Naplesmedellin

May 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Religious views of Adolf Hitler  with this edit, without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I am striking the above message. I have reviewed your edit and I believe you have some appropriate additions and revisions, even at least one correction. I do believe that your revision to the opening paragraph to support one point of view rather than to start with the balanced statement which you replaced is not in accord with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is why I reverted the edit. I think other users and editors would find many of your changes acceptable if you did not appear to be pushing the article toward a particular point of view. I am sure that this article is watched by interested editors, so if you wish another opinion or to discuss or support your changes, I suggest you express your points on the talk page. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your edit on my watchlist. This idea comes up a lot, but the reason it keeps getting reverted is because it is at odds with the majority of Hitler scholars who don't agree because they have found private statements (see second paragraph of the current revision) that don't agree with this idea. That is why majority scholarship doubts the integrity of his public-facing materials.

That is my understanding of why the lede documents this. TBH, the lede wouldn't last if it was only right-wing Christians like me agreeing with it. Hopefully, that clears things up. :-) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If I make a FAQ thread on the talk page, would you come? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and explanation. If I had not originally thought you were proceeding in good faith and had some contributions to make, I would not have gone back and struck the original message and left some explanation. However, my further review has introduced some additional doubts and shows that my second opinion was actually less careful than my first. .

I interpret some of the points in your message, as well as your edit to the introduction to show an effort to change the point of view of the article. You say in your edit summary that you removed claims without citations. This is not consistent with your action and appears to be deceptive. You also deleted the citations and quotations from them. I had originally gone into detail in this message and made some other points but that isn't really necessary. I am sure you know what you did. I am sorry that my giving you some benefit of the doubt made you think that I did not know and would support your point of view. In fact, I was not prepared to continue in the same vein without a detailed and careful re-examination.

Your edits were not an effort to balance the article but to strike support for a point of view that you do not like and to introduce a biased and unbalanced conclusion to the article, citing only some sources which support your point of view. If your intent was balance, you would not have changed the conclusion at the beginning and would not have deleted support for the existing article. Instead, you would have only added some material as supporting a different interpretation.

Now that I have reviewed the full measure of your changes, and especially your deletions, I am convinced that your edits to the introduction are biased and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. You have removed opinion and much support for it, apparently because it did not mesh with your point of view. Then you had to restore some bare citations for the authors later because you had removed the base citations.

You will note that I express no opinion as to the validity of your possible additions, which may well be acceptable as support for an alternate interpretation to the extent that is expressed in the article without claiming it is the correct interpretation and without giving it undue weight. Your changes and deletions were not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

If you wish to replace rather than add to the content, change the focus of the article, and eliminate supporting citations and quotations for the existing article. you will need to take up the matter with those who have contributed to or are interested in the page, starting on the talk page. The full process for resolving content disputes is described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Donner60 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Naplesmedellin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Naplesmedellin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)