This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please remove possible living people of non-encyclopedian interest.-- Nerd ( talk)12:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend the page be redesigned. The format of treating the family as a history, going for decade to decade, is confusing. I recommend separate paragraphs about the lives of each person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.173.212 ( talk) 03:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I too think the whole article set decade-by-decade is slightly confusing at first, but it's nevertheless probably the only way to do it, as it's a "history of the family" as a whole. Separate paras about the lives of each individual aren't needed - there are already separate pages on each (or most), and those pages contain summary para Intros. No need to repeat. But the insertion of mini-trees every couple of decades, showing just 2 generations, might help greatly as handy quick reference tools for those reading through all. I've just completed a width-reduction of the overall family tree at the end - managed to make it about an inch-&-a-half less wide without losing any data or structure. I might try in the next 2-3 days to pick-&-paste an early generation or two into the upper half of the article, to see if helps the readability further. Pete Hobbs ( talk) 03:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"...the daughter of Johann Nepomuk and Eva Hiedler geb. Decker"

What is "geb."? 69.125.134.86 ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It just means "born"; so I changed it to the English translation for the word in question. Kierzek ( talk) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The usual term on enwiki is the French née (or né for men), justification for which I can't seem to find immediately. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 19:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

True, AlanM1. I went ahead and changed it accordingly. Kierzek ( talk) 21:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's wedding seems to be missing; an omission. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 18:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hitler family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210053145/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitlerK.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitlerK.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922192610/http://www.cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=7 to http://www.cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=7&item=1722

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This article needs amending to bring the use of the possessive form for singular names into line with the Manual of Style (:poss). Such an edit made earlier today has for some unexplained reason twice been reverted by another editor. As a simple matter of grammatical style where there is an established consensus position, there would need to be a convincing reason (other than one editor's personal preference) for departing from established style. MapReader ( talk) 20:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The MoS is not mandatory and not enforceable as such, per ArbCom. Doing so is not an exception to the policy on WP:Edit warring. "Alois's" is, simply, terrible English, no matter what the MoS says. The edits need to stay out until a WP:CONSENSUS of editors here supports them. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This amounts to personal preference and is not a reason to fail to respect the accepted style. If you wish to provide a reference to your ArbCom ruling, please do so - otherwise recognise that edits that improve an article by aligning it with the MoS are deemed to have consensus. You need to provide a compelling reason why this article should depart from established practice, which you have not done. Your edit warring is not acceptable here, and a third revert will put you in breach of 3RR. MapReader ( talk) 20:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have changed all instances of "Alois'" to avoid the possessive, per MOS:POSSESSIVES:

If a name already ends in s or z and would be difficult to pronounce if 's were added to the end, consider rearranging the phrase to avoid the difficulty: Jesus's teachings or the teachings of Jesus.

Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. There is a typo in your final edit, but otherwise fine. It is good to see the non-standard grammar now removed from the article. MapReader ( talk) 20:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. FYI, please learn how to properly indent comments in a discussion, so the other party doesn't have to do it for you. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This piece is currently rather hard to read because the use of names is inconsistent. It takes careful reading to sort out who is who. Its especially a problem where an individual is referred to by solely surname. If there's not a style guide giving a firm policy I'd suggest, for example Alois Hitler (Sr.), Alois Hitler Jr, because although the elder Alois was apparently never referred to as Senior it would make an easy distinction. But the really important thing is that names should be consistently. Whilst using varying names makes for more interesting prose, in practice in the context of this piece it is really confusing. 212.159.44.170 ( talk) 17:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made occasional efforts along these lines but more clarifications would be helpful. You're welcome to fix whatever ambiguities you can find. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 17:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that care should be taken to keep the actual surnames used by each individual, and not to change them all to the "Hitler" form. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've found that Familysearch.org allows Hitler's family tree to be extended up to the 1500s by searching Stefan Hiedler (1672-?) and Agnes Capeller (1674-?), and the other branches can be extended too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GS-216.1993 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The question of whether Otto Hitler was born before or after Adolf is being contested by editor KnightMove. My take is that while a couple of citations -- one a periodical article, and one from a biography published this year in German -- support the contention that Otto was born AFTER Hitler, EVERY OTHER source available says that he was born BEFORE Hitler. That being the case, that Otto was born while Hitler was alive can not be included in the article as an accepted fact, when, in actuality, it is not in any respect widely accepted by the experts (historian, biographers and other scholars). If it DOES become widely accept, then obviously it can, and should, be included, but that is not yet the case, and KnightMove's pushing to include it is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Those other sources you've mentioned cannot possibly support Otto's date of birth in 1892, as they were written BEFORE his true date of birth was found out in 2016. This date is directly proven by the entry in the baptismal register, also linked in the article. The biography I have added in the last place cites newspapers as confirmation. There is not even any room for doubt. Is there ANY source doubting those new insights?

According to your logic, any new evidence must be ignored and cannot be included in Wikipedia articles until all, or most, formerly established sources have caught up and confirmed. This is absurd. Why would those sources make any effort in adding comments? Do you expect Ian Kershaw to write a new book only to correct that specific fact?

Plus, the article is perfectly incomplete and lacking context with the gap you have left there. -- KnightMove ( talk) 06:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

You are assuming that the new claim of a later date of birth is correct, but that is what has not been determined by a consensus of the scholars involved in this subject. Over time, it will either be accepted or not, and if it is, you can add the material. Alternately, you could add it now if you phrased it as a possibility, an alternative hypothesis, rather than as a proven fact. As an encyclopedia, we are conservative in the presentation of information. We do not publish anything which is not widely accepted by the appropriate community of experts, and as of this time, there is no indication that the later birth date for Otto has been accepted. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

For reasons of time and readibility, I will give you an answer in two steps. First I want to get straight that I do get your point and that I also perfectly support it - in situations where it's appropriate. To give examples:

• With the Inter-universal Teichmüller theory, Shinichi Mochizuki claims to have proven the abc conjecture. This is not accepted in the mathematical community, others like Peter Scholze contradict. Maybe Mochizuki's proof is logically solid, and only because he is a genius beyond everyone else, the math community is not yet able to understand it. 99,99% of people do not even understand what these guys are debating about. There is no consensus, we have to treat Mochizuki's claim as unproven.
• In 2014, author Russell Edwards has claimed to have proven that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, by DNA evidence. Other sicentists contradict his demonstration. No consensus. The ordinary reader is not able to judge with reasonable expense. There is no consensus. We have to treat the claim as such and not as a fact.

Ok. But the case of Otto Hitler's date of birth is very different - and I will soon explain in detail why. -- KnightMove ( talk) 01:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

So I don't know much about editing Wikipedia, but I do know about Hitler's family tree. And Otto was born in 1892 which can easily be determined by looking at the original birth registration today. Does Wikipedia put more emphasis on what a majority of scholars say rather than what the original, definitive document says? Stirling7 ( talk) 12:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is the original birth registration: https://data.matricula-online.eu/en/oesterreich/oberoesterreich/braunau-am-inn/106%252F1892/?pg=10 Stirling7 ( talk) 12:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's OR. we go by what the reliable sources say. If and when experts on the subject accept Ottos revised birthdate, then -- and only then -- will it appear in our article. In the meantime, I'm reverting your changes, as you have no consensus to make them, and they go against [[WP:RS}}. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

OR? This is cited by reliable secondary sources.

I have paused my attempt to explain the evidence for a lack of time (I want to make it literally fool-proof) - but I hope I will find the time today. -- KnightMove ( talk) 10:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's OR to look at the birth certificate and interpret it for oneself. Only a small number of sources (which may or may not be reliable) cite the revised date. The vast majority of reliable sources cite the original date. When the revised date is acceppted by a consensus of experts, it can then be added to the article. Until then, it's a WP:FRINGE contention. This is how Wikipedia works. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 12:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - would you be so kind to give Otto's date of birth (not only the year) in any of the reliable sources? -- KnightMove ( talk) 17:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Kershaw: Hubris p.4, "1887 (?)" / Ullrich: Ascent p.17, "1887" / Toland: Adolf Hitler p.10-11 "Autumn 1887" Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. So you agree that no source gives a date of birth for Otto, even though they do for all other Hitler children, as Toland does (to be seen e.g. in this PDF pf the German edition on p.27)? -- KnightMove ( talk) 05:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And your point is what? None give the date, but they all give the sequence of Otto being born the year after Ida, and dying after a small number of days. If what these sources say is true, than he cannot have been born in 1892. It's not a matter of "We gotta have a date, any date will do" it's a matter of proper historical sequence. Again, if and when a consensus of subject experts accepts a different date of borth for Otto, then and only then do we accept that date. Until then, we go with what the reliable sources say, which is what's in the article now. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that when 'reliable' sources are wrong, they still take precedence over the truth. That certainly works in the context of 2020. But I digress. I can understand why Wikipedia operates this way, but perhaps since it is evident these reliable sources are wrong and are just repeating what an earlier historian said, we should omit Otto's date altogether? Surely Wikipedia is meant to be more than a compendium of expert error? Stirling7 ( talk) 17:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't deal in "truth" here, it's much too slippery a concept. We deal with verifiable facts. If you can't come to terms with that, you really should be editing here. See WP:TRUTH. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Try and keep it classy Ken. Especially since your 'fact' (noun, a thing that is known or proved to be true) has been demonstrably unverified. You may want to expand your war to a second front: the German Wikipedia has also listed Otto as being born in 1892. Stirling7 ( talk) 02:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not been verified to our standards, and WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What an irony to quote the rules about verifiable facts and then ignore then invoking authorities.

German Wikipedia has taken over Otto's uncovered date of birth because this is a verified fact beyond reasonable doubt. -- KnightMove ( talk) 04:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Cite those sources, please. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Florian Kotanko is the "historian" responsible for the claim about the revised date of birth for Otto Hitler. He is not, in fact, a subject expert in any way that I can determine. According to this profile ( translated) He has no higher degrees, and only holds teaching certificates for Latin and history. He is "director of the Bundesgymnasium and Bundesrealgymnasium Braunau am Inn", which I assumes means that he is the headmaster, and the "Mag." in front of his name stands for "Magister", or "Master". Local history seems to be his hobby: the profile says "Beschäftigung mit Lokalgeschichte – 1993 Obmann des Vereins für Zeitgeschichte Braunau, der die Braunauer Zeitgeschichte-Tage veranstaltet." which is translated as "Occupation with local history - 1993 chairman of the Braunau Contemporary History Association, which organizes the Braunau Contemporary History Days". The Reuters story which reported his "discovery", picking up from a German-language paper ( Oberoesterreichische Nachrichten or "Upper Austrian News", which appears to be a regional paper published in Linz, Austria, Hitler's "hometown") refers to Kotanko as a "local historian". I am unable to find any other reliable news source which picked up on the story, unless you couunt the Daily Mail as a reliable source, which English Wikipedia does not.
  A search on Google Scholar for "Otto Hitler" "date of birth" got no hits, while a search on "Otto Hitler" "June 17, 1892" brought up one hit, which is to an earlier version of this article.
  In short, the claimant is not qualified as a historian, only Reuters and a local newspaper reported the discovery, and scholars are not falling all over themselves to revise their books or comment to the world. The claim is, and remains, just that, a claim, with little or no support from subject experts. Therefore, there is no reason to change the article at this time. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• So, in light of that, please cite all the reliable sources which support the claim of June 17, 1892 for Otto Hitler's birth date. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Serious question Ken, what is the WP definition of 'expert'? And how do we know Mr. Kotanko is not 'expert' in this subject, given that he is the only source in this discussion who points to the primary document, the birth registration? I'm also curious as to why it is so important to you to apply WP practices with such vigor on this very minor point of history, especially when we all know what the true date is. Over on the Alois Hitler page, on which you're also active, there is an entire paragraph of original research that has been left standing. Stirling7 ( talk) 14:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't "all know what the true date is", because none of us are experts in judging the provenance of the document in question. It wouldn't be the first time that a false document has been produced in relation to Hitler -- remember the " Hitler Diaries" that were discovered -- after they were published -- to be a complete and utter fraud. When experts -- not a local headmaster/amateur historian, who could well have been fooled by a slick con man -- examine the document and determine that it is indeed what it purports to be, and they publish their evaluations, then we report it. As for Alois Hitler, I'm not aware of what you're referring to, but I'll take a look --but remember WP:Other stuff exists. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I had quoted a reliable source in the article already, and you know that.

Hitler - prägende Jahre: Kindheit und Jugend 1889-1914 at Google Books - author Hannes Leidinger is a history scholar, and you can't deny him that.

Another source is Hitler's itinerary at Google Books by Harald Sandner, who took over Otto's new birthdate directly for his project to be published one year later. Here you can argue that author and book are not academic, but at least it is an independent source that has taken the new result over, and it has been published by a publisher dedicated to history.

Anyway: Even if you had known the first source, your claims "no expertise in the subject" and "has not been circulated by other news sources, nor have their been scholarly papers confirming the new date" are perfectly POV - and exactly the original research you claim you want to article prevent from. So, we have reached the level of satirical reality. -- KnightMove ( talk) 16:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And now, let's have a look at the source and the content. Here is the link again to Braunau's baptismal register containing Otto Hitler's date of birth. The website is dedicated to collect those baptismal registers, and the page in question is embedded into a full collection of Braunau's baptismal registers. I thnk there is no reason to doubt the authencity of the document. About Ken's claim: "It's OR to look at the birth certificate and interpret it for oneself." - as other people have done so, OR is not even the topic, and usually interpretation should be clear and easy. But I have to concede that this baptismal register provides a number of obstacles to the ordinary English reader of Wikipedia from recognizing the evidence for Otto Hitler's date of birth:

• The language is German, not English.
• The printed part of the document is written in Fraktur, somewhat different from modern Antiqua fonts; and the hand-written parts are in Kurrent, even more different from modern handwriting.
• The information in the document is splintered and not structured comfortably to the reader.
• And there are some local and contemporary conventions.

But still, there is no room for reasonable doubt, as I will deconstruct now with screenshots from the entry. Feel free to verify my translations in https://www.dict.cc or any dictionary of your choice.

• The page and additional content of the website set clear that this is a baptismal register of Braunau am Inn.
• This is the basic page information in the upper left corner:

So obviously this is a baptism register of 1892 with a consecutive number for the entries (i.e. the children), and the dates of birth and baptism are entered in the first two columns. Now let's have a look at entry 44:

So entry 44 is a child born on 17 June ("Juni" in German) and baptized on 18 June - as we know from the header, in 1892. But who was the child?

So, the "Name of the baptizand" (header) is Otto. There is an additional note that he has died on "23/6 892", i. e. 23 June 1892. The cross sign means "deceased" as a convention in German - verify in an arbitrary German Wikipedia article such as de:Helmut Kohl or any other source. The omittted 1 of 1892 is just a convention of the time, as it was usual to omit the first 2 digits in the late 20th century. Anyway, it is obvious that this does mean 1892 and not the real year 892 or anything else.

By now this could be any Otto, possibly unrelated to the Hitler family. But of course, there are also columns for the parents:

"Vater" und "Mutter" obviously mean father and mother. Who were they in Otto's case?

This long text in Kurrent is the hardest part. But even if you can't speak German and also can't properly read Kurrent, it is easy to identify the names of the parents: Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl. Especially the A and K do not look as we are used to, but check for verification in the Kurrent article. You also easily find the names of their ancestors, especially Maria Anna geb. [="geboren", born] Schicklgruber" near the bottom of Alois' entry.

So what does this mean? The document does prove that Alois and Klara Hitler had a son Otto, born 17 June 1892, baptized 18 June 1892, died 23 June 1892. I do not see room for questioning the authenticity or any reasonable doubt about the veracity. -- KnightMove ( talk) 18:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: Of course, you also find Adolf in the same baptismal register (on top of the page). -- KnightMove ( talk) 19:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

All of this is completely WP:OR, in that you're asking us to be the "expert" evaluating the material you've cited, when what we need is the "testimony" of actual experts about this material, and you have failed to provide that. Therefore, everything in the post above is completely irrelevant to us -- except that you have demonstrated that the document isn't obvious on its face, but requires a good deal of interpretation, something Wikipedia editors are not qualified to do, and -- in fact -- are not allowed to do.

I think that you need to re-read WP:OR and thoroughly understand what it says.

As Ive been saying all along, once the experts have weighed in on the supposed evidence, such as on the provenance of the document, and have assessed it to be accurate, and the conclusions drawn from it to be appropriate, then we can act. Until that happens, this information cannot be included in the article as factual. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Now at least this is clear to be an ultimate failure to communicate. -- KnightMove ( talk) 21:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not, it is a failure on your part to understand OR and RS. Sorry, but this is the end of my discussion here. Take it to WP:ORN if you want to try to convince other editors that your evidence isn't OR. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I will report your original research there. -- KnightMove ( talk) 06:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

For protocol: I finally have preferred Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Hitler_family, while Beyond My Ken followed up with Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Talk:Hitler_family#Otto_Hitler. -- KnightMove ( talk) 07:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• A report concerning this discussion has been filed on the No Original Research Noticeboard here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If its so obvious how come 60 years of Hitler scholership have no picked up on it? Sorry its OR.16:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Because Hitler's family history was based on post-war interrogations of Paula Hitler, who simply was wrong in this detail of family history prior to her birth. If historians searched for Otto's date of birth, they would do so in the wrong year - so of course they would not find it. Or what is your explanation that John Toland was able to state the dates of birth for all Hitler children except Otto?

And fairly obviously, the data confirming Otto's date of birth have not been available online for decades of Hitler scholarship. Hitler scholars did not spend a lifetime in Braunau - Florian Kotanko who uncovered Otto's entry in the baptismal register does live there, so he had much more time to search. Does this seem like a puzzler? -- KnightMove ( talk) 19:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Primary source is not the issue here. The issues -- which you continue to ignore -- are (1) That no expert has yet weighed in about the authenticity of the source you're relying on, all we have so far is the word of the non-expert who "discovered" it, and a book written by non-expert authors who reference it; and (2) Even if it is authentic, it still requires interpretation, which Wikipedia editors -- including you -- are not allowed by WP:Original research to do. Until actual real-life experts publish in books or journal articles that the document is authentic, and the new date is accepted by a consensus of scholars working in this subject area (not authors of a non-academic popular book), it's a date that cannot be presented on Wikipedia as a fact. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

But you are allowed to interpret primary sources and to explicitly state in the article that a person has "no expertise in the subject", even though there is no statement like this in any source and this is your interpretation, violating the rules you claim to protect. Well, well!-- KnightMove ( talk) 19:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I cited no primary sources, the bio on the discoverer addressed his educational credentials, and he has none that were appropriate, so he has no expertise. Stop throwing things at the wall to see what sticks please. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, the acceptance of this new date appears to be personal for you. That is not the case for me, I care only about Wikipedia's policies being followed. I do not much like being accused of breaking those policies, when that is not the case. Nothing that I've done has violated OR, NPOV or RS, and I'm pretty tired of hearing from you that it has -- this is simply not true, and it's starting to border on a violation of WP:No personal attacks, just as your refusal to understand other policies that have been explained to you is WP:IDNHT behavior. For these reason, I won't be participating in this discussion any longer. You can argue with yourself, or anyone else who comes along, but I've said what needs to be said, and I've said it many more times than I should ever have had to, due to your blinders. This does not mean that I will not continue to follow the article. If you attempt to change the date, or remove or change information without a consensus to do so on this talk page, I will revert your changes, and I will then bring your behavior to the attention of admins on the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand your desire to follow "policy". However I haven't been able to find a WP policy on 'experts' or even a definition of same. Can you please point me to that? Stirling7 ( talk) 15:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

As possible final comment I would like to point out that "the acceptance of this new date appears to be personal for you" is not the case. But I have been socialized in a language version of Wikipedia where creation of an encyclopedia plays the main role - not rigorously following rules that are supposed to help this aim, even in instances when this utterly fails and leads to outdated, falsified claims being carved in stone. -- KnightMove ( talk) 21:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting. I was trained in a Wiki-culture that requires actual proof as certified by subject experts, and does not rely on amateurs and personal observations by non-experts. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am here from the NOR noticeboard. Having read this page and the contributions there, it is my opinion that both dates of birth should be included, and that the academic source written by Hannes Leidinger and a co-author is absolutely unimpeachably a reliable source in terms of WP:RS, and that the source written by Harald Sandner probably is too. The Reuters source is also valid for the information it contains. I am quite surprised that any doubt has been cast on their validity tbh. The article should make clear that the older date is currently a majority position. Boynamedsue ( talk) 13:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It feels good that there are some more reasonable persons still around. -- KnightMove ( talk) 11:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Skews Peas left me messages on my talk page about the dispute. Anyway he told me about Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Ethnicity_in_infoboxes which stated: "The Wikipedia community has decided at this RfC not to allow the use of the ethnicity = parameter in infoboxes." (RFC is here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_127#RfC:_Ethnicity_in_infoboxes)

In my opinion, based on the RFC in which editors decided not to include an ethnicity field, it's justified to remove the ethnicity field from the infobox because it does not work anymore. User:Beyond My Ken, do you feel there should be an exception made in this case?

Ethnicity may be discussed in the article body.

WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The first thing to note is that I reverted Skew peas' edit because they made a number of changes. Some were OK, some were unnecessary and some were bad. I'm not sure why they chose to focus of this aspect of it. Second, my understanding is that ethnicity is not listed in the infobox when the place of birth implies the ethnicity of the subject. However, Austria was at the time a multi-ethnic place (it was not a nation, per se, but part of the Hapsburg Dual-Monarchy with Hungary), and being born in Austria did not imply any particular ethnicity. True, the majority of the population were ethnic Germans, but simply looking at this map will show that a person born in Austria at the time could be Czech, Slovene, Croatian, Italian, Polish, Ukrainian, or Slovak. Given that, specifying that the Hitler family were Austrian Germans is a fact which is worth putting in the infobox. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Beyond My Ken: Would it be OK if there was an inquiry about ethnicity in the infobox in the policy village pump? As for other changes, if they are constant throughout various edits one could ask on a relevant village pump about the particular changes and see if other editors agree or disagree with the changes. I noticed the use of {{nbsp}} and changes in spacing which I'm not sure why they were made. WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would bring this to the Village Pump, but be my guest. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Started: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Exceptions_for_ethnicity_field_being_deprecated? (I brought it there because the relevant RFC was at the policy village pump) WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)