Talk:Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
September 5, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] WikiProject Germany      (Rated B-Class) Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no WikiProject Philosophy      (Rated B-Class) Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Archives
Topics 1 – 17 Topics 18 – 35 Topics 36 – 53

• /Archive 1: Topics 1-17
• /Archive 2: Topics 18-35
• /Archive 3: Topics 36-53

Contents 1 older entries 2 Where's the beef?! 3 Archiving 4 Enigma of Hitler: reliable source? 5 hitler was NOT a vegetarian 6 Source of Wagner comment 7 Featured Article? 8 Reorganization 9 Mussolini 10 Removed feather 11 Reasons for Wavering health 12 Content removed 13 POV problems 13.1 Some issues 13.2 POV problems (cont.) 14 Partial revert

[edit] older entries

This article began as a "dispute" section in List of vegetarians. Given the controversy surrounding this topic, please provide a citation for any significant edits with new content, thanks. Wyss 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute seems resolved, so I am removing tag. Ecopirate 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the beef?!

OK, dumb joke. Seriously: where's the controversy? The vast majority of the article seems to be devoted to sources supporting the viewpoint that Hitler was a vegetarian. I was unaware that this required 100% perfect adherence to never eating meat. Is there some sort of Vegetarian High Council with the power to kick you out if you weaken occasionally? The later in Hitler's life this article goes, the more thoroughly vegetarian he is portrayed as.

If the contention that Hitler was a vegetarian is still "disputed", then where's the dispute? If it's not disputed, then it's time for it to be moved out of the "disputed" section on the list. Seriously, the lengths people will go to, to try to deny that they might have something in common with someone they loathe... -Kasreyn 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong since I'm new here but I suspect the problem is that this side of Hitler (esp the part about how he felt for animals) conflicts with the view of those who see Hitler as a horrible man with absolutely no heart or conscience, the ultimate manifestation of evil. Don't get me wrong, I do think Hitler was a horrible man but I also think many people oversimplify him and unfortunately, for those that do, not only are they failing to learn the lessons we should from Hitler, they are also unable to accept the truth if it conflicts with their view. Nil Einne 17:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's really a terrible problem with history: when we paint men like Hitler as inhuman --Gautam3 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)monsters, we do the same thing they did. Atrocities cannot occur until someone is dehumanized; Hitler spread a perception of Jews as subhuman, and hey presto, they were treated as such. Now we are spreading a perception of Hitler as being inhuman. The result? We are failing to see the Hitlers in our midst, because we fail to understand that Hitler was human, too. When we point to a public figure and call him Hitleresque, his defenders say, "but look how nice he is in situation x, or to group y!". The natural response is, "but Hitler loved animals, so obviously you can be evil and cruel in some ways even though you're nice in other ways." This argument is being drowned out, though, by the idiots who would like to strip Hitler of his human status. It's a terrible mistake, because then we won't realize that it can happen again. Every generation has its would-be Hitlers waiting in the wings, and every generation has a duty to remain vigilant and keep them out of power. To do that, we have to understand that the capacity for evil is in all of us, we can't just exile it to a few cozily-distant repositories labelled "Hitler" and "Stalin" etc. -Kasreyn 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a curious view, Nil. Personally, I think a lot of our heros and villains are polarized in history. Even if you've committed a number a dastardly things, if you're rememebered for one positive thing, you'll become a hero in the annals. Too much hero worship going on these days. Just see reductio ad Hitlerum or Godwin's Law. In any case, I will remove the NPOV tag for now, as the last debate about this happened last year. Ecopirate 18:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Godwin's Law, imo, is the most over-used and least understood "law" in existence. There are people who try to use it to quash discussion of Nazism, as if the law states "By invoking this law, all discussion of Nazism must cease". Rubbish. All the law points out is a statistical probability of Nazism being mentioned, which makes perfect sense, since Nazism is perhaps one of the most recognizable and powerful metaphors for evil in recent world history. Since it's recognizable, it doesn't require a lot of wasted time in explanation, and since it's powerful, it gets the point across, therefore it's highly useful for making a point by analogy, ie, "what not to do". Yet apparently the goal of preventing future atrocities must take a back seat in order to provide greater variety of metaphors? Honestly, I'll never understand some people... Cheers, Kasreyn 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Or...It could be done already. Good work Shanes. Ecopirate 18:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Argh...Make that me removing the dispute tag on the talk page. Blah. Ecopirate 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is that calling Hitler a vegetarian does two bad things. 1) It gives people who want to harass vegetarians a very silly arguement and 2) is not FACTUAL, unless we disregard his mother and other sources saying he occasionally ate meat. Otherwise everyone on Earth is a vegetarian between hamburgers and someone can be a virgin between sexual encounters. Even if he never ate beef in his life but occasionally had some fish, he was NOT a vegetarian. - UA

In response to the first person's question - there isn't a high council on vegetarianism (and I know you were joking) but claiming that one is vegetarian precludes a certain level of consistency. It's like anything else - I cannot say I am a professional car racer if I drive 120 once in a while on the freeway. If Hitler ate "ham...caviar" (according to article) once in a while, then he cannot be a vegetarian. The facts are facts. --Gautam3 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I am archiving this discussion for easier access, and because the talk edit thingy is telling me the page is large. That said, aside from this, I really have nothing more to contribute. I find this fact really, really funny though. Ecopirate 10:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enigma of Hitler: reliable source?

I've followed this link and read the article in question, and it starts out with a reasonable tone, purporting to explain the "real Hitler" behind history's misperceptions, but then proceeds to grant an ever-more rosy picture until the thing reads like the worst sort of Neo-Nazi apologism. By the end of the piece, the author has completely abandoned any lip-service mention of Hitler's crimes, and the conclusion is fit only for a paean. Should we really be using this source at Wikipedia? -Kasreyn 10:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The accuracy of the article (of whether Hitler was actually misundersttod in his ideas) is questionable, and the thing as a whole does read more like a Neo-Nazi propoganda than a factual article. However, if it is first-hand information on him, it sure is much more valuable than a historian's assumptions. Just shave the text off of personal opinions and focus on the facts (I know there is plenty). JaneDOA

[edit] hitler was NOT a vegetarian

this article is crap, because it does not disprove the myth of hitler being a vegetarian but instead adopt the nazi-propaganda during hitlers regime. read this for more information: "http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html". sorry for being rude! --84.168.188.227 08:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please refer to WP:NPOV, and keep in mind that, from WP's standpoint at least, it is important to start the discussion of an article from a position free of preconceived notions. This article does not have a "purpose" of proving or disproving anything. Its purpose is to neutrally present verifiable and notable information on the subject matter. Demanding that a specific viewpoint be the only one represented is not helpful towards this aim. Cheers, Kasreyn 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. please note that the book in question seems to have been written in a fit of pique by an author upset that his pet theory (that the choice of not eating meat is a sure-fire indication of moral rectitude) has an unfortunate monkeywrench thrown in it by Hitler's vegetarianism. See this? ' It's a tiny violin playing just for that author. For god's sakes, in the section on the author's credentials at the end of that stupid article, he lists that article itself - apparently that is supposed to be impressive? Pfah! Kasreyn 00:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Our mistake. How dare Wikipedia say he was a vegetarian when a random article - whose accuracy is questionable - states the opposite. Don't trust everything that you see on the net, I can bet with my life that there is at least one article that says Hitler never even existed. Besides, the WP article has sources on both sides of the argument, so practically, it's not even saying that he was a vegetarian. The choice is yours, believe whatever it is that you want to. JaneDOA

The question of his vegetarianism is difficult, but if once assumes that periodic meat consumption violates vegetarian principle, then we know for fact that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. We really need five non-internet sources on the matter to be cited.--Gautam3 02:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break up your self-congratulatory convention of yourselves a professional historians, but the fact remains that this article simply cites only those sources supporting the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian while simply ignoring numerous accounts and biographies pointing out that he wasn't. We have countless first-hand accounts of Hitler eating meat, not only in his student days, but well into his administration, as well as lots of testimony that Hitler public image as an all around clean living guy was largely propaganda. You guys, instead of saying that "most" of his biographers say he was a vegetarian, might want to actually READ an actual biography of Hitler, say the one by Robert Payne, and maybe find out that the issue is not so simple. This article is 100% POV, and it deviates from he general treatment given this subject by most actual historians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.60.23 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Gautam, your statement constitutes original research. One cannot assume that periodic meat consumption makes one not a vegetarian. Hitler considered himself a vegetarian, and the amount of meat he ate went down over the last several decades of his life, until by the end, he was almost certainly a fairly strict vegetarian. But beyond that, it's not up to you to decide who's a vegetarian and who's not. I doubt there's a vegetarian in the world who hasn't (at least unwittingly) eaten meat at some point after becoming a vegetarian. As far as I can tell, almost all of the secondary sources that oppose the idea of Hitler being a vegetarian are partisan polemics by vegetarians who don't want Hitler to be considered a vegetarian, and who are basically either (a) actively lying; or (b) using an incredibly strict definition of vegetarian which appears to apply only to Hitler. I don't see how this is really up for grabs. john k 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarians just don't want to be compared with him.

Hello. I just can say: Hitler was NO really Vegetarian! You can read it in Sebastian Haffner's Book "Anmerkungen zu Hitler", that Adolf Hitler ate beef and sausages very often. He loved wild birds or other wild animals and the vegetarian way of life was just at his end year 1945 or in the bunker, most time, he liked eating meat, although he had even a diet-cook. -89.58.6.110 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source of Wagner comment

Greetings friends,

I would like to know the source for the statement in the first paragraph: "Wagner argued...that humanity had become contaminated through racial mixing...." Where was Wagner supposed to have written this? Hitler's misunderstanding of Wagner must not be confused with what Wagner actually believed. Wagner must not be blamed for Hitler's acts. I am not all together sure this introduction is fair to Wagner. If it can not be conclusively that this is Wagner's actual view (as opposed to Hitler's self-serving interpretation of Wagner), I believe this sentence needs to be rewritten. Thanks.

Gunnermanz 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while, but it looks like it's sourced to Proctor. I'll attempt to verify it in the next 48 hours. —Viriditas | Talk 09:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. And the original, translated texts seem to be located online: Hero-dom and Christendom, Know Thyself, and Religion and Art. —Viriditas | Talk 06:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks, gentlemen. --Gunnermanz 08:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article?

Hey. It says above that this used to be a featured article candidate. Anyone who has been here longer than I am that has any idea why they changed their mind on that? As far as I can see; the article is as neutral as it can get, all the sources are cited, and there seems to be no further addition to be made, unless someone either figures out a way to alter history or comes up with a new discovery on the subject. JaneDOA

There's currently a large block of text under 'early life' full of spelling, grammar mistakes etc that was probably added by someone whose first language is not English, as well as generally poor layout slightly higher up (links given mid section really break the flow). A featured article has to meet very high standards and this one is at best B-class at this stage. There is a brief summary of why it failed the request at the top of this page. Richard001 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

Hi everyone. I think the article is well-researched and well-cited, but its flow and POV was a little confusing. At one point of the article was the stark statement "Hitler was not a vegetarian", but the opposite statement was made just a few paragraphs later. The POV confusion probably comes from the ongoing controversy over Hitler's vegetarism, and POV-biased sentances seem to have crept in from both sides. I can see two good solutions to this problem: one would be to rewrite each POV-biased sentance to be NPOV, another might be to keep the original POV statements and reorganize the article to show the POV from both sides.

Following wikipedia's mandate to be bold, I chose the second approach and reorganized the article. Formally, it had a section on his early years, a section on his later years, another section on his later years, and a section of misc. facts. I reorganized the article into a section on his early years, a section with arguments for his vegetarianism in his later years, a section with arguments against his vegetarianism in his later years, a section on Hitler's self-perception, and a section of misc. facts. This way, I could keep all the language of the original article (with the exception noted below), minus a few grammar edits.

The only sentance I cut was this uncited statement: "many remarkable human beings have been vegetarian, including Mahatma Gandhi, Leonardo da Vinci, Pythagoras, Platon, George Bernard Shaw, Leo Tolstoy, Jesus Christus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Edison, Tesla, Kafka, Wolter, Twain etc".

I considered leaving it in the "arguments against Hitler's vegetarianism" section, but it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with Hitler. It's also very difficult to prove and cite (I can see arguments over Jesus' vegetarianism getting particularly contentious).

Thanks everyone, JKB

[edit] Mussolini

- wasn't he a veggie too? --MacRusgail 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed feather

I removed ", a highly reputed biographer of Hitler," from a sentence on Robert Payne (diff) . Reputed is both vague and disputable, depending on its definition. In my opinion, it' better to show his reputation in the wikilinked article - he shouldn't need that qualification here. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for Wavering health

Surely the lack of proper food would have led to all the trembling fingers and craziness towards the end of the war. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content removed

User:Schwalker objected to the inclusion of this content with the edit summary, "removed sentence which did not contribute to the article's topic; neither savitridevi.org nor S. Devi herself are a reliable source".[1] While I don't agree with his reasoning, the content is a hazy interpretation of a primary source and lacks secondary source support, and for that reason I am removing it below: —Viriditas | Talk 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Hitlerist Savitri Devi placed great significance on Hitler's advocacy of animal rights, and admired his aim of "a continent without slaughterhouses,"^[1] apparently ignoring the bitter irony of this phrase.

Wikipedia:Reliable source#Extremist sources says that these kind of sources should only be used: " in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." That is why I believed that texts by Ms Devi should not be used as a source for this article. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems

There are very serious POV problems with this article. Already its title lets one guess the agendas of those who started it but I'll try, at least, to make the case for some changes of phrasing of the most glaring POV's: 1. "scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism" is a specific statement that has to be documented. I agree it's hard to show that all (or even the majority of scholars) believe H. "that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism". That's why I proposed "some scholars..." which is documented by the references in the article. I would also be happy with "many scholars...." 2. The sentence "Wagner's anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of Germany with vegetarianism" is entirely unacceptable. First of all, alluding to a conceptual connection of antisemitism with vegetarianism (incidentally, not Arluke's claim) is not only absurd but also deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands vegetarian Jews. Wagner's "historical" theories may have referred to vegetarianism, but seeing anti-semitism in that point just because of the antisemitism of his other writings is simply sloppy logic. I'd also object to the use of strong characterizations/judgments such as "anti-semitic historical theories" in Wikipedia. Anti-semitism is not a legitimate ideology. Calling something an "anti-semitic historical theory" is akin to calling it "abhorrent historical theory", which certainly is, but it isn't appropriate language for an encyclopedia. 3. The sentence "As a result, many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian" is also not properly supported. Why "many" and why is it impossible that non-vegetarians too would dispute that H. was vegetarian? 4. Concerning the sentence "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his death in 1945." Same comment as in point 1. 5. The deletion of the beginning of the first paragraph of "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" (including a reference!!) is incomprehensible and, I'm afraid, it can only be explained by committed opposition to vegetarianism: The first sentence ("Hitler' vegetarianism has been questioned on several grounds.") was nothing more than an introduction to the section. The second and third ("For instance, although he usually elevated the beliefs on health and ...") summarize a point made in a scholarly source. I don't see the problem with these sentences and reference!

As mentioned in the beginning of the talk page, it's a controversial topic. So we must be extra careful to avoid being carried away by emotions and personal beliefs, and to minimize the inclusion of undocumented assumptions even if they seem obvious.

Rerom1 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To briefly reply:

1. "Scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism" is supported by the sources in the article. Can you show that it is not? All you need to do is find one scholar of history that disagrees.
2. The sentence "Wagner's anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of Germany with vegetarianism" is entirely supported by Proctor and other sources. Can you show that it is not?
3. "Many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian" is supported by Rudacille. Can you show that it is not?
4. "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his death in 1945" is supported by the sources in the article and has been discussed extensively in the talk archives. I suggest you read them.
5. "The deletion of the beginning of the first paragraph of "Questioning Hitler's vegetarianism" (including a reference!!) is incomprehensible and, I'm afraid, it can only be explained by committed opposition to vegetarianism" is ridiculous. This is the only part of the article I'm willing to compromise with you on, because I agree that elements of this section should be restored, but the fact is, these are minority POV that have very little evidence. Can you break this down by point and substantiate it below? We have discussed Colin Spencer's points in the archives, and they were found to be lacking, but I'm willing to revisit this again. —Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some issues

• Colin Spencer is a "food critic" and playwright, not a historian.
• The material attributed to Spencer claims (or seems to claim) that the author is questioning Hitler's vegetarianism. Where does Spencer do this?
• "Although he usually elevated the beliefs on health and lifestyle to which he seriously adhered to state policy (e.g. his anti-smoking campaign), Hitler never went so far as to promote any state vegetarianism campaign." I don't see where Spencer says this.
• "The contrary took place, as during Hitler’s emerging regime vegetarian societies were pronounced unlawful and their members suffered government sanctioned incursions upon their residence". Spencer discusses some of this, but what sources does he use? I have proposed adding this to the article in the past, but other editors have disagreed in the archives.
• "Also, according to the references above" - that's a self-reference. We don't write like that. —Viriditas | Talk 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems (cont.)

First of all, I should say that I didn't appreciate Viriditas' e-mail warning me not to undo edits. By the same token, it's Viriditas who should be refraining from doing that and MPerel (who doesn't even explain on her/his changes!!!) >1. "Scholars agree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism" is supported by the >sources in the article. Can you show that it is not? All you need to do is find one scholar of >history that disagrees. This applies to you too. Arluke etc. not only are not historians but the references you quote are written specifically to oppose vegetarianism, not as Hitler's biographies.

>2. The sentence "Wagner's anti-Semitic historical theories which connected the future of >Germany with vegetarianism" is entirely supported by Proctor and other sources. Can you show >that it is not? I showed it doesn't even make sense: First of all, alluding to a conceptual connection of antisemitism with vegetarianism (incidentally, not Arluke's claim) is not only absurd but also deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands vegetarian Jews. Wagner's "historical" theories may have referred to vegetarianism, but seeing anti-semitism in that point just because of the antisemitism of his other writings is simply sloppy logic. I'd also object to the use of strong characterizations/judgments such as "anti-semitic historical theories" in Wikipedia. Anti-semitism is not a legitimate ideology. Calling something an "anti-semitic historical theory" is akin to calling it "abhorrent historical theory", which certainly is, but it isn't appropriate language for an encyclopedia.

I want to stress this point because it's so offensive. I'm willing to take it up with Wikipedia moderators because I doubt it complies with Wiki's ethics standards.

>3. "Many vegetarians dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian" is supported by >Rudacille. Can you show that it is not?

Please read more carefully. How did you (or Rudacille for that matter) measure "many"? Did R. do a statistical survey? Also, what do personal choices have to do with disputing that claim? How do you know that it's ONLY people practicing vegetarianism that dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian? Or, that it's ONLY non-vegetarians that agree with it? It isn't a partisan issue but one of serious and objective representation of facts: I have my concerns with parts of the article but I am NOT a vegetarian.

>4. "Most of Adolf Hitler's biographers assert that he was a vegetarian from 1931 until his >death in 1945" is supported by the sources in the article and has been discussed extensively >in the talk archives. I suggest you read them.

The statement has a specific, quantified content (it says that more than 50% of H.'s biographers make this assertion) and nothing in the archives confirms that.

>5. "The deletion of the beginning of the first paragraph of "Questioning Hitler's >vegetarianism" (including a reference!!) is incomprehensible and, I'm afraid, it can only be >explained by committed opposition to vegetarianism" is ridiculous. This is the only part of >the article I'm willing to compromise with you on, because I agree that elements of this >section should be restored, but the fact is, these are minority POV that have very little >evidence. Can you break this down by point and substantiate it below? We have discussed Colin >Spencer's points in the archives, and they were found to be lacking, but I'm willing to >revisit this again.

It's up to any reasonable person's quick glance at the article and these responses (without my comments spelling it out) to see if claims of bias are "ridiculous". Your very same paragraph goes on to say that, after discussion in the archives, you pontificated that Spencer's views are no good and that's why you want them to be air-brushed from the article! NPOV means to include "minority POV that have very little evidence" ("very little evidence" according to you, always).

>Colin Spencer is a "food critic" and playwright, not a historian. Nowhere in the previous version was claimed he was a historian. (Neither is Arluke by the way).

>The material attributed to Spencer claims (or seems to claim) that the author is questioning Hitler's vegetarianism.

Wrong! It only refers to Spencer's statement that H. suppressed vegetarian societies.

>"Although he usually elevated the beliefs on health and lifestyle to which he seriously >adhered to state policy (e.g. his anti-smoking campaign), Hitler never went so far as to >promote any state vegetarianism campaign." I don't see where Spencer says this.

Page 286

>"The contrary took place, as during Hitler’s emerging regime vegetarian societies were >pronounced unlawful and their members suffered government sanctioned incursions upon their >residence". Spencer discusses some of this, but what sources does he use? I have proposed >adding this to the article in the past, but other editors have disagreed in the archives.

If you don't think Spencer's statement is sound, add a proviso to that effect, but, of course, you'll have to allow Wikip. contributors to dispute claims made in other references as well!

>Also, according to the references above" - that's a self-reference. We don't write like that. "You don't like that" or is it against Wikip. conventions? Anyway, I accept this point.

Rerom1 (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:TALK and refactor your talk page comment on a brief, concise, point by point basis to make it easy to read and respond to in like manner. This is not e-mail or Usenet. If you don't, then I will do it for you if you choose to respond with a long, rambling reply again. Now to respond to your points in brief:

1. Not only are not historians but the references you quote are written specifically to oppose vegetarianism, not as Hitler's biographies. That is absurd and baseless. If you persist in making these types of comments, you will not be taken seriously by anyone. Do not make statements that you cannot support with facts. Again, please show that scholars disagree that Adolf Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism.
2. Re: Wagner - I showed it doesn't even make sense: First of all, alluding to a conceptual connection of antisemitism with vegetarianism (incidentally, not Arluke's claim) is not only absurd but also deeply offensive to the hundreds of thousands vegetarian Jews. You are either not understanding what you read or you are deliberatly ignoring the material. If you cannot address the question, then I fail to see why you are replying. I don't know what you mean when you say "Anti-semitism is not a legitimate ideology." Wagner's conception of vegetarianism was tied into his anti-semitic beliefs, and these influenced Hitler. This is sourced.
3. How did you (or Rudacille for that matter) measure "many"? Did R. do a statistical survey? Also, what do personal choices have to do with disputing that claim? How do you know that it's ONLY people practicing vegetarianism that dispute the claim that Hitler was a vegetarian? Or, that it's ONLY non-vegetarians that agree with it? It isn't a partisan issue but one of serious and objective representation of facts: I have my concerns with parts of the article but I am NOT a vegetarian. If you are interested in getting answers to your questions, I suggest you publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal.
4. The statement has a specific, quantified content (it says that more than 50% of H.'s biographers make this assertion) and nothing in the archives confirms that. Everything in the article confirms it, and you were asked to provide a single relaible source on par with a scholar in history disputing it. You haven't.
5. It's up to any reasonable person's quick glance at the article and these responses (without my comments spelling it out) to see if claims of bias are "ridiculous". Your very same paragraph goes on to say that, after discussion in the archives, you pontificated that Spencer's views are no good and that's why you want them to be air-brushed from the article! NPOV means to include "minority POV that have very little evidence" ("very little evidence" according to you, always). You have ignored my requests regarding Spencer above. He's not a historian, he's a food critic and playwright. IIRC, I'm the one who originally added Spencer to the article a long time ago, so your opinion is completely off the mark.
6. Wrong! It only refers to Spencer's statement that H. suppressed vegetarian societies. Then the statement asserting that Hitler's vegetarianism is questioned through the addition of this statement should be removed, as Spencer is not questioning Hitler's diet.
7. Page 286. No, page 286 does not say, "Although he usually elevated the beliefs on health and lifestyle to which he seriously adhered to state policy (e.g. his anti-smoking campaign), Hitler never went so far as to promote any state vegetarianism campaign." You will have to show me where it says it.
8. If you don't think Spencer's statement is sound, add a proviso to that effect, but, of course, you'll have to allow Wikip. contributors to dispute claims made in other references as well! It's already been discussed in the archives and found to have been directed at many organizations, not just vegetarian ones.

I'm afraid, Rerom1, that you have failed to support a single point in your favor. —Viriditas | Talk 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partial revert

I've partially reverted Rerom1's version, as the first four points enumerated here demonstrate that the sources support the original wording. --MPerel 08:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the editors changes as the questions above have not been answered and some of the content duplicates already existing, sourced content below it. Rerom1 has added content attributed to Spencer that does not appear in the book. Furthermore, Rerom1's account was created to push a POV. —Viriditas | Talk 09:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)