these two cite which include the facsimiles of documents. I cited these as well: Sigmund and Jetzinger. Zdral also includes the facsimiles in the page range cited. Zdral essentially elaborates and expands upon Maser’s argument that Johann Hiedler is not the father, and is conveniently long dead by the time the question came up. Maria Schickelgruber would scarcely have been motivated to conceal his identity at the time of drawing up the birth certificate but may well have had incentive to conceal Nepomuk’s identity since he was a married man. But Ullrich leaves the question open, between the two brothers. The episode ends on a note that confirms (by way of the pastor and the special dispensation which is required for the approval, the note that it was not immediately granted upon request etc.). The legal documents verify the relationship. To avoid going into a long and unnecessary weighing of the factors it seemed most concise to say this was ‘legally established’ since…it is legally established and notarized. We don’t have to go out on a limb weighing speculative truth claims. The first clause I included ‘the theory about Frankenberger tends to distract from etc.’ is justified on the basis that in the past Frankenberger tends to come up and much ink has been spilled about it, whereas the interfamilial relations (prior to Maser) were scarcely mentioned. Ullrich devotes one paragraph to Frankenberger and three pages (to five pages if we include the beginning of the chapter before argument and citation start) to the above described issue. Given space constraints most of this seems unnecessary to say. But given the fact that the Frankenberger theory is given space on the main page it seems necessary and indicated to include a line about this. ThomasMikael (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I should have said: “verified and unambiguous according to the notarized legal documents” above instead of”verified and unambiguous facts.” The claim is a documentary claim not an absolute truth claim—like most of the substance of historical fact. ThomasMikael (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you again for your time and attention, and I apologize if this seems belabored and unnecessary. I could see that in the larger view but not from the point of view that includes an ancestry section on the main page (which is fine, if his actual ancestry and its complication are acknowledged). ThomasMikael (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ec|2}} Here's my problems with your edits: Second cousins can legally marry in many countries, including Germany. So to use the word "incest" for the relationship between Klara and Alois is incorrect. You've introduced someone named "Johan Nepomuk" into the narrative without explaining who he is or why his existence makes it incest for Klara and Alois to marry. Regardless, the "if...then" structure of the last sentence makes the whole thing speculation. The second version is no better. "he may himself have been the product of incest himself...": We can't include unsourced claims such as that, not even enclosed in a citation. The Frankenberger thesis actually has an article, which is likely why the hypothesis was considered notable enough to include. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I assume that you must be pulling a typo from inside of a footnote from the first version. The second version mentions neither of the Hiedler brothers in the main text, which reads:

::::::::::“The claim about Hitler’s Jewish heritage distracts from a separate aberration in Hitler’s lineage, established by legal documents, that Alois Hitler was either his wife’s cousin once-removed or her half-uncle, 23 years her senior.”

::::::::::It linked out to the family page for those who wished to pursue greater detail and provided an array of both primary and secondary sources in case investigation of reference seemed necessary to a reader.

::::::::::I was careful not to use the word ‘incest’ in the second version for the reason that you’ve stated. I thought it was a notable detail since it was new information to me when I read the Vollker Ullrich volume. It gives the issue of the non-existent Jewish grandfather a different spin in that context. Maser and Zdral are notably convinced that Alois and Klara are half-uncle/half-niece. Considering Hitler’s noted fondness of his niece Geli Raubal, the paper trail on the consanguinity of the parents struck me as a psychologically telling dimension of his past. But I said nothing about all that on the page, given that doing so would be speculation. I went with Ullrich’s open version of the case that does not choose between second cousin and half-uncle since Ullrich is the current biographical standard. There does actually happen to be a page on Hitler’s family, but it’s true that the insinuation of the Jewish grandfather has greater currency as a widely broadcast legend vs. the odd facts of his actual family background that are a little aberrant. It’s not illegal to marry the half-sibling-of-a-parent in the state of New York, as I understand it from a search, and it may not be elsewhere. But I do think that as a datapoint that sheds light on his family dynamics, it could be considered unusual and therefore relevant to characterization regardless. Of course it may have been the other Hiedler, J.G. who was the father. In that he is merely her step-cousin and also her second cousin, being the son of her great-uncle. At any rate Fest said this question would ‘peter out’ due to the vagaries and meanness of Hitler’s origins and I suppose he’s proven right.

::::::::::With that said, I apologize if this was a waste of time and thank you again for your time and attention. I cede the issue, given that I’ve stated my argument and you’ve responded with your judgment. The edit was in good faith, and I assume that it’s exclusion is also in good faith. ThomasMikael (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)