Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an archive of inactive talk topics for the article: Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler.

Explanation for my copy edit/rewrite

• I rewrote the intro, because as it stood, the writing was weak, and it didn't give an overview of the contents of the page, which is what an intro should do. The current intro is now very accurate, and gives a fair summary of what Hitler thought and said, and the problems with the anecdotal evidence and lack of a definition.
• I deleted that he said he was an ovo-lacto vegetarian, because it means the same as vegetarian, and there's no evidence Hitler ever used the term. We shouldn't put words in the sources' mouths.
• I changed the headers to evidence for, and evidence against. Please don't change these back to historical support versus myth. The article, including the headers, shouldn't come down on one side or the other, but should simply describe what the sources say, for and against.
• There's a confusion of primary and secondary sources throughout the article. We mention Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw, and Colin Spencer, as though they're separate sources, without exploring who they are using as sources. They could be using each other, for all we know. I've deleted Colin Spencer, because he was tacked on at the end, and is almost certainly just copying from some of those already mentioned.
• Also, some of the citations were poor. For example, "From 1937 onwards, Hitler described himself as a vegetarian ... and predicted "the world of the future will be vegetarian" linked to a footnote that said "Hitler's Table Talk: 1941-1944", but without saying who said the words "the world of the future will be vegetarian," so I added another quote, made clear who said them and described how they were recorded, and linked to an online source, as well as retaining the footnote. Harvard referencing is easier for the reader than footnotes, in my view, but I didn't change them.
• I've also tried to improve the writing and the flow, and to make it more of a narrative and less of a list of "he said, she said".
• I've added an image of Hitler with his dog and a quote saying he loves animals.
• In general, the reverting is not improving the article, in my view, in terms of content, flow, or quality of writing, so please don't revert my edits, or delete anything unless it's factually incorrect, but please build on it instead. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The edits sound good...but one thing. The quote "the world of the future will be vegetarian" is a direct quote from Hitler, as transcribed in Hitler's Table Talk (translated by Hugh Trevor-Roper). I thought that was pretty clear. Babajobu 12:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it isn't a recording. --Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was recorded. Then transcribed. Babajobu 12:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it was not recorded. Hitler refused to allow himself to be recorded and two stenographers were used, after which Martin Bormann altered the transcripts. So claiming that anything from "Table Talk" is a direct quote from Hitler is false. --Viriditas | Talk 12:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we have a good source on whether the conversations were recorded or not? The online source I found says they were, but we should look for another one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I, too, had read that it was recorded. We apparently also need to explore the possibility that Martin Bormann altered the transcript in an insidious effort to make it unflattering to the vegetarian movement. Babajobu 12:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The source is Trevor-Roper, the translator of "Hitler's Table Talk" (1953). [1] --Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

SV writes, We mention Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw,

No we don't. Please read the article more carefully before making these sweeping changes, thanks. Your mistakes are a bit disruptive IMHO. Wyss 12:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Slimvirgin's rewrite of the intro is good and I think we should use it. I'd have liked to have the/a year for when he stopped (or considerably cut down) eating meat in there somewhere (1931), though, as I think it's important to get through that it wasn't a lifelong thing of his. Shanes 12:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Shanes, I added that. Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, you're out of order here. My version is better than the one that was up there. If there are errors in it, correct them, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

At the very least we should reincorporate a good chunk of the changes SlimVirgin made. (though I wasn't crazy about the intro) Babajobu 12:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, please build on my version rather than deleting chunks and reverting, because I really do think this version reads better than the previous one, which had almost no narrative flow. What don't you like about this intro? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, i didn't delete anything you'd written, or revert anything you'd written. I'll tell you what I didn't like about the intro shortly, gotta run for a bit. Babajobu 13:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see; that was a miscommunication. I was saying that if we were going to accept the revert, we should at least reincorporate many of your changes. Babajobu 13:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I do think the explicit listing of all the meat products he reprortadly ate is going a bit too much in detail for an intro. Could we shorten it to simply say meat products? Shanes 12:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

We could, but isn't it better to list the things the witnesses say he ate occasionally? We shouldn't paraphrase when we can use their words, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Shanes, I've made the list of meats invisible in the intro until we decide which is better. I prefer the list because it's more informative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you make all these mistakes and I'm out of order. I forgot, we're trying to show AH might have possibly in some way kinda sorta maybe ate a docking shopping list of red meat when the documented historical record clearly shows he was a declared vegetarian and abstaining from eating meat by 40 or 41 at the latest. Did you hear my scream? ;) Wyss 13:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What mistakes? Please make a list of them and post them here, and I'll correct them myself. I think this version shows very clearly that he called himself a veggie, but there's some doubt as to what he meant by it and how rigidly he stuck to it. I don't see the problem with that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem is we're moving so fast on the edits. That's ok. I'll leave it to you guys for now. Please note that there's a chronology involved here. There's zero doubt he was eating meat in 1931. By 1941, he was sincerely trying to avoid it while his entourage was slipping all sorts of stuff into his soup and his veins. I agree with Paula, he should have stuck to architecture. Wyss 13:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read through it, Wyss, and make a brief note here of any factual errors you see, and I'll be happy to correct them myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There's that evidence word again...

I guess I'm the only one, but I'm not at all happy about the way this article tries to be a listing of "evidence" for and agsinst Hitler being a vegetarian. As I told Wyss, I think we should just state what he ate, what he and other people said about it, and let it be up to the reader whether they consider Hitler to have been a vegetarian or not. It's the wikipedia way of doing it. We could maybe have a section at the end stating the definition and general opinions of what it means for someone to be a vegetarian (now and then), but not make this whole article structured with "Evidence for" and "Evidence against". An encyclopedia shouldn't try to prove anything.

And as I said in a section further up here, I think the use of the term "evidence for" is wrong. You can't prove that anybody didn't eat meat. It's trying to prove a negative. Shanes 13:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the "for" and "against" thing is rather dreadful, especially considering there's not much debate in the documented record (rather than websites and WP talk pages). I thought "historical support" and "was it a myth" were better but even that was too much for Shanes. Any ideas for some hard core neutral headers? Wyss 13:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The entire article should be written chronologically, in effect eliminating for and against arguments. This is why I've asked the contributors to help develop a sourced timeline on talk. --Viriditas | Talk 13:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Shanes. I don't think we should split this into two sections. The first copy edit I did yesterday got rid of the sections, but Wyss reverted, so I tried at least to make them balance each other in terms of NPOV, rather than saying "historical support" and "myth", or whatever they were, which seemed to undermine the second one. Would you prefer no headers, or just different ones, and if the latter, do you have suggestions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I definitely want section headers. I think maybe a section named and discussing "Hitler's diet" would be good. My original first draft to sections had one named "Diet and motivations", but it could perhaps even be split in two different ones. First one where we discuss why he cut down on meat (his niece death etc) with Hitlers own quotes on why he didn't like to eat meat. And then a diet section where we semi-chronologically write about his diet and how it evolved (with quotes and references and all that). I also originally had a section labeled "myth or fact", but I don't think that was a good name. We could instead put a "Controvercy" section (or some such name) at the end where we discuss all this that make it so hard for us to agree on whether it's correct to call him a vegetarian. What it meant to be one back then, both formally (I guess the formal definition was the same as now?), but also what the general public and Hitler's opinion on what it meant to be one back then was. We don't need to conclude with anything. Shanes 14:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with a chronological writing, V, because it would lack narrative flow. The article has to be readable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

But I like your idea of developing a sourced timeline on talk. That could go into the article as its own section even. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh. No offense, but I personally dislike inline timelines. As with most biographies, the connecting narrative develops on its own, propelling the reader from origin to endpoint. It's up to the writers to connect the dots in an interesting way, so I think it could be done successfully. It doesn't really matter how we do it, just as long as we are working together instead of against each other. I think that once the facts are in place, sections tend to bud off and grow. --Viriditas | Talk 13:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, try the chronological flow, I think it's a good idea and I think it can be written narratively, no tears. Wyss 13:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm asking everyone to help so we don't have revert wars. --Viriditas | Talk 13:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article desperately needs to better incorporate the chronology. A timeline would help. Babajobu 13:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas on this one (!), I don't like timelines, that is unless they're used as a graphic illustration to a chronological narrative. Wyss 14:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Start of a chronology

Please add refs if possible:

• 11, Hitler describes himself as a vegetarian in a letter to a friend
• 19, Described as a meat-eater and drinker (OSS)
• 22, Seen eating sausage (Ludecke, 1982)
• 23-31 Friedlinde Wagner reports Hitler enjoys eating large quantities of liver dumplings at her home. (OSS)
• 24, Reportedly vegetarian
• 30, 31 or 32 - He orders pigeon prepared by Lucas in Hamburg.
• 31, Sept. 25. Expresses loathing for meat saying, "It is like eating a corpse!" (Gilbert, 1950)
• 31 Friedlinde Wagner reports that Hitler prefers vegetables now, but when meat is served to the other members of the family he would take some and say that he just wanted a taste of it. (OSS)
• 32 Hitler is described as a vegetarian (Ludecke, 1982)
• 35 Vegetarian movement is suppressed.
• 35 Food shortage reported.
• 37 NYT reports Hitler is a vegetarian who eats ham and caviar occasionally
• 38 Homes & Gardens reports Hitler is "a life-long vegetarian" and "never smokes or take alcohol in any form". [2]
• 39 Germany experiences a food shortage. Food ration cards issued on Aug. 27.
• 40 Eva films Bormann's kids frolicing in the greenhouse he built AH at Berchtesgaden (Bormann was a pig, but that's a nice lookin' greenhouse).
• 41 With war gathering into full swing (never mind the ovens in the camps), Traudl Junge observes him avoiding meat altogether.
• 41-43 Bormann adds another tier to the greenhouse (I'm sure his 12 kids were benefiting from some of those veggies- they all survived the war unlike the 6 Goebbels kids who were murdered by their mum).
• 42 AH adamantly expresses his personal veg beliefs to Goebbels who writes in his diary it's "more than ever" now.
• 44, Receives daily injectable food supplements ("tonics") containing heart, adrenal, and liver extracts (Doyle 2005)
• 45, Hitler is served meat as a meal and eats it sometime during the last ten days of his life. (Musmanno, 1951) His last meal on 30 April is reported as "spaghetti with a light sauce."

Notice I loathe Payne as a source on this. Sausages... how gross. I'm going to have lunch now. I know it's disgusting. Bye.

Wyss 13:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

How we do we know that he called himself a vegetarian from 1937? Does the NYT article say he self-described? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the potassium cynanide was vegan; in addition, I have it on good authority that sometime in 1943 Hitler exchanged his ordinary, leather jackboots for a pair of faux-leather jackboots made by EthicalAlternative. Babajobu 14:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually read a vegetarian website wherein someone wrote AH couldn't possibly have been a vegetarian because he wore leather holster straps and boots. Wyss 17:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I read that he started self-defining in 1937. I actually read it in a book that denied Hitler's status as a vegetarian. I'll try to come up with a source. Babajobu 14:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So far I can only find Rynn Berry stating that Hitler started self-defining in 1937, and he doesn't say what his source was. An interesting narrative timeline of Hitler's vegetarianism is on page 8 of this pdf file of an issue of Vegan Views: [3]

Right now all I can find online for the 1937 date is the following article from Rynn Berry in which he says "Hitler did not describe himself as a 'vegetarian' until 1937. [4]. The other book in which I saw that date was not by Rynn Berry, but I no longer have it. Hmmm...one citation by Rynn Berry is not a lot evidence. Should we take it out? Babajobu 14:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on what I've read so far of Berry's writings on this, if he said Hitler first described himself as a vegetarian in 1937, we can be sure it was much earlier. Like 1911? Wyss 14:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro

• However, some of those who knew him have said that he continued on occasion to eat meat,

Makes no reference to chronology, which is everything to this topic and besides, Lucas didn't "know" him, Frau Hess did. What are Payne's sources? The NYT reporter didn't "know" him. This is wildly inaccurate and must be changed.

How do you know whether the NYT reporter knew him or not? Don't do original research here, please. We should try to find the whole NYT article to judge whether Hitler was interviewed and what else was said. And please stop the hyperbole. Whatever else it is, it's not "wildly inaccurate." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You said he knew him, not me. Your remark was... like I said. Wyss 17:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I said nowhere that the reporter "knew" Hitler. I'm assuming he interviewed him, but haven't yet managed to find a copy of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You did, at one point the copy in your intro read people who knew him and went on to refer to their meat stories. Wyss 19:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• and medical records show that he received regular injections of animal by-products from his doctor during the last nine years of his life, although he may not have been aware of the nature of the contents.

Irrelevant except to vegetarian evangelists trying to sell the notion that even if AH was a veg, he was full of animal gunk and that's why he was crazy. This would be ok at the end of the article but not in the intro, so misleading and plain creepy. What's more, that doctor, Theo Morell, was a quack who AH thought could protect him from syphilis. AH had no idea what Morell was injecting and it was a lot more than pulverised animal tissue I can tell you.

I disagree that it's irrevelant. It meant he wasn't a vegetarian, though he believed he was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that's something some vegetarians who have received animal based medications would dispute but I agree with you it's what he believed. Wyss 17:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's totally irrelevant. Unless we're willing to exclude all diabetics, women on hormone replacement therapy, people with anemia, and people with endless other conditions that are treated with animal-derived substances from the list of vegetarians, then we cannot assert a "Hitler standard" for vegetarianism that requires abstinence from animal-derived medications and medicaments. I'm starting to see why Wyss AfD'd the list of vegetarians. Babajobu 18:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whether Hitler abstained entirely from eating fish, flesh, and fowl is based largely on anecdotal evidence.

Weasel syntax. Should read, "Reports that Hitler ate meat after 1931 are wholly anecdotal."

No, it isn't weasel syntax. It's perfectly straightforward writing, and makes the point that, in fact, we don't know to what extent he ate meat, or didn't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Then our notions of straightforward writing differ, is all. That's ok :) Wyss 17:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• The issue is further confused by the failure of the primary sources, including Hitler himself, to clarify how they were using the term "vegetarian."

Codswallop, weasel syntax. Any mote-like distinctions of the definition are wiped out by the documented reality AH was abstaining from meat (but consuming eggs and dairy) by his late forties and endlessly nagging others around the dinner table to do likewise. Wyss 15:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? None of the primary sources said what they understood a vegetarian to be. That causes confusion (e.g. a "vegetarian" who continues to eat ham and liver dumplings). That sentence makes clear why there is confusion. It's important to say that.

I don't see a need to say any more than what I said above. Wyss 17:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, you seem to have some sort of axe to grind here. Please stop. Personally, I couldn't care less whether Hitler was a vegetarian or not. You, on the other hand, seem absolutely determined to maintain that he was. It's a strange thing to strike up a position on, but regardless, we're not allowed to strike up positions, just report what credible published sources say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who put the word ham in the article three times when it appears in one newspaper source... once, as an infrequent menu item. Wyss 17:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, but I don't want to imply I think you're being insincere. What I say only applies to edit contents. I think you're being a helpful editor and we're only having a bit of a wiki clash or whatever, it'll settle out :) Wyss 18:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Another shufti at sources

The article has only three citations of AH eating meat: Lucas (early 30s), Hess (ref to point of Geli's suicide onward) and NYT ("a slice of ham" in 1937 - did the journo even see AH eating ham? What was his source?). The Payne citation seems spurious because it makes no mention of source or chronology (the German sausage and beer references are likely conflated with stories from Munich in the 20s) and the allegation regarding Goebbels is unsupported by anything I've ever read or heard on the topic. Care should be taken to balance the article's use of these meager references. Wyss 16:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Payne's claims have been substantiated by other biographers using the same primary sources. The problem is really in the chronology. That's going to take quite a bit of detective work. --Viriditas | Talk 09:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

About 1930s journalists

Re Shanes' remark in the chronology, it's true. I've read lots of microfilmed newspapers from the 1930s and it's like a different universe, a different series of events, than what we've been taught. The names are familiar but so much was done in secret or plain muddled by sloppy, harried (and often drug addicted) reporters that the details are almost always wrong. I trust Dione Lucas' account about the pigeon, I don't trust a NYT story mentioning slices of ham: It's a detail and in my experience likely wrong (even if I did make a flip remark about it in the chronology). Anyway even today it's true. A couple of weeks back we were hearing about a couple of hundred dead bodies in the Superdome in New Orleans. I read today they actually found four. And so on. Wyss 19:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So, then, maybe we should drop refs to magazines or newspapers as they simply aren't reliable? I mean we don't want to have a mess with "NY times wrote he ate ham, while Homes&Gardens wrote he never did". Or how should we decide which refs are trustworthy enough to be quotable? Or should we quote them all? That could be a long list if we really start looking... Shanes 19:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

We're in danger of doing no original research here. The New York Times is regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia, whether we agree with it or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Editors can make their own decisions about the reliability of any source, NYT included. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Especially newspapers because they are authored by so many people under such pressing time and budgetary constraints. Wyss 19:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing in Verifiability that allows original research, and no, the NYT is always regarded as a credible source, period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And about that ham... I cannot help thinking that, given AH's widely known anti-Semetism and pesecutions of Jews in Germany by 1937, the mention of "relishing" that slice of ham (as in pork, as in not kosher) had a big, docking sensationalistic/ironic spin. The sort of thing that gets a writer noticed by the editors in New York. I wouldn't believe it without more verification. Wyss 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Whether we believe it doesn't matter. It was published by a credible publication. We don't investigate whether what they publish is true. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You're seriously mistaken. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wyss 20:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just did, and in fact have edited it quite a bit, as well as NOR. Can you quote the part you're referring to please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources. Wyss 20:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ya know, I'd say the notion of a 1937 American newspaper report about a Jew-persecuting, vegetarian Adolf Hitler relishing slices of ham is in the suburbs of outlandish, one way or another... Wyss 20:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

More... edited

There are several reasons you might want to verify something in an article:

• The subject area is one where errors are frequent.
• The statement is key to the entry as a whole.
• The statement is overly vague.

Wyss 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing in there that allows you to regard the NYT as unreliable, or to "investigate" whether the reporter was telling the truth. Even if this were an outlandish claim, the NYT would be regarded as unimpeachable. But it's not: it's just that he ate ham from time to time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To repeat, In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Wyss 20:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

First, you're lifting sentences out of context. One of the first things the policy says is that no original research is allowed, which is what you're now engaged in. It also states clearly that the criterion for entry into WP is verifiability, not truth, meaning that we publish "Hitler ate ham" if and only if a reliable source has published it and we do not question the claim any further. But in this case, there are multiple sources saying he ate meat occasionally, so this is not a case where we're relying on one source anyway. Your objection fails on all counts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Naw, I'm only applying them in a context you're uncomfortable with.

• You've engaged in original research by saying Hitler's annoyance at tasting animal products in his soup suggests he was unaware Morell was injecting him with animal byproducts.

• Did Hitler eat ham after 1932? Where are the multiple corroborations?

• Did Hitler eat pigeon after 1932? Where are the multiple corroborations?

• Did Hitler eat liver dumplings after 1932? Where are the multiple corroborations?

On this point at least, there appears to be multiple corroborations: Wagner, Hess, and a few others I think. I'm in the process of citing these sources. --Viriditas | Talk 09:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Did Hitler avoid meat after 1932? Oh. Wow. We have multiple corroborations.

• As I feared, you seem to be selectively applying the rules as they fit your agenda. You might want to have a look at Historiography too. Wyss 20:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, don't lecture me. We're writing an encyclopedia, which is a tertiary source, and not producing a primary or secondary source. There's no need for multiple sources for each of these points. We quote and cite published sources, and we make sure the sources are in reputable publications. We do no more than that. As for my "original research," you'll have to explain how that is OR. The dots join themselves in that case: why would he be annoyed by one intrusion of animal products and not another? But I actually only put that in as a sop to you, so I'm happy to remove it.

This has become a really silly conversation. You seem to care deeply that he be labeled as a vegetarian. I don't care at all. What I'd like to see is some good copy editing for narrative flow, so that the page can actually be read. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I told you before I don't care what he ate. What I'd like to see is you not trying to psychoanalyse me and start focusing on content and sources.. Wyss 20:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say he wasn't a vegetarian. And that vegetarians don't eat meat is not my personal definition. I'm not going to continue with this conversation. If you have anything useful to say about content, I'll be happy to respond, but this is becoming surreal. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro said there was confusion about it (your original research). If you can find a secondary source from a credible author saying there's confusion over the definition of vegetarianism AH used, let's put it in :) Wyss 21:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Current issues with the article

The article seems reasonably NPOV and complete as it currently stands; however, what it desperately lacks is a narrative flow. It's very difficult to read; none of the paragraphs are particularly well integrated with any others - they might as well be bullet points. While it has improved in this over its previous incarnations, I think the article would benefit from some copyediting which keeps in mind that it is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, and not just a dry list of citations. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but any copy edit to introduce narrative flow is likely to be reverted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we've settled on the content details quite yet but no worries, it'll happen and I'm sure a smooth flow will follow. Wyss 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a pretty new article, so I'd say give it time. I had a look at the history and there seems to be many reverts. Just chill, get all the content in and then work the article with some possible vegetarian wikilove. - Hahnchen 03:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Veggie-ism in Nazi Germany

As the article has improved, this section has seemed increasingly out of place. It doesn't belong here.

"In 1935, the vegetarian movement, like most organized activist groups not directly affiliated with the National Socialists, was suppressed in Germany. As documented by writers such as Charles Patterson, Janet Barkas, and Rynn Berry, the Gestapo confiscated books which contained vegetarian recipes, and vegetarian societies were declared illegal, prohibited from organizing or publishing materials of any kind. Others were forced to join the Nazi Living Reform Movement. [5] One journal, The Vegetarian Press, was allowed to continue operating, but was subject to censorship."

(User:Babajobu forgot to sign)

Rynn Berry wrote a book trying to disprove AH's vegetarianism. There's only so much to say about it, so there's much fog-blowing filler involving general Nazi behavior towards vegetarians in 1930s Germany and that paragraph is an artifact of someone's early efforts, drawing as much as possible from Berry. Wyss 19:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The statement has nothing to do with Rynn Berry and is sourced from the IVU. As long as this page is entitled "Vegetarianism of Adolph Hitler", it is relevant. --Viriditas | Talk 04:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The greenhouse is relevant because it bears directly on Hitler's belief in the health benefits of a plant-based diet. The status of vegeterian organizations is not because it has nothing to do with Hitler's dietary preferences. It is being put in the article as a form of vegetarian apologetics. And there is no confusion over Hitler's understanding of vegetarianism. He was an ovo-lacto vegetarian, as the term "vegetarian" was commonly understood at the time. Nothing at all confusing about it, except for people who hope to obfuscate the historical record. Babajobu 09:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Babajobu. AH outlawed all independent social action groups. It's tossed in only to throw irrelevent, misleading doubt on AH's vegetarianism. (Given the topic, I should again stress that my comments are no defense of this genocidal sociopath, nor a PoV attack on the well-known benefits of a vegetarian diet). Wyss 09:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The section on injections should absolutely be out. It's absurd. If we're going to include that, we should absolutely also include a section discussing how there is no evidence that Hitler ever sought to ensure that his soap was not derived from animal fats. After all, if he didn't do that, he wasn't a vegetarian... Or perhaps his vegetarian foods were processed on machines that were lubricated with animal fats. Did he ensure that they weren't? Got him again! I say we just apply the Einstein standard...did he eat meat? Babajobu 10:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The edit warring over historically relevant facts regarding Vegetarian groups and medical supplements is immature. It appears you are attempting to push a pro-vegetarian POV by removing historical facts that you don't agree with. The default position is one of skepticism, not belief. Removing cited, documented information related to Hitler's daily supplements and relationship to the vegetarian movement is a violation of NPOV. Due to your continued edit warring and POV pushing, I am adding the totally disputed header. --Viriditas | Talk 10:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, do you think that someone who received injections derived from animal products is not a vegetarian? Babajobu 10:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

We are not talking about "someone". We are writing an encyclopedic article about Hitler's diet. What you or I think about such a diet is irrelevant. --Viriditas | Talk 10:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is better off with the totally disputed header than it would be if it included the anachronisms, POV apologetics, and irrelevancies that Viriditas would like to see there. Babajobu 10:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Citing an historical record in context of the topic is not an "anachronism". Perhaps you should look the word up. As for "POV apologetics" and irrelevancies, you may want to look closer at your own edits. Unlike you, I am not promoting a POV, but citing sources and events. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox for your POV. --Viriditas | Talk 10:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you think my POV is. As regard vegetarianism, my POV is that everyone should be a vegetarian for ethical reasons. I've tried not to allow that POV to compromise my objectivity in this article. If you think I've failed to do so, please cite a particular edit. Babajobu 12:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The medical injections are not relevent. If they were, people receiving all sorts of medicines, including insulin, could never be considered vegetarian. Viriditas, IMHO you're the one pushing a PoV and engaging in bitter, emotional edit warring. Given the tone of your remarks (for example, your angry use of the term immature) I suggest you carefully review Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:NPOV. Wyss 10:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Food supplements are relevant in an article about diet. We are not talking about "people", we are talking about Hitler. I'm sorry Wyss, your claims aren't supported by the edit history. Edit warring is immature, and no personal attack was ever made. Please read for comprehension. --Viriditas | Talk 10:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're the one making the claims, not me. Wyss 12:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Because I think the insulin/diabetics issue is a salient one, I want to state something just in case someone raises this while I'm not around: today, a fairly high proportion of exogenous insulin comes from genetically modified E. Coli bacteria, and thus is not derived from animal byproducts. But this is a very recent development. Until just a few years ago, the vast majority of insulin received by diabetics was harvested from hogs. So if we adopt the Hitler standard of vegetarianism, then until the end of the 1990s no insulin-dependent diabetics were ever vegetarian. There are loads of other medications also derived from horses' blood, cattle spleen, and on and on and on. Babajobu 10:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with this article. --Viriditas | Talk 10:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. In principle, medical injections have nothing to do with vegetarianism and mention of them shouldn't be included in the article, especially not in the introductory header. It's abusively misleading PoV. Wyss 10:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dietary supplements have everything to do with the diet of Adolph Hitler, and your removal of the cited content is in violation of NPOV. --Viriditas | Talk 10:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They weren't dietary supplements, they were medical injections by syringe. However, thanks for the comment, it gives more insight into why you think they're relevant. Wyss 10:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Glyconorm was a dietary food supplement given to Hitler. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to correct your error. --Viriditas | Talk 11:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What error? Why the continued sarcasm and distracting snide remarks? Wyss 12:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't have anything to do with this article, Viriditas, but you have made it relevant by insisting Hitler's receipt of animal-derived injections compromises his vegetarianism!! I am pointing out that this is a unique "Hitler standard" of vegetarianism that applies to no one else who claims the label. Babajobu 10:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the kind. This is an article about the diet of Adolph Hitler, and that includes food supplements. --Viriditas | Talk 10:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They weren't food supplements, they were medical injections provided by a syphilis doctor (a quack by most accounts, though). Wyss 10:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Glyconorm was a dietary food supplement given to Hitler. --Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What is glyconol? I'm just curious, and not disputing anything. To me it sounds like some kind of sugar, but I can't find anything on it and was curious if you know what it is and how it's made. Maybe it has another and more common name we should use? Shanes 11:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. I corrected it above. I need a new keyboard. --Viriditas | Talk 11:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but same question applies. What is Glyconorm? The word only has 81 hits on google, and I can't find one that explains what the substance is. Shanes 11:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't find a reference to glyconol as any sort of a medicine or supplement on Google [6] (although the hits suggest it's a tradename for a synthetic wax) and it's not listed in the Theodore Morell article as one of the substances he gave to Hitler. Moreover, a Google search for Hitler glyconol yields zero hits [7]. Wyss 11:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It was defined in the original citation to the text in the article. --Viriditas | Talk 12:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for you to read the citations before you remove them? --Viriditas | Talk

Is it too much to ask for you to concentrate on article content instead of distracting the discussion with accusations and personal attacks? Wyss 11:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How is asking you to read the citation content pertaining to this discussion "distracting" the discussion with "accusations and personal attacks"? And where are these accusations and personal attacks, anyway? --Viriditas | Talk 12:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Your response illustrates the problem starly enough. Wyss 12:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I notice you avoided the question. --Viriditas | Talk

Glyconorm. ®. An injectable compound of enzymes, amino acids..., yet WP defines a food supplement as a nutrient added to a foodstuff. Wyss 11:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Technically, it's a dietary supplement. --Viriditas | Talk

• The source doesn't describe it as a dietary supplement, but as a tonic, an it doesn't match the definition of a dietary supplement in the WP article you cited. Wyss 12:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, the source doesn't describe it as a tonic, but quotes it as a "tonic", because that's how it was marketed. Note the term "tonic" is used in quotes in other places as well. The definiton of tonic is irrelevant. --Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

From [8], Glyconorm. ®. An injectable compound of enzymes, amino acids and vitamins B1, B2 and C plus extracts of cardiac muscle, suprarenal liver and pancreas In the late 1930s and early 1940s it was popular in Switzerland as a "tonic to combat infections" (no longer available)"

A tonic for fighting infections? Delivered by syringe? This doesn't sound like a food supplement added to foodstuffs to me. Wyss 11:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Food supplement is a general term. It's also a dietary supplement, and even that term is restricted for regulatory use based on its form. --Viriditas | Talk 12:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of injections...even if we find evidence that Hitler did ingest dietary supplements that contained animal products, I'm not sure how relevant that is. Both Einstein and Gandhi probably ate cheese curdled with rennin, or white wine cleared with isinglass. I think we should have the standard of vegetarianism for Hitler as we do with Gandhi and Einstein: "did he eat meat"? Babajobu 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I should have looked more carfully before asking what it was. Here's another one describing it:

Glyconorm

Nordmark-Werke, Hamburg

Indikation: Intoxikationen, toxische Anämien, Präpellagra, Hautaffektionen. Ein Mischpräparat aus Vitaminen und Aminosäuren. Morell verabreichte 2 ccm als intramuskuläre Injektion zur Behandlung von Hitlers Verdauungsstörungen, behauptete aber, dies nur äußerst selten in den Jahren 1938–40 getan zu haben. Dies stimmte aber nicht (vgl. Tagebücher). [9].

I.e. "for a treatment on Hitlers digesting problems". I don't know what the "stimmte aber nicht" (isn't correct) at the end is referring to. The site is a Danish one on AH. In a chapter on Hitler's health it do describe him as a vgetarian, (for what it's worth. There are many sites out there...) Shanes 12:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[10] defines tonic as An agent, such as a medication, that restores or increases body tone. Does any of this sound like a dietary supplement? Does it require a PoV stretch to call it that? Wyss 12:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Read dietary supplement. The definiton of "tonic" is irrelevant. --Viriditas | Talk 12:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I did. It says It is intended for ingestion in pill, capsule, tablet, or liquid form. Since Glyconorm was injected, it doesn't seem to match up with the definition in that respect. Wyss 12:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That's merely a regulatory distinction to set it apart from a medical supplement. --Viriditas | Talk 12:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Btw, tonic is clearly relevant, since the source I cited above describes Glyconorm as a tonic. Wyss 12:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, "tonic" is not relevant, as it's a quack term in this context that has no bearing on its status as a dietary supplement. --Viriditas | Talk 12:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

However it's classified, the point is that it's not ingested. It's injected. Like insulin. Babajobu 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, as the definiton you are referring to is for public food regulatory use. If you feel better calling it a medical dietary supplement, feel free to do so. --Viriditas | Talk 12:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You cited it. Moreover, please cite a source that calls Glyconorm a medical dietary supplement. Wyss 12:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

A "tonic" in the context of 1944 is essentially a dietary supplement. I hardly think the context was "medical", as Hitler was dealing with a quack outside of the hospital. --Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Never mind its intended purpose and whether or not the subject was even aware of what he was being injected with (the documented record indicates AH's knowledge of this was fragmentary at best). Wyss 12:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

None of that matters as it was clearly a dietary supplement. --Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is so absurd. Viriditas, you are now saying that even though Glyconorm was injected, it was a dietary supplement? So, someone who receives an injection of B12 is taking a "dietary supplement"? Whereas someone who taken an injection of insulin is not? So the latter is vegetarian but the former is not? Babajobu 12:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Pleast stop making straw man arguments. --Viriditas | Talk 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not making straw man arguments. I'm trying to keep track of the wild contortions you're adopting to try to exclude Hitler from the definition of vegetarian. Babajobu 12:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Wyss 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't said anything of the kind. --Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable secondary source which describes a tonic as a food (or dietary) supplement? Wyss 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Glyconorm was clearly a dietary supplement? Not according to the sources we've discussed above, which describe it as an injected tonic used to combat infections, in direct conflict with the definition of dietary supplement you cited. Wyss 12:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas says: "That's merely a regulatory distinction to set it apart from a medical supplement." No, that's the DIFFERENCE between a medical supplement and a dietary supplement! Wyss is welcome to call it a "medical dietary supplement", but he won't because that would be incorrect. It's an injected medical supplement. Like B12 injections. Babajobu 12:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You can call it whatever you like, but it's still supplementing his diet. And I hardly think that a personal quack injecting a "tonic" is a "medical" context. --Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

We disagree on the definition of a supplement but so long as we're strictly adhering to the documented record I have no problem with letting readers decide what a quack was injecting into a genocidal sociopath. Wyss 14:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If memory serves, I believe it was Toland who uses the term "supplement". --Viriditas | Talk 03:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

He was mistaken, then (heh heh). Mostly I think Toland is way reliable but I do recall thinking he was rather thin on the diet/medical stuff. He did most of his research in the early, mid seventies, though. Wyss 03:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tag

Please post below the specific facts believed to be in dispute before re-posting the tag. Wyss 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I stated why I added the tag [11] one minute after I posted the template. [12] --Viriditas | Talk 11:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's injections

So, the dispute is on whether to include that Hitler's doctor injected glyconorm in him. May I sugest that we do include it, but not in the intro? I think it's an interesting piece of trivia, and not completely irrelevant to mention in this article. To me it doesn't exclude him as a vegetarian, but the readers can decide that for themselves. So we mention it, but not in the intro. Is that an acceptable compromise and can we drop the disputed tag then? Shanes 13:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about the lead section, as that's bound to change over time. As long as the original paragraph (detailing the injections) is added back in, I would accept the removal of the disputed tag at this juncture. --Viriditas | Talk 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My only problem is mentioning the injections in the lead, header paragraph, since it's not at all clear they're even relevant to anyone's vegetarianism. Since they're historical fact though, I don't mind having them in the body of the article somewhere. I think they're interesting. Wyss 13:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the injections from the lead. --Viriditas | Talk 13:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph about the injections into the body of the text, but have removed the word "supplements" which is unsupported, and specified that these were commercially prepared tonics. I've left in all the disgusting details of what sort of animal gunk this was, though. Wyss 13:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Good edit. --Viriditas | Talk 13:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sections and structure

We now have practically the whole article in one section "Evidence". I would like to see it divided in more sections, and suggest the following sections after the lead.

1. A section on why Hitler didn't like to eat meat and the various things he said about it. "Motivation" or something like that.
2. A section describing his diet and how it evolved. "Hitler's diet" or something like that.
3. A section on his medical health, including his injections and with a "see main article Adolf Hitler's medical health"
4. A final section dealing with the controvercy, discussing the problems in trusting various reports in newspapers from the time, commenting on the Rynn Berry book, and the various issues regarding problems people have with seing Hitler as a vegetarian, including Reductio ad Hitlerum etc.

We have most of the various parts in the article already, so it's mostly a question on moving bits around and editing for flow. If nobody have any objections, I'll give it a shot myself later tonight when things have calmed down, here. Shanes 14:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is a lot missing as you can tell from the timeline on the talk page. In other news, I think this article should be renamed/moved to Adolph Hitler's diet for accuracy. There is a lot of content regarding his penchant for sweets, his mealtime behavior, his cooks, and his actions and attitude towards tobacco that would make fascinating reading. All of this can be contained by an article named Adolph Hitler's diet, similar to the treatment given by historian Thomas Fuchs. --Viriditas | Talk 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Removing vegetarianism from the title would be PoV (in my opinion anyway- but I understand why PoV can enter into this incendiary topic). AH described himself as a vegetarian as did everyone who was close to him, along with most of his biographers. Also, the topic is a fascinating one. Wyss 14:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Shane's suggestions for the outline are pretty good. I don't know that his medical health needs a whole section...it seems that the most relevant parts could be included in the section on motivation. And "Hitler's diet" seems a bit too broad for the second section. Perhaps more something that covers the evolution of his vegetarianism, from the initial effort in 1911, to the start of a more decisive effort in 1931, to the increasing austerity of the late 30s and 40s. This would include reports of meat-eating in the relevant time periods. Then a section on controversy, reductio ad Hitlerum, etc. Babajobu 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can't stress enough the importance of the chronology and gradual stages of development evident in the historical record. Yes, he ate liver dumplings and squab, but when? Wyss 15:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that's part of the reason I'm suggesting the second section should trace the development of his vegeterianism, and reports of squab, liver dumplings, pigeon, etc. should be made to clearly refer to the time periods in which they took place. The chronology would finish with 41/42-44, when there are no reports of any exceptions at all, and he apparently ate almost a vegan diet. Babajobu 15:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas that the page should be called "Adolf Hitler's diet" or "Diet of Adolf Hitler". There's a lot of interesting stuff in these sources that's irrelevant to a discussion of vegetarianism, so we need to find a less restrictive title, and then we can use all the material. It would make a really interesting article.

Why do you think he was eating a vegan diet for the last few years, Babajobu? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that at the end he subsisted almost exclusively on "clear soup" and potatoes. It's possible that either of those was prepared with butter, and that the former was prepared with eggs. And obviously the rest of his lifestyle was not vegan (leather jackboots, animal-based meds, millions of exterminated people). Babajobu 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Baba, I didn't agree, and I don't see a lot of agreement on this page. I see efforts by Wyss to take ownership of it, which is not allowed, and I hope you won't support it. She has repeatedly deleted material, or moved it further down, just because she doesn't like it. The intro should stay as it is, particularly with the sentence explaining that no one defined the term, which is important. And why was the image deleted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Then you're not reading very carefully. I was even more vociferous then Wyss about the injections being irrelevant to his vegetarianism. Wyss agreed to put them in at the end; I don't really think they belong there at all, but I'll accept them so long as they're not in the lead. And Shanes agreed as well. In the end, Viriditas did, too, though he/she was outnumbered in the argument so it wasn't entirely fair. Regardless, you unilaterally reverted it after four people conducted a lengthy discussion that concluded with it's being moved. Babajobu 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And two of the editors on the page disagree, which means there's no consensus to delete it, so perhaps the discussion could continue rather than this constant deletion of other people's work, which I find quite disturbing, especially on a page like this where there isn't really an issue at stake, and all we should be trying to do is be as accurate as possible. I'd agree that the injections wouldn't be good in the lede if the title were "Adolf Hitler's diet," but because the focus is on his vegetarianism, it's of course central to it that he was, perhaps unwittingly, receiving animal nutrients throughout the entire time he may have believed he was a vegetarian.

You reply didn't address the issues I raised about why the sentence in the intro about the definition was deleted, and why the image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I deleted the Blondi pic as stealth PoV- a carnivorous, toothy canine sitting in front of the man responsible for the Holocaust.

Precisely. He was trying to project a certain image, and it's an image relevant to his claims to vegetarianism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any secondary source that would support your assertion the pic with Blondi was taken to promote Ah's vegetarian image. Wyss 16:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• The sentence about the definition in the intro was unsupported. Please provide a citation supporting confusion re the definition.

That's ridiculous. None of the sources used, including Hitler, defines the term. All the sentence does is state that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The definition was well-established in the dictionariies and encyclopedias of the time. Meanwhile, I'm not aware of any secondary sources which would support your assertion that there's any confusion over the definition as it related then to AH. Wyss 16:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• These reasons were given for both edits in their summaries.

• Please stop the unilateral reversions (which destroy people's work) and participate in the discussion like everyone else. Wyss 15:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who engages in reversions that destroy people's work, and you've been doing it for quite some time, long before I arrived here. All I'm doing is responding to that. I'm asking you again to build, not destroy, and to bear in mind that the page has to be properly written if we want people to read it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO You're trying to supervise this space through your personal lens and notions of what vegetarianism should be. I suggest you participate instead. Wyss 16:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

See conversation above for why I think it's absolutely preposterous to suggest that someone who was receiving animal-based injections (in the 1940s!) was not a vegetarian. This is a uniquely stringent "Hitler standard" by which none of the other vegetarians on the List of vegetarians is assessed. Babajobu 15:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Baba, I wish this business of was-he-was-he-not a vegetarian would stop. It's silly. People aren't vegetarians just because they don't happen to eat meat much. A vegetarian is someone who makes a decision not to eat meat and it's an internal mental state as much as anything. We can none of us get inside Hitler's mind, so it's a silly thing to try to argue for, or against. All we can do is say: here are what the primary sources say he ate. That's it. Attaching the label (or removing it), especially when it hasn't even been defined, isn't the thing we should be concentrating on. I know Wyss is doing that, but that's what wrong with the article. I hope you don't do it too; you're far too good an editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't address your specific point about the injections, but the point I was making above was that the injections are relevant because they are animal-based, and that means that, if he did make the decision to be a vegetarian, someone was thwarting it throughout, which is clearly relevant. Why would it being in the 40s make any difference? Definitions haven't changed since then. One of the problems here is the title, which strikes up a position and Wikipedia articles aren't really meant to do that, plus it's very restrictive in terms of what we can include. The second problem is the curious ideological stance that at least Wyss has taken up, which I find mystifying. Why would anyone care whether Hitler was or wasn't a vegetarian? These two issues are making this a very difficult article to work on, and I understand it started life as a POV fork too, so it would be good to get the title straightened out before we go any further. Two editors would like to change it. Are there any other views? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This article did not start out as a PoV fork, It was suggested by one editor, created by me as a result and has since been supported by a consensus of those commenting on it (truth be told, Viriditas and Slim Virgin are the only two who have maintained it was a PoV fork). Wyss 17:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm against it. I think Hitler's belief in vegetarianism and imperfect efforts to be vegetarian are in and of themselves an interesting topic. An article on his diet would include all sorts of other issues, and exclude many issues that this article doesn't. I think a Diet of Adolf Hitler article would be interesting, and could link to this article, but it's a separate (though related) topic. Babajobu 16:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict, and here's what I'd written. I wrote it before Slim's previous comment: "I have no desire to credit Hitler with being a vegetarian. But to say "it's an internal mental state as much as anything" is really not good enough here. Of course we need to present the primary sources...but injections are only marginally relevant here. At that time no "vegetarians" that I know of screened their medications or injections for animal byproducts...it simply was not within the scope of "vegetarianism" at the time. Einstein never gave it a second of thought, the same way he never thought to avoid cheese curdled with rennet, white wine cleared with isinglass, or any of the other things that some of the more rigorous of today's veggies do. Inserting it into this article is POV, because it would never be done for any of the vegetarian heroes. It's ONLY done for Hitler in attempt to serve the good name of vegetarianism. And I don't like it. I don't think it's good for Wikipedia." Babajobu 16:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how do you know what Einstein gave a second thought to? You're describing a vegan position, not a vegetarian one. The injections Hitler was given didn't simply involve animal byproducts in their manufacture. They were supplements made (as I understand them) entirely from animal byproducts because his doctor had identified that as a nutritional deficiency, probably because of his otherwise vegetarian diet! So the two are inextricably linked, causally. He was given the injections because he was a vegetarian. But he wasn't, in fact, a vegetarian — because he was being given the injections. It's kind of sad!

Please forget the ideological stuff about who is attacking him in the good name of vegetarianism. I agree that that would be bad for Wikipedia. But it's also bad for Wikipedia to do the same thing from the other direction. Just forget it all. No one editing this article should care one way or the other. All we should do is concentrate on reports from sources, and put them in the article if they're interesting and relevant. If people outside WP want to defend or attack Hitler's vegetarianism, let them get on with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's true. I can't say that I'm certain that Einstein never gave these things a moment's thought. What I should have said is that once he abstained from meat he began calling himself "vegetarian", even though he was still enjoying foods prepared with animal products (cheese, white wine, et cetaera). Apparently he didn't think eating these things made him a carnivore. And I'm not describing a vegan position, but a strict vegetarian position. Rennin is harvested from animals' stomachs. Isinglass is harvested from the swim bladders of fish. There are more examples, I'm sure you're familiar with them. Avoiding them is not just vegan, it's plain vegetarian. Most vegetarians in Hitler and Einstein's day wouldn't have gone that far, but today many do. Babajobu 19:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Going way off track here, but a quick note: avoiding cheese is vegan. But strict vegetarians will not eat ordinary cheese because it's curdled with rennet/rennin. They eat "vegetarian cheese", which is curdled with something that wasn't scraped out of the innards of a dead animal, as rennin is. Babajobu 19:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Baba, do you have any sources for your views on vegetarianism? I've been a vegetarian, a dietary vegan, and a total vegan, and I've never encountered the definition you're using. Vegetarians don't ingest (in any form) the flesh of an animal, fish, or fowl (rule of thumb: they don't eat anything that had a face). They eat cheese, drink milk, eat eggs, though most of them will try to eat only products produced in non-factory farming settings, and preferably organic. That is the definition of "vegetarian," and it has been for decades. A dietary vegan avoids the ingestion of any animal byproducts whatsoever. A total vegan avoids the use of any animal byproducts, not just the ingestion of them. Those are the standard definitions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've never been one for vegetarian pissing contests, Slim, but where I'm from we've got more rigorous definitions, or at least apply them more rigorously. You say a vegetarian will not eat the flesh of an animal. Yes, that's right. I (and many "complete vegetarians" I know), consider rennin to be the flesh of an animal. The enzyme cannot be cleanly extracted from the stomach lining. Normal cheese is curdled with a rennet/rennin mixture that I/we consider a "flesh product". That's why, when I buy cheese, I only buy cheese that has the vegetarian society logo on it: because they agree with me, and won't certify rennet infused cheese as vegetarian. This would all have sounded like Greek to someone in Hitler/Einstein/Gandhi's time, of course, and even today more casual vegetarians still don't worry about such things. Babajobu 19:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I mean, come on, would you consider yourself vegetarian if you ate gelatin? Boiled tendons, ligaments, and skin? Is that "vegetarian"? Also, as for "preferably organic"...that's a cultural thing that many vegetarians have latched on to, but it's got nothing to do with vegetarianism, per se. I, for one, couldn't care less whether my food is organic. Babajobu 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Babajobu 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but if you're a veggie and you're eating dairy products from factory-farmed animals, you're contributing to the misery in just the same way as if you ate meat. But back to Hitler. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond to this point on you talk page, Slim. Babajobu 20:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

No, personally I wouldn't. Nor would I consider myself a veggie if I ate eggs from factory-farmed hens; nevertheless, many vegetarians do. The standard definition of vegetarian is not eating flesh, as it was in the 40s. And Hitler, according to the witnesses, ate ham, caviar, and sausages, so we're not talking about someone who may inadvertently have eaten some nasty cheese from time to time. Anyway, this gets back to my point: we shouldn't be trying to prove or disprove that he was X or Y. We should simply describe what the sources say he ingested and point out that those who used the term "vegetarian" didn't define it, so we don't and can't know what they meant exactly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

<-------------------- back to beginning

Yes, I agree with you that we shouldn't be trying to prove or disprove anything. Just put the evidence and primary sources out there. But we have to decide which primary sources and evidence are relevant. I agree with you that most vegetarians don't worry about the sort of concerns I described, and that the typical understanding of vegetarianism is the one you cite: "don't eat flesh". So the relevant data is that which sheds light on the question of whether Hitler ate flesh. That means accounts of Hitler eating squab, liver dumplings, et cetera, are relevant. But non-ingested things such as injections are not relevant, because they don't relate to the common understanding of vegetarianism, i.e. eating flesh. This is why I got snippy about the inclusion of the injections. Babajobu 20:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that's Babajobu's point. Let's forget the ideologies and focus on building text from the sources. Wyss 17:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, I'll bet you have eaten meat. What matters is the chronology. You stopped eating meat and became a vegetarian. If I could convincingly document you ate meat in the past, at any time in your life, would this mean you weren't a vegetarian now? Wyss 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. But if you found that, after declaring myself to be a vegetarian, I continued to eat liver dumplings, and got daily injections from my doctor without asking what they were, that would clearly be relevant. For example, I used to get a flu shot every year, and I stopped because I found out that it was being cultivated on chicken byproducts. This was before I became a vegan. I'm assuming from this conversation that you're not a vegetarian yourself. Someone who decides not to eat meat for whatever reason isn't a vegetarian. Being a veggie involves a decision not to do it, no matter how much you like the daily injections and the liver dumplings. But again, I think the problem here is that you're trying to prove the issue one way or the other. I think we should call this article "Hitler's diet" to get away from the ideological divide. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

1938-1944 inclusive

There are no references to AH having eaten meat during these years, and a single reference to having eaten meat shortly before his suicide in 1945. Wyss 15:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of that statement. I've found a number of references of meat-eating during those years, however I'm currently working on dates. --Viriditas | Talk 23:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Table Talk

I've removed mention of Table Talk from the lead as it is a controversial document whose authenticity is suspect. It does not belong in the lead and is already mentioned in the article and I've preserved the former lead text in the body. --Viriditas | Talk 23:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like it put back in the intro. Wyss 01:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a disputed second-hand source that was transcribed and edited. It is properly labeled an extraneous source and doesn't belong in the lead. BTW, David Irving considers Table Talk to be an authoritative source. --Viriditas | Talk 02:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No need to consider it authoritative, I see very few AH sources that way. With AH, corraboration is everything, else qualify, qualify. Wyss 03:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Vegan

While I found Doyle's comment amusing, I did not originallly include it in the article as it appears to be an innocent error on Doyle's part. This is obvious when the statement is read in context. Perhaps Doyle doesn't know what a vegan is, or wasn't familiar with Hitler's overall diet (Hitler loved "eggs served in all the hundred and one recipes of a Viennese cookbook", Bayles. "He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed," Degrelle) but I don't think it's a good idea to focus on errors in the article, and Doyle's opinion is not what is at stake here, but the medical diaries of Morell. As such, the statement should be removed. Mr. Doyle's email address is cited in the paper, so it would be very easy to contact him for clarification. --Viriditas | Talk 23:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So when you don't agree with a source, it's an innocent or sloppy error, but when you do agree, it's clearly right? I know you won't accept that assertion but that's how it seems to me. Anyway, most of these citations (either emphasising AH's vegetarianism or emphasising AH's meat eating) seem to have errors and some sort of corraboration is likely indicated. Doyle is an OBE, a detailed and documented source published by a med school and should stay, unless we can start picking and choosing and/or commenting in the article, in which case I have something to say about the sloppy and unscholarly NYT and Payne quotes. Once more, chronology is everything here. Wyss 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop making arguments about me and stick to the article. What I agree with or disagree with is not at stake. Doyle makes a number of errors, including calling Hitler a vegan and a "tee-tolar". We know that both are false. Arguing that Doyle's medical credentials allow him to make historical judgements is a clear appeal to authority. The error should be removed from the article, not promoted. The paper is included in the article due to the medical nature of Morell's diaries, not for Doyle's historical opinion. Please stop making these silly, fallacious arguments. --Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

My point is that you're starting to recognize that there is a possibility we have to address all the errors in these citations... all of them. Please stop using the terms silly and fallacious to characterize my posts. It's both mistaken and disruptive. Wyss 01:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

...er, but ok, I apologize for being snippy about it earlier. Wyss 01:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Daily

The sentence construction of Doyle [13] (search for daily) separates the tonic injections from the adjective daily. Wyss 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Doyle is quoting Trevor-Roper: "...daily replacements of iodine, vitamins and calcium, as well as heart and liver extract." We know that the heart and liver extract injection contained the vitamins. --Viriditas | Talk 00:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It was only one of many commercial preparations containing vitamins. The sentence construction has a comma and as well as separating the two. However, I truly don't care too much about using the daily, either way it sounds to me like it was almost so at least. Wyss 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Source problems

These are only quick summaries, not meant to be complete or exhaustively explained.

• Fuchs - Someone served him a meat meal? Who? What's his source? Sounds like he didn't know. Fuchs is not considered a major biographer of AH. I know this story about meat in the bunker has been floating around since the 50s. How do we separate it from all the other swirling post war "smears"?

I've quoted the primary source in the timeline section above. --Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. Michael Musmanno officially investigated AH's death for the U.S. government. What was his source for this? Who served the meat? What was it? How do we know it wasn't a witness trying to curry favour and stay out of prison (or avoid hanging)? Wyss 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• D. Doyle - his paper has lots of detail and is the most complete set of documented references to Morell I've ever seen. However, if AH was a vegan it was for a very short time (42 onwards?) and this is the first hint I've ever run across that AH gave up eggs and dairy. Doyle may be mistaken about using the term vegan.

You fail to see the contradictions. Based on Doyle's own paper, it would have been impossible for Hitler to have been a vegan. Vegans don't take heart, liver, adrenal, and other animal extracts, for one thing. Doyle's claims about Hitler's alcohol use are also in error. But you see, this has no bearing on his anaylsis of the medical diaries, since Doyle was only summarizing what he had heard or read (i.e. repeating historical myths). --Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken when you say I fail to see the contradictions. Reread what I said? Wyss 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lucas - I believe her (for what that's worth), but the time frame (early thirties) is not clarified in the article and the quote is presented all out of balance.

I'm still working on that. --Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Wyss 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Otto D. Tolischus - The reference to ham is a glaring, sniggering reference to anti-semitism and caviar isn't meat (it's eggs): Newspaper accounts are dodgy historical sources unless independently cross-verified.

I'm not sure what your objection is here, nor do I see a reference to anti-Semitism. Hitler's inner circle was fond of ham, and there are documented accounts of ham sandwiches being made inside the bunker. --Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the ham reference (but imagine he did see ham on his visit). What meat eaters were eating around AH is not relevant to his vegetarianism btw. Wyss 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ignatius Phayrethe - AH wasn't a life-long veg (though we know by 1938 he was describing himself as one and had repeatedly declared he'd avoid meat).

• Proctor - Doesn't specify a time frame for the dumplings, important since Traudl Junge (supported by others from the inner circle) flatly said he avoided meat entirely.

Historians have several problems with Junge's recollections, so she is not as reliable as you make her out to be. (She did make ham sandwiches). I'll look into the timeframe here, so thanks for bringing that up. -Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Mostly they don't like how she said she didn't know about the death camps. Maybe she didn't- lots of women associated with ranking Nazis said they didn't know about it. Since they were hanging lots of people after the war and villifying others for decades even for their associations, maybe she did know, but there's no evidence she did (I know this is off topic, except as a discussion of her credibility). Wyss 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Payne - Unsupported by Goebbels' own diaries (which I don't think he had access to back in the early 70s), and the sausages seem conflated with something he likely heard about the earlier days in Munich (even while implying sausages were the only form of meat AH ate). Remember, AH himself said he ate meat when he was younger.

• Morell's tonic injections - I don't care if these stay in the article but don't think they affect the question of his vegetarianism. Wyss 01:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is important to document its use as part of the historical record. As for whether or not it "affects" the question of his vegetarian or vegan diet, I think the evidence speaks for itself. --Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a question of interpretation but truly I don't have a problem with it being mentioned in the text, it happened. Wyss 01:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Would Wyss and whoever is supporting her (what on earth is Marsden doing on this page all of a sudden?) please bear in mind that introductions are supposed to summarize and explain what the reader can expect to read about; that is, they should contain selected highlights of what is to follow, concentrating on the most notable, relevant, or newsworthy points. The short intro that Wyss seems to prefer does none of these things, and is poor style. It should be possible for a casual reader to read the intro and nothing else, and yet still get the main thrust of the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think Marsden is on some sort of a tirade against Viriditas and I did misinterpret Marsden's revert until Viriditas pointed it out. I strongly disagree with Slim Virigin, however, who has repeatedly said AH cannot possibly have been a vegetarian because he ate meat at one time or another and so far has repeatedly refused to address my comments about chronology, however I've phrased them. I don't agree that putting a shopping list of red meat products back into the intro will help readers come to a balanced, independent conclusion. What's more, Viriditas shortened even more, so I want to clear up any inference that the extremely short version now up is the one I prefer. I'd like to see the Bormann Table Talk reference restored to the intro. Wyss 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't put a shopping list of products back in. Please read it. And I'm not trying to show that he was or wasn't a veggie. I've said repeatedly we should get away from that issue and concentrate on his diet. Finally, I didn't do anything to change the chronology, just the intro. But regardless of these issues, I'm asking everyone who is editing here to please pay some heed to the writing and to the aesthetics. Intros should be longer and fuller than even the one I restored, so that readers can effectively read the intro and nothing more, if they want to. The page should be well illustrated so that the text is broken up a little. Reducing the intro to one sentence and deleting images isn't helpful.

Marsden, please go back to trolling on the pages you've already caused chaos on, and don't bring your toxicity here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The "shopping list" is my main concern, I didn't mean to imply you'd put it back in though (thanks). Wyss 02:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Putting aside my objections to both versions for the moment, the part about "Hitler regarded himself as a vegetarian" in the lead is a direct reference to Table Talk. It's a dubious, secondary source that is not considered to to be accurate due to Bormann's editing. I would like to see a balanced lead that portrays the dispute more accurately. It would be helpful if we could revert the lead to my last version (bare bones), and collaborate on constructing a neutral lead on this page. I personally like Kershaws description of Hitler's "cranky vegetarianism" and that would look great in the lead. OTOH, I also like Fuchs portrayal of a man who claimed to be a vegetarian but cheated and ate meat when it suited him. --Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the header should depict the dispute. I believe it should summarize AH's vegetarianism. Is this where we can start a dispute about the dispute? :) Wyss 02:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The intro (if that's what you mean by the header) should very definitely summarize the dispute. That's what intros are meant to do, and we have to follow the house style. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, meta-disputes belong on the talk page. The lead section should describe the dispute as it appears in the article: you are assuming Hitler was a "vegetarian" as it is commonly defined. This is another reason why the page should be moved to Adolph Hitler's diet. I suspect that all edit wars would instantly disappear with such a move, as that title is inherently NPOV. --Viriditas | Talk 02:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But you see, I regard Adolph Hitler's diet as inherently PoV and evasive. He said he was veg, most of his bios say he was veg, his inner circle said he was veg (blah blah). Wyss 02:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And yet, there's nothing "inherenetly POV" or "evasive" about the title, Adolph Hitler's diet. It's an inclusive description that adheres to neutral naming conventions. We don't name articles on ipse dixit claims. --Viriditas | Talk 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Latin. For me, latin:writing as meat:diet. Anyway, I think AH's vegetarianism is sufficiently supported by the historical record to have an article named after it (and yes Viriditas I understand that you don't ;) Wyss 02:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway I humbly suggest we keep Viriditas' latest intro until we can collaboratively figure out what else to put there. Wyss 02:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we would have a true compromise (where we are all in disagreement) if Slim changed her lead in some way that would satisfy Wyss and myself. --Viriditas | Talk 02:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You guys, I do want to get an article we can all be truly ok with. Wyss 02:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, you want it to be removed that he regarded himself as a veggie because of Table Talk having been distorted. But if it was edited dishonestly (and David Irving's support of it indicates that it's not a good source), it would have been edited in accordance with Hitler's view of himself, so even distorted, it would still show that Hitler thought of himself as, or wanted to project himself as, a veggie. I don't know what it is that Wyss wants removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer having the Table Talk ref in the intro, but don't mind too much that Viriditas took it out. Wyss 02:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Btw yes, Irving isn't isn't at all credible or acceptable unless he's utterly triangulated and verified with other, more scholarly sources. Wyss 02:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, maybe the injection. Well then, can't we keep both? One source showing H saw himself as a veggie, and another source showing that, be that as it may, his veggie-ness was being undermined? Or how about this? Viriditas, you write the intro that you want, regardless of what anyone else wants, and put it on the page (it can always be reverted). Wyss, you then do the same. I've already done mine. Then we can look to see how each of the three intros looks on the page, and maybe one will stand out as the best, and if not, we can mix and match. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll always oppose mentioning the injections (they don't relate to vegetarianism in this context) and what I call "the shopping list" (that throws the balance off to Mars) in the intro. If Viriditas is skeptical of Bormann's editing, I don't care about Table Talk being excluded from the intro. Wyss 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I find the notion that Martin Bormann fabricated the pro-vegetarian arguments in Table Talk to be exceedingly bizarre. Babajobu 17:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd describe it as an abusive PoV stretch but as currently worded it's accurate enough (even if it throws a misleading sop to those hoping to find one). Toland quotes verbatim from TT at length btw. Wyss 22:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

More bizarre than the notion that the pro-veggie sentiments in Gandhi's autobio were fabricated by that volume's numerous editors. Babajobu 17:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Dream on, that anyone would seriously research the vegginess of MG. Wyss 22:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)