Talk:Adolf Hitler

The word "estimated"

I am curious about the convention with respect to the use of this word in the qualification of death counts. The word is employed in reports of the deaths of Jews and other groups, but not used in the reporting of many other casualty statistics. Thanks! JerryGraf (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

yes, but we do not only mention those deaths, but all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I may not be comprehending your point. I was trying to figure out when the word "estimated" should be used, and when it should not be used. See what I mean? JerryGraf (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out when the word "estimated" should be used, and when it should not be used, crudely speaking, when the source uses the term or a similar one. But in the case of WWII or other major historical events, the exact figures in many/most cases of major events within WWII are not known/knowable (gaps in documentation etc). Pincrete (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

We agree. Now let's get specific. In the opening section, how is this treatment rationalized?

"Hitler and the Nazis were also responsible for the deliberate killing of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 28.7 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theatre."

The word "estimated" is especially concerning here given the decimal level accuracy in the quoted number. From an encyclopedic point of view, it seems to me that a single convention should be employed. JerryGraf (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The various estimates are sourced content. We are just following what the sources say. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I query the use of the words "In addition" in the above extract. Can the reader add the numbers 19.3 and 28.7 to get the total deaths? No, because they are different "cross-sections" of the total deaths. I suggest that "In addition" be replaced by "Alternatively" or "Another estimate is that". ~2026-29631-39 (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what you are suggesting is the intended meaning, though I agree that there is some ambiguity in the text and it is a pity that in no single linked article are the different figures' criteria made clear. I myself embarked on an ultimately fruitless venture to clarify in my own mind how the different figures had been arrived at (I don't doubt them, but lack a way to verify them and their inclusion criteria). Pincrete (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking at all about the intended meaning of the words. All I'm trying to say is that "19.3 million killed ... In addition, 28.7 million killed ..." does suggest to the not-thinking-clearly reader that the total deaths would equal the sum, and I would simply like to see a different wording that does not use the word "addition". ~2026-29631-39 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The source for these numbers is R. J. Rummel's table from his book Death by Government, page 112. You can view the table here. He shows a total democide in occupied Europe of 19,315,000 people and additional war dead (soldiers and civilians that died as a result of military action) of 28,736,000 people. These numbers only include democide victims in Europe, and deaths due to military action in Europe. grand total: 48,051,000.

You might find the table at World War II casualties#Total deaths by country useful as well. It shows (for example) totals of 27 million deaths in the USSR, 6 million in Poland, 7.3 million in Germany, etc. The totals in the infobox of the article European theatre of World War II show 52,990,000 deaths if you use the highest estimates. Our article World War II casualties shows total deaths from all theatres as 70 to 85 million people. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Thankyou for the clarification, I was fairly certain that 2026-29631-39's account of what the figures represented produced figures that were much too low, but uncertain as to the correct reading of the figures. It is indeed the simplest reading, first figure + second figure, though the totals thus arrived at remain truly mind-boggling. Pincrete (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I find Rummell's table to be oddly formatted and difficult to read; the totals for each section are at the top with the specifics below. Not the way we are accustomed to seeing it done. I found it difficult to parse myself, having not looked at it for quite some time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Press mention

For Template:Press:

• https://www.popsci.com/technology/most-popular-wikipedia-entries/

--Another Believer _(Talk) 23:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for the suggestion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

1922...

In December 1922, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported: {{Quoteboxfloat

| text = Bavarian Fascisti Advocate Pogroms.

Berlin, Dec. 14 (J. T. A.)—Circulars containing unheard-of accusations against Jews and inciting the population to violence against them, were distributed here in thousands of copies Wednesday by members of the National Socialists of Bavaria, headed by Adolf Hitler, called the “Bavarian Mussolini.”

The broadcasting of these circulars coincided with announcements that ten anti-Semitic meetings were to be held at Munich under the auspices of the National Socialists, the demonstrators to protest against the anti-Semitic meetings of the Fascisti arranged by the Social Democrats. | source = Jewish Telegraphic Agency | publisher = The Reform Advocate, p. 665 | title = Bavarian Fascisti Advocate Pogroms | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YmQ-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA665

| date = December 30, 1922

}} Willysbillys (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

And? Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access to the page in order to edit/add it. Willysbillys (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

"Hitlerian" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hitlerian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 13 § Hitlerian until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Be careful with the word "dictator"

The lede says he was "dictator" of Germany during the Nazi era. That is unencyclopedic. Better is to call him "leader" of Germany. To keep the idea of dictator, the word or similar word, dictatorship, can be rightfully used in the same paragraph.

Make no mistake, I consider Hitler to be a very, very bad person and do not support Hitler. However, I do support Wikipedia as it strives to be a good encyclopedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Why do you consider the word "dictator" to be unencyclopedic? Here are some definitions of "dictator":

• Oxford dictionary: "a ruler with total power over a country"
• Websters: "a ruler with absolute power and authority, esp. one who exercises it tyranically"

Multiple reliable sources call Hitler a dictator, such as Shirer (p.199); Evans 2005 (pp.42-44). You remove the word "dictator" but add the word "dictatorship", which Oxford defines as "government by a dictator". So I am unclear why you object to the use of the word in the opening sentence? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

His portrait appears at the top of the dictator page. I see no reason to change this text.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Drug addict?

Is it true that he was a drug addict? Yehoshua667 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)