Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/Archive 4

Dentist note
Regarding this removal of a note; it's relevant that the primary dentist cited as identifying remains wasn't present in Berlin. The short time period of 8–11 May when the dental remains were taken from the corpse to be identified (p. 47 of same ref) isn't enough time for mail to cycle, implying Blaschke maybe just described the teeth verbally. It's a 'detail', but considering its relevance to the main piece of evidence, all facts should be included for the reader to interpret. It's also somewhat relevant that detailed dental records went missing, although perhaps only because they were still able to use the less detailed records to match the remains. It's worth taking a look at the reference (p. 58) in determining what should be cited. UpdateNerd (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed if because a GA reviewer would very likely ask for its removal as being off-topic. Besides, there's no reason to assume that Blaschke was not in Berlin on 8-11 May simply because he (or his missing baggage) was supposed to be in Salzburg on 20 April. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * He was arrested by the Allies in Austria on 20 May, so it seems unlikely he would have returned to Berlin in the interim. The exclusion of the note (or more transparent phrasing) is somewhat misleading. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are making an assumption/drawing a conclusion as to Blaschke's whereabouts on the relevant dates, and we're not allowed to do that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a compromise edit that only mentions Blaschke's departure to Salzburg on 20/21 April (Joachimsthaler 1999, p. 98, Eberle & Uhl, p. 228), and lack of contact with his associates leading up to his arrest in Austria on 20 May (Joachimsthaler p. 226, 230). In the afterward, Eberle & Uhl say that Blaschke stated the remains were Hitler's on 11 May, but nothing about his location. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to mention his departure at all, since Eberle & Uhl say that Blaschke identified the remains on 11 May. "Why do we need this off-topic detail?" is the question a GA reviewer would ask. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No reason to include. Irrelevant and WP:OR. And see: NOTEVERYTHING. Lastly, he did not leave until the night of 21-22 April; Blaschke stated he had an hour to pack his things and leave; he last saw Hitler on 20 April and last saw Echtmann and Frau Heusermann on 21 April and they did not fly out of Berlin. Joachimsthaler 1999, p. 230. BTW- the page 98 cite only states Hitler ordered the staff to leave and most did over the next three days. And the Eberle & Uhl, p. 228, states he left on night of 21 April.
 * As for the dental X-rays, Joachimsthaler gives detail of what seems vexing to you, UpdateNerd. Blaschke on night of 21-22, packed "a small portable treatment set, files, notes,...the x-rays", which were put in the plane carrying Hitler and Eva's luggage and records. This aircraft crashed and besides the pilots, several of Hitler's SS bodyguard who were onboard were killed, as well. But, the now famous X-rays of Hitler and Eva from 1944 were not included. The 1944 x-rays were recovered by the US Army and re-discovered in 1972 in the National Archives; In December 1972, Prof. Reidar Sognnaes of UCLA and Prof. Ferdinand Stroem of Oslo University published their paper after scientifically tracing and documenting Hitler and Eva's dental remains (matching up to the 1944 X-rays). Thereby, confirming what Blaschke told US Army interrogators and what Heusermann and Echtmann told and confirmed with the Soviet interrogators (Joachimsthaler 1999, pp. 230–231). Kierzek (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cause of death
Cause of Hitler's death according to the majority of sources was gunshot would to the head, not cyanide. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC) From the article: Accounts differ as to the cause of death; one version stated that he died by poison only[g] and another view claimed he died by a self-inflicted gunshot while biting down on a cyanide capsule.[h] Contemporary historians have rejected these accounts as being either Soviet propaganda [i][j] or an attempted compromise in order to reconcile the different conclusions. [h][k]
 * Yes, but it's widely accepted that he was biting down on a cyanide capsule while shooting himself in the head. That's not propaganda, but the view that he died by poison alone is. "... we have a fair answer ... to the version of ... Russian author Lev Bezymenski ... Hitler did shoot himself and did bite into the cyanide capsule, just as Professor Haase had clearly and repeatedly instructed ... " (O'Donnell 2001, pp. 322–323)"
 * It's supported by The Death of Adolf Hitler—Forensic Aspects and a wealth of mainstream sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Soviets did not file a toxicology report on the remains, so you can't conclusively state that he bit down on a cyanide capsule. The Death of Adolf Hitler—Forensic Aspects, page 4. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. We shouldn't change the first paragraph concerning the actual cause of death, which was obviously gunshot. But the second paragraph misrepresents the facts, saying that the cyanide/gunshot combo was propaganda. The mainstream sources agree that he bit down on some sort of capsule. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. You are trying to inject something that is not the majority opinion, nor "widely held" or on par with the only one that is without any speculation and conjecture. And the fact is much of the Soviet autopsy has been disproven, as well. Please also refrain from these subjective changes without discussion first. Your editing on this article is really becoming disruptive. If it continues, you will be reverted. Kierzek (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The redundant note (I tried to remove) is confusing. It's cited as the viewpoint that he died by the cyanide/gunshot combo, then confusingly cited again as a Soviet attempt at reconciling conflicting info. James P. O'Donnell isn't Russian, nor does the note summarize the preceding sentence. The Fest note is sufficient.
 * Regarding the earlier change, you're right, I was wrong. But I'm not trying to "inject" anything, I was simply wrong about the facts. The above note I pointed out is probably why I was confused. Please assume good faith of your fellow editors. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Diannaa and Kierzek, the status quo is preferable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * UpdateNerd, I do assume good faith with editors, until the evidence shown by their actions, state otherwise. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was in error regarding mentioning the cyanide combo in the first paragraph and admit I should have brought it here first. However, the BRD process has been followed, so there's no reason for harsh feelings. To stay on a constructive point, and following BRD again, do you disagree that the repeated appearance of the O'Donnell note in the second paragraph is self-contradictory, since you reverted that edit without explanation? UpdateNerd (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), when read in context. The first time being the example for readers of "another view" (with its speculation and conjecture) and second time for "attempted compromise" between the proven account and Soviet propaganda. There is a good reason it is there twice. This is my last comment on this. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The first instance represents the viewpoint of the combined causes of death; the second is the editor's POV that "Contemporary historians have rejected these accounts as ... an attempted compromise." Which contemporary historians? The adjacent Fest note only refers to the poison-only story. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop pushing your personal theories about Hitler's death in Wikipedia, and follow established consensus decisions. Your editing of this article is on the verge of becoming disruptive, and may well be the subject of an ANI report if you do not bring your behavior into line with Wikipedia norms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a personal theory. I'm trying (my best) to improve the representation of the RS, which is a top priority on any Wikipedia article. In times of conflict, I find it best to assume good faith, and focus on the issues at hand. Cheers UpdateNerd (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have shown repeatedly that your understanding of this subject is flawed, so you should most definitely not be re-writing the text in this Good Article to match your understanding. This is especially the case given the views you expressed at Talk:Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death which showed that you subscribe to some of these theories.  Once again, your editing of this article has become disruptive, and if you continue in this manner, I will instigate a request for a topic ban for you from editing this subject.  Because I am on vacation, this may not happen immediately, but it will happen if your behavior doesn't change.This is now the third warning I have given you, so you have no excuse not to understand just what is expected of you. This subject matter is historically important, it's not like editing articles on Star Wars, where you can probably get away with crap like this.Do not ignore this warning, please stop editing these articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Past mistake aside, what's the justification for this revert? Just based on the actual framing to match the sources please. Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The previous wording was better, and past mistakes cannot be put aside when their cause continues to be seen in current edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was more than a change of wording; I believe the meaning was changed to more accurately reflect the sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You believe incorrectly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Although this seems to be an unconstructive discussion, I will point out that O'Donnell is being used in the article to argue with himself, and walk away. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential merge
Comparing Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death to this article, there is little not overlapping or restating information already here. I believe just incorporating the experts' dismissal of theories e.g. Grey Wolf would suffice. Otherwise there's not much except additional references which may strengthen this article. Should there be any interest, the other article should be tagged to alert its editors of the proposal — but this GA probably shouldn't be tagged either way. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they should not be merged. It’s not a content fork. It’s a related article, but this article deals in fact. The other one doesn’t. This article deals with the events leading up to his death, his death and what happened to his remains afterwards. The other one deals with conspiracy theories. It’s not uncommon to have conspiracy theory articles, for example, there’s one on John F. Kennedy and one on Robert F. Kennedy as well. And I’m sure there are others.  They are separate articles. Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with a merger. Placing conspiracy theories on this page would give the impression that such content should be given equal weight with actual factual content. A wikilink will suffice. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kierzek and Diannaa, the articles are about two different, albeit related, subjects, and should not be merged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree with a merge. Support User:Kierzek and User:Diannaas lines of argumentation. One is factual, the other deals with wild conspiracy theory. Never the twain shall meet in a single article, especially in an article of this sensitivity. The reader must come first, and it is our duty to provide clarity. This will at best, muddy waters. At most a wikilink, and that's pushing it I.M.O. Irondome (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with a merge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.155.118 (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * — 50.80.155.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose a merge. This could lead to an ambiguous conflation of content within the two articles, leading to an inappropriate intermingling of factual content versus theoretical content. North America1000 05:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Article appendices layout
A problem is that this article presently does not conform to MOS:FOOTERS at all, which states:

"When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with, followed by the various footers. When it is useful to sub-divide these sections (for example, to separate a list of magazine articles from a list of books), this should be done using level 3 headings instead of definition list headings, as explained in the accessibility guidelines."

As the Appendices sections presently exist in the article (link), they are formatted exactly opposite as they should be per MOS, lumped together under a single header and not appearing in the article's table of contents. In my view, it is important for Wikipedia to be consistent, which makes its use easier for readers; people know what to expect as they navigate the site. MOS formatting will also make the article much easier to navigate. After all, at MOS:MAIN it states:

"The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting, making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for users."

– North America1000 08:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I respect your personal opinion that Wikipedia should be consistent, but there is no Wikipedia policy that says this must be the case. If it were, articles about composers would all have infoboxes.  Please remember that MoS is only a guideline, and is neither policy nor mandatory, and that it cannot be forced to be be followed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the article be formatted per MOS:FOOTERS or not?

 * Support as per the above. Also, this article has an average of 3,600 page views per day, so standard formatting comes across to me as the best way for the article to be presented to the reading public. North America1000 08:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no preferred version for setting reference sections. The current format is appropriate. NorthAmerica1000, please be careful re: WP:Harassment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * it seems clear to me that MOS:FOOTERS is obviously the preferred means for Appendices to be formatted. MOS has been decided by WP:CONSENSUS. Sorry, but this discussion is not about you, it's about the article, and immediately quoting a behavioral guideline and saying to "be careful" is way off base. You can feel free to talk to me on my talk page if you're actually somehow offended, but your behavioral approach here is quite inappropriate. Now, I will wait and check-in now and then to see what other users think about the matter of how the article is formatted. North America1000 11:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This and this similar article have a standard "Further reading" section link. If there were precedent for its omission on other pages, there might be justification for it. But the MoS clearly states that pseudo-headings are reserved for description lists. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because MoS is not mandatory, and are merely guidelines, there is no true "Wikipedia house style". If you want there to be one, you must vote to make MoS a policy.  Until then, it's subject to variation depending on circumstances, based on WP:IAR -- in other words, appeals to MoS, if disputed, must provide evidence and logical reasoning in their favor for evaluation by other editors for consensus approval, just like any other disputed edit. That MoS exists does not mean it must be followed or that it is automatically correct.  This is something that Wikipedia editors of all kinds need to wrap themselves around: either make it policy, or don't, but do not raise to to the level of de facto policy by forcing it to be followed. That destroys the differences between a guideline and a policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't a policy, because there are occasional style issues that the MoS couldn't have foreseen. Being a very well-vetted GA, some areas of this article may fit that category, and supersede guidelines laid down for the status quo. However, there are accessibility issues to keep in mind, keeping in mind that pseudo-headings are labelled an 'abuse' of semi-colon markup. Combining the notes into a "Informational notes" subcategory stands out as the only non-controversial change. From the MoS lead: If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence. Also, "editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The disputed changes are a personal preference, and do not benefit the article as a whole. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not correct at all. Once again -- as with your editing on this article and on Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death -- you're simply making things up to align them with what you think is the case, but it's simply not true. In point of fact, your experience on Wikipedia is much too limited, and your understanding of how Wikipedia works, and why it works that way too flawed for you to be productively participating in discussions such as this.  You really ain't got a clue, bub. For instance, semi-colons are not being used to make pseudo-headers, which you would know if you have examined the article.   And you conveniently overlooked this from the very top of  every  MoS page: "'This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply ."Please try to hold your comments on things you know little or nothing about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course occasional exceptions may apply, that's implied by its status as a guideline. But exceptions don't just apply whenever someone wants them to, otherwise there would be no consistency on Wikipedia. The fact that you didn't specifically use semi-colons is irrelevant, because they're not the standardized "==" headings used for accessibility.
 * I'm just making a point. You're welcome to make your case, but please refrain from insults or name-calling toward other editors. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "I'm just making a point" Yes, as is usually the case with your comments, the point is not at all on point, something thst you repeatedly fail to recognize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Further reading section
I am of the opinion that the article's Further reading section should be a separate section, as per WP:ORDER. Another user recently combined the Further reading section to be a subsection of the references section (diff), but this goes against the grain of WP:ORDER. The combined sections also obfuscates the various sources in the article into one lump section, and as it was performed using bold typeface, rather than headers, it omits the various sections from the article's table of contents, making navigation more difficult for readers. So, requesting input here. Furthermore, looking through the article's revision history, a separate Further reading section has been the status quo for the article, rather than vice versa. North America1000 02:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As per my edit summary here, all of the information in the "References: section are references of one sort or another. "Informational notes" give information or clarification, "Citations" or "Notes" give citations from sources, "Bibliography" gives those sources used in the preparation of the article, and "Further reading" refers the reader to additional sources of information.  It's quite clear that what is listed at "Further reading" is additional to the bibliography, and was not used to write the article -- it's stuff that the reader can go to if they want further information.  Putting "Further reading" into a separate section not only makes no logical sense, it puts too much emphasis on this material, which did not contribute to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Further reading" is additional to the article's contents, and therefore not referred to by it. You are using the word in a different context, which is not obvious to the reader (or similar to any Wikipedia article I've seen). Either way, the single "external link" is an article, and it should be incorporated to "Further reading". Keep in mind that I've respected guidelines not to make an edit which is currently being disputed, and I only state this for consensus. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Biederitz
I added some clarification re the dumping site and left a comment there, repeated here: see de:Biederitz article for more detailed discussion/sources. The exact spot may have been tracked down to a bridge called "Pig Bridge" (Schweinebrücke) by locals today, and possibly this name goes back to before 1970 and even WW2, in which case the Magdeburg KGB leadership would likely have been aware of the toponym. So the choice may have been deliberate irony, but this is just speculation.

If correct, it can reconcile Beevor's "sewers" with Vinogradov et al.'s "river" - the "river" at Biederitz is for technical reasons a Kanal in German, which can indeed be a vague equivalent of "sewer" (properly Abwasserkanal or Kanalisation but colloquially or if the context is clear you'd just say Kanal). It can also mean "channel", "canal" etc, but this easily gets lost in translation. (the "river" at at Biederitz is actually an Elbe channel that has been made into an overspill canal.) de:Biederitz has sources; I have not seen them, but as far as the maps go the "Pig Bridge" is a tempting candidate. Of course, unless it's in the de: sources, to state this is the site would be OR. In any case even if some nonscholarly source states it so, I'd probably would still want to see it clarified how long the bridge toponym has been used (or at least when the bridge was built there). Beevor may still be right in a literal sense contra V. et al. and the KGB may simply have dumped it down the drain. (Then again, they should know better. I am just a biologist, not a mass murderer or forensic anatomist or wetwork agent, but it's really hard to incinerate a bunch of human corpses, even if kinda ripe, and expect the remains to flush well. You get some bucketfuls of cloggy mush and you'd really need a sewer manhole, not a toilet. The KGB would be aware of this As per Benecke & Benecke (in de:Biederitz) there is yet another river at Biederitz which is a straightforward Elbe tributary (de:Ehle), but in fact it is concurrent with the canal/channel there, so the two names refer to the same watercourse at this point. Anyway, the proposed site is here: File:Schweinebrücke.jpg. I think it is 52° 9'7.56"N 11°42'20.76"E, that would be the first "river" after the Elbe when taking the road from Magdeburg to Biederitz, and File:Umflutkanal.jpg is probably taken from the bridge. There is a rail bridge and another bridge on the main road further south, but the main road does not directly lead to Biederitz and the rail bridge does not seen accessible by car and barely if at all by foot. So there is indeed one (and I think only one) site that tallies (albeit a bit awkwardly) with Beevor, Benecke & Benecke, and Vinogradov et al. Every source made a slight misunderstanding, but none claim anything utterly irreconcilable. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Redundant note
Following the second sentence there is a redundant note: b ends: "with blood dripping out of his right temple. He had shot himself with his own pistol, a PPK 7.65." c: "... blood dripped from a bullet hole in his right temple ..."

The same thing is established in both notes. All that's 'added' in the second is that the blood was dripping from a "bullet hole", but that is already made explicit by including that it was from his PPK 7.65 in the previous note. The second note is superfluous, and should be removed. (The Kershaw page range the quote is from is the first reference anyways, so really nothing is lost by removing it.) UpdateNerd (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a reason for it here; as the archives of the talk page clearly show. What you don't seem to understand is that in the past Hitler's method of suicide was a hotly contested point and frankly, still is a contested point with some people; even with the totality of the facts presented. Thereby, the facts need to be well established and strong on this point. See WP:V. Along with being clearly presented for readers. Given the article subject and nature it should stay. Further, it was agreed to include this when the article passed GA. There is no consensus to change it at present. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We talked about this as part of GA prep. I objected to the quotations that were included in the citations; I thought it was excessive. Kierzek disagreed, because this is still such a hot topic, even after all these years. I suggested moving the quotes to an explanatory notes section. Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler/Archive 3. I think we should leave it alone. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like it should be a regular reference. Notes shouldn't just repeat the previous note. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * True; "shot himself with his own pistol, a PPK 7.65" and "a bullet hole" are just rephrasing the same thing at different detail level. However, the publishing date of the sources is still relevant in the scope of the historical controversy mentioned by Diannaa & Kierzek. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Both notes are from 2008. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Simpler introductory sentence
In this edit I simplified the lead slightly and combined the first two sentences. This isn't the main article on Hitler, so it doesn't need to summarize his career. The rephrasing also sidesteps the awkwardness of describing him as German when his nationality was Austrian. I also feel it would help the reader get to the article's subject sooner by rephrasing lines such as "who was ... from 1933 to 1945" to simply "who became ... in 1933", since he remained in those positions until his death. Simplicity for the sake of readers is a good thing, especially when dealing with information that is precursory to the article's subject. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the current version is good, as it's clear and simple. Most of the readers on this topic are high school students encountering the subject for the first time, so I don't think it's amiss to introduce a few basic facts right from the start. We don't actually know which article they might visit first, so a bit of background info at the top of this article is a Good thing in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm curious how you deduced that most of the article's readers are high school students coming to the subject for the first time. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In Canada (where I live) people learn about this topic for the first time in high school. I assume it is the same in other countries... But supporting my assumption that most of our readers are students is the fact that page views are higher on weekdays (when school is in session) than on weekends (when it is not). This phenomenon is more noticeable in the second half of the school year (January through June). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can see on the main article (page views for Adolf Hitler) a very pronounced trend towards weekday viewing that ends suddenly when classes let out in June. The trend is also present on this article (page views for Death of Adolf Hitler). For Nazi Germany the trend is weekday page views throughout the school year (September through June) (page views for Nazi Germany). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Diannaa: Thanks for that, you opened up some uses for the pageview facility that I had not thought about before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Here in the US, things like Hitler's death are such common knowledge that it wasn't ever taught in my curriculum. WWII was barely ever mentioned. The focus of US History was on its origins/Founding Fathers. Some things may have changed in the past decade and a half, but I learned about Hitler/WWII from movies (including Indiana Jones and Star Wars!) and from family who was alive at the time. Not an untrue education, but steeped in mythology. Based on the assumption that everyone knows who Hitler was/when he died, I made my suggested edit.
 * So, a tad presumptive what age it's being taught at; I think middle school is a possibility as well; pretty much any one old enough to use Wikipedia probably knows who AH was, but objectively I think we should avoid such assumptions and keep the lead based on the subject (the death of Hitler, not the person). Remember that the lead should summarize the article, and none of his rise to power is accounted for in the body. We shouldn't assume anything about the reader's prior knowledge or lack thereof, and anyways, the first two words are a wikilink to the bio page. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know where in the US you're from, but Hitler's death was never any part of the curriculum when I attended primary and secondary schools in the Northeast. In fact, WWII was barely covered at all - the emphasis on history was, throughout, from the colonies through the Revolutonary War, skipping to the Civil War, and then grazing World War I.  In high school, a bit of WWII, but very limited coverage, and I can't recall Hitler's death being mentioned even once - and I was an "A" student.I concur with Diannaa's analysis about who our audience is, and that the lede should stay the way it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't covered in my curriculum either, as I stated. It was considered common knowledge, so it didn't seem to be needed to be taught in schools. Surely you knew he was the leader of the Nazi Party long before HS? UpdateNerd (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, considering your attachment to conspiracy theories about Hitler not dying in the bunker, it should have been taught in your schools. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If WWII topics are not being covered in some/many schools, all the more reason to include a little background info. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For future thought, consider articles such as Death of Benito Mussolini, Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Death of Osama bin Laden, and such. Mussolini is an example of not including any background info despite being less well-known than Hitler (IMO), while the Bin Laden article is closer to my proposal (incorporating background and a summary of the article's subject in one sentence). But happy to walk away as the consensus seems not be going in my direction. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Coming in on this very late, as I have been away for a few days (real life called). Anyway, agree with no change for reasons stated above. I also thank Dianna for her input. I can tell you that when I was in HS, nothing was taught as far as WWII or Hitler (Nazism); and little has changed; and just because something is not taught in HS does not mean it is because it is thought to be "common knowledge". Often times today other aspects take up class time and from what I have read in my kids HS history books, they spend much more time on "social studies" of our country, than teaching history. Kierzek (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the preceding discussion. While I don't necessarily agree, I respect the consensus process. On a related note, this and this edit (not mine) point out the oddness of stating that Hitler was "a German politician". It is sufficient to state that he was the leader of the Nazi party, as he was only a soldier before, not someone who was pursuing politics in a traditional manner. Calling a mass murderer/notorious dictator a mere "politician" is weak wording IMO. Furthermore, he was born in Austria, so we shouldn't misrepresent his nationality just because he was dictating in Germany. My preference is the first link I shared, which removes the contentious text. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hitler dead" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hitler dead. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Bezymensky's "deliberate lies"
I clarified that per the Eberle & Uhl ref, Bezymensky seems to be speaking more generally, though the theories were proven untrue. Per Eberle & Uhl, as cited: "Lev Besymenski, the leading protagonist of the poisoning and coup de grace theories who published successful books on the death of Hitler in 1968 and 1982, excused himself in 1995 for having told 'deliberate lies'." Though the subject is described as supporting the two disproven theories, I don't think it specifies what the author was calling 'deliberate lies'. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, your changes are becoming disruptive (as I stated on your talk page - here ) and are very subjective. Please think about that. The block quote explains two of the propaganda lies injected into the so-called autopsy report and Besymenski "book" put out under the guidance of the KGB in 1968. I can write more later if need be, but real life work calls, at present. Kierzek (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

In response to this, because details of the book's veracity are irrelevant to this article. The "deliberate lies" part only serves to support the portion of the lead that says the Soviet Union presented various versions of Hitler's fate; this is already substantiated in the body. As to Bezymensky's downgrading of his book—although the source doesn't specify which title he was talking about—readers can find that out at the The Death of Adolf Hitler page where it's relevant. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not acceptable. You're essentially attempting to whitewash the book, and that will not be allowed.  As I've said numerous times in the past your inherent bias means that you should not be editing this article at al.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per consensus rules, I don't object to your objection, but my attempted edit was really about keeping to more relevant information in the article, away from WP:SYNTH (again, Eberle & Uhl's afterward never specifies which of Bezymensky's books he was talking about), and most importantly fixing the flow. The topic is already mentioned in an earlier paragraph, and it doesn't help the reader understand anything by sandwiching this mostly irrelevant and pretty vague information between two sentences about a different document entirely. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not irrelevant at all. And it is clear what Eberle & Uhl are talking about in relation to Bezymenski and frankly, I could add more criticism of both Bezymenski and the so-called "autopsy report" findings, based on Joachimsthaler and the recent book by Brisard and Parshina. Kierzek (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:BADHEAD
This has already been explained per MOS:BADHEAD. See this reversion. That said, I'm not against the acceptable Pseudo-heading for subsections such as 'Books' and 'Articles'. But hiding the 'Further reading' main section or 'Bibliography' subsection has no precedent in the MOS or other articles and is unacceptable formatting. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, UpdateNerd, you do not WP:OWN this article, or Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, both of which you have consistently shown OWNERSHIP behavior about. Nor are you the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable in formatting references. There is no one accepted way of organizing refs, and, as always, MOS is a guideline, and is not mandatory. I suggest that your previous behavior regarding this article disqualifies you from making a balanced judgment concerning it, and you should back off from editing it, or attempting to control it in any way, shape, or form. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you should perhaps take your own advice regarding ownership, since you are already changing the topic from the MOS issue at hand. The MOS is indeed a guideline, but also states "If any contradiction arises, this page always has precedence." We could get into the MOS 'rules' about edit-warring (but those are just guidelines), but I think the actual content about how to format section headings supersedes that. A GA should conform to the established style per MOS:STYLEVAR, not be ignored because one editor likes an arbitrary and unproven style which lacks the support of the MOS. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is more of a matter of local article consensus. Kierzek (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely a factor as well, but I've only seen one editor in favor of the change. With this article, there's a long list of footnotes, citations, bibliography and further reading with multiple subsections, so using the non-accessible formatting is really not acceptable IMO. It might be easy to overlook on a desktop browser, but when using the site on mobile it makes a big difference. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not feel strongly as to using one presentation or the other. That is why I have not gotten involved before in the discussion. Kierzek (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer normal section headers rather than pseud-headers, because it makes it easy to copy a properly formatted book citation to another article when I am adding a source. But I don't feel strongly enough about it to edit war with a highly helpful editor about it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent Evidence
I think the article is dated and does not include recent evidence (skull remains analysis by American Dentist 2009 fount to be for a woman), and a recently unclassified CIA document that suggest Hitler was alive after the war whereby he fled to South America and reportedly survived at least to the early 1960s https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/HITLER%2C%20ADOLF_0003.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.131.124.21 (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, but it actually does incorporate all that info with due balance. There's also an article for conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, as noted above, all of that is included in this article and so is the most recent scientific work by Dr. Charlier who stated, "When doing a diagnostic of the skull, you have a 55 per cent chance of getting the sex right. So, the older 2009 study mentioned above is really not conclusive; and even if it was, it does not change the facts. Dr. Charlier confirmed that teeth on one of the jawbone fragments were in "perfect agreement" with an X-ray taken of Hitler in 1944. Also, if one really reads the CIA and FBI docs, you will see they report there were "many possible leads that Hitler might still be alive, while lending none of them credence". The latest work on the subject, published 2018, is also included. Kierzek (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This evidence is full of Adolf Hitler. I strongly advise the editor to see an article about the death of Adolf Hitler, as noted above. SeifED23 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Kershaw 2001 cites
Sorry, I meant to mention something about fixing it if the page number was incorrect on that midnight wedding note. For all the other citations using Kershaw 2001, the page # is from the single-volume version. If you can provide a fragment of the quote from the source, I can find the equivalent page number via Amazon or Google Books.UpdateNerd (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. There is no need to change the source.  The two volume work is actually more authoritative than the single volume.  Do not change the reference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no 2001 version of the one-volume biography: it was first published in 2008. My citation is from volume 2 of the two-volume biography, which was published in 2001. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BMK is correct that the combined single volume came out in 2008. As to the earlier two volume editions being “more authoritative”, no. But this latter comment is not the main point. If something is cited to one of the two volume editions, it should be remain so; if cited to the latter single edition of 2008, it should remain so. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kierzek: Just curious as to why a one volume reduction of a two-volume biography would be more authoritative. The difference of 7 years between the publication of volume 2 of the two-volume, and the publication of the single volume version is not a lot of time, and -- I assume -- would have been primarily spent in the necessary editing for length without losing any important information, and not spent in additional research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say one was better than the other, only that the 2 volume book set was not "more authoritative"; this given the only real difference in the latter 2008 edition is that it lacks the "Notes" section. Kierzek (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the conflict is actually between the two-volume and single-volume edition. There's a US version and an "international" version, released about a month apart. The US version, which the majority of the cites are from, is listed on Amazon as coming out on September 17, 2001. The UK edition is listed as October 30, 2001. I've been citing the former version, while I believe BMK has been citing the latter.
 * Incidentally, I don't think it does any good to set the 'volume' field to 2 for the Nemesis citation. Nemesis is the second volume; it was never split. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The ones I have as to the two volume editions:
 * Kierzek (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so it just appears different regions have different ISBNs. At some point, we should double-check some of those page numbers to make sure they don't vary across regions. And in the long term, it could help to migrate citations away from the 2008 collection. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "2008 collection". And there is no reason to change the cites as to the single 2008 edition. Kierzek (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Same thing, it's a collected volume. As I said, I think we should change them from the 2008 edition, so it's clearer which of the 2 works originally published around 1998–2000 are being cited. But more importantly, we should verify that we don't need to include a "loc=" tag in the Sfn references specifying different page numbering for different regions. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Same thing, it's a collected volume. As I said, I think we should change them from the 2008 edition, so it's clearer which of the 2 works originally published around 1998–2000 are being cited. But more importantly, we should verify that we don't need to include a "loc=" tag in the Sfn references specifying different page numbering for different regions. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

In the "Preface"to the single volume Hitler: A Biography, Kershaw writes that, aside from losing the "scholarly apparatus" (notes, etc/) of Hubris and Nemesis, he also removed over 650 pages, or more than 300,000 words, of the text, while staying true to the original. (The two volumes together had, according to Kershaw, 1,450 pages of text, while the single volume has 969 pages.) The abridgment is the only reason that I characterized the two volume set as "more authoritative" than the one volume version, and why I prefer to use it for citations over the single volume Biography, although given the quality of Kershaw's work, there is absolutely no reason not to consider the single volume book as anything but reliable and authoritative, an unimpeachable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To return to the original issue, I had changed the page number for the wedding timing to 1034 of Nemesis (which you interpreted as a change to the 2008 Biography). That's a page of footnotes which has that specific information. Page 823 in my edition is about later in the same night, but not the wedding. Does that align to what's in the 'international' edition? UpdateNerd (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Page 1034 of Nemesis in my edition (first American hardcover edition) is not a page of text, it is a page of notes. The point is, do not change references added by other editors unless you have a damn good reason to do so, and if you do think there is a problem with a ref, contact the editor to find out what's going on, don't go off half-cocked -- as you have a tendency to do -- and change it on your own, since doing so is disruptive, and can be the cause of annoying discussions such as this one, which would have been totally unnecessary if not for your action.It has been suggested before that you you should be topic banned from this article and the one on conspiracy theories, because you just can't seem to control your impulses to fiddle with them constantly. By dong this, you're just bringing that sanction closer to being official suggested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So... it is the American edition, like the other cites, which I showed by changing the ISBN from the UK version. I still don't see the info on page 823. Since you can't even stand my edits you agree with without redoing them yourself, maybe you can save us both time by doing the rest of the work at your leisure. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "823" is a typo, it's on page 821. Are you actually incapable of turning a page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Page 1034 is a numbered page from the Notes to Chapter 17 (part of the "1,450 pages"); it is a written analysis by Kershaw. And page 821 is correct, above. Kierzek (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Prussic acid
I changed “prussic acid (the aqueous form of hydrogen cyanide)” by removing “the aqueous form”. Hydrogen cyanide, HCN, is a liquid that boils at 26°C. When dissolved in water (the aqueous form), it is referred to as hydrocyanic acid. Prussic acid is an old name that can be considered synonymous with “hydrogen cyanide”, but it can also refer to an aqueous solution. (Analogously, HCl, hydrogen chloride, is a gas at room temperature; in aqueous solution it is hydrochloric acid, and it was formerly called “muriatic acid”.)

What Linge smelled was HCN vapor, which has a potent smell of almonds. I don’t know what the capsule contained. Pure HCN is the logical choice; potassium cyanide is slower, but still would result in the almond smell because it reacts with acid to form HCN.

The chemistry isn’t relevant here, so I kept “prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide)” rather than “hydrogen cyanide (also known as prussic acid).” In German, incidentally, the terms Cyanwasserstoff, Cyanwasserstoffsäure, and Blausäure correspond respectively to hydrogen cyanide, hydrocyanic acid, and prussic acid. Prussic acid was named for a blue pigment, Prussian Blue (Berliner Blau in German). The terms are often unclear in historical works, which is why I thought I’d elaborate here. Roches (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Engvar, or something
I see the article is marked as being in BrE. The being the case, is the stuff that was sifted in the garden, etc, actually dirt or soil? If the article were really in BrE I would expect soil but I am not up for a fight over it.

More worryingly, we are not consistent on -ise vs -ize spellings. I am not repeat not taking a position here on one of those being better or more correct BrE than the other; it is not. What I do like is consistency, though – surely we should flip all to the perfectly valid BrE spelling -ize or to the equally valid -ise, but not leave it as a mix which just isn't nice, nise or even nize. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the article is marked as BE, we should use the "-ise" form throughout. I wasn't aware of a difference in usage re: "soil" and "dirt", but if what you say is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then "soil" would be preferable, although I believe that Joachimsthaler uses "dirt", perhaps because his discussion of the sifting begins in relationship to an American report.  BE throughout, no objection here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed "dirt" to "soil". I couldn't find any instances of "-ize" usage except "theorizes", which I understand is the standard Oxford BE spelling?  Maybe I'll change it to "postulates"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * edit conflict. Joachimsthaler wrote in his native language, German. It was translated by Helmut Bogler. British English should be used for the article, as it is marked accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have an Oxford Dictionary here, and for British usage, it says "soil" is what we should use. I've run the EngvarB script over the article and it fixed a few things— Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What script, and is there one for AmE? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js will give you four variants: American, Commonwealth (EngvarB), Oxford, and Canadian.— Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you! Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all, for this great response. I feel it's a real improvement, and I thank you for your tolerance. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Garden sifting
There was no source cited for the garden-sifting through dirt for dental remains, also please do share. I appreciate the recent clarification as to the state the bodies were found in. The Joachimsthaler book isn't easily accessible online so a quote and specific page number supporting this detail would be appreciated. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in Joachimsthaler. I'll find the page later.  a quote is not necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a copy and skimmed through chapter 5 Disposal of the Bodies and could not find anything about sifting through the dirt. In fact Joachimsthaler seems to say the opposite - that it would have been pretty impossible to do while the shelling was going on, and after a while it would have been difficult to impossible to even identify the specific crater where the bodies had been burned. Testimony of Otto Günsche on page 224 is interesting, and on page 225 he speculates as to why did the Russians take photos of Goebbels' shrunken corpse and not Hitler's remains? the simplest explanation is that there was no corpse per se. "The place where the corpses were placed lay under heavy artillery fire, with napalm and all kinds of calibres, so it is not surprising that nothing of Hitler was ever found." Page 225. That's all I have time for right now - I have a booking at the gym.— Diannaa (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way the index is useless; it's just a list of names.— Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the index is impossible, the same for Fest's Hitler. J. deals with the sifting earlier, on page 29, when discussing William F. Heimlich.  Heimlich (briefly deputy chief of staff of Am. intelligence in Berlin) wrote an article in which he said that he (or his investigators) sifted through the dirt and found nothing.  J. says "It must be noted that this is exactly what the Russians actually did do, and Heimlich is possibly 'confusing' his own work with that of the Russians. This is precisely how the Russians discovered the dentured of Hitler and Eva Braun.  It was never reported that American experts conducted the same kind of investigation in the garden of the Chancellery."  The sifting took place after the battle was over, so no shelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I remember that J. mentions the sifting again later in the book, but I can't find it. However, on p. 231, he writes: "Long before[December 1972], but kept secret on Stalin's orders, Dr. Blaschke's dental assistant Käthe Heusermann and dental technician Fritz Echtmann had identified bridges the Russians had found among the remains of about 13 to 15 corpses scattered near the bunker exit during their intensive search for Hitler's body between 4 and 8 May."  He goes into detail about their testimony concerning the identification, and then deals with whether the bridges would have survived the immolation of the bodies, concluding that they would have.So, in summary, the Russians never found Hitler's and Braun's bodies, which is consistent with eyewitnesses who said that the had been burned to ash.  (The one credible eyewitness who testified to trying to move the remains said that they broke up when he nudged them with his foot.)   There are no eyewitnesss to any burying of the remains, although one officer reported to Mohnke that he had done so, after being order to.  But in any case, there was no digging up and re-burying of corpses after the fact because there were no corpses to dig up.  The Russians did find the dentures by sifting the dirt, but never had a skull from which the jaw was separated, as some Soviet accounts claim. Most every other claim is simply Soviet disinformation.Incidentally, the index isn't the only problem with Joachimsthaler's book.  It's poorly written, badly organized, and he never misses a chance to diss other authors, include poor old Trevor-Roper, who -- I think -- did an excellent job under trying circumstances.  J's arguments and evidence are completely convincing, but the book itself was a trial to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Joachimsthaler's book is "poorly written"; it is a wealth of information and analysis. It is just not written in a style that most reader's are accustomed, so it can be more of a "trial to read" (unless one compares it to Melville's 'Moby-Dick"). So, it reads more like a treatise or law horn book, such as Prosser and Keeton on Torts. I agree it could have been organized better and he does give Trevor-Roper some positive credit (such as on page 225), at times. Still as Kershaw has said, the best book on the subject of Hitler and Eva's death and aftermath. Kierzek (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't disagree with you at all about the value of the book, and the quality of the evidence and the argumentation, I just thought that the writing was poor -- of course, that could be the fault of the translator as well. Martin Brozat, for instance, is an excellent historian, and I've read translations of his works that were fluid and easily understood, but at least one of his books was so poorly translated (and I believe it was published by the translator) that I regularly grimaced while reading it.  But the writing on J.'s The Last Days... is really not as much of a problem as the way the material is organized, and that would be less of a problem if, as Diannaa said, the index was good.  In the long run, the book is as Kershaw described it, the best book on the suicide its aftermath.  I would call it definitive at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The body of the article still discusses moving the bodies about, in the paragraph that starts "In early June 1945..." Beyond My Ken, do you have time to look it over and see what needs to be done to fix it? — Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was planning on getting to the body of the article this weekend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Joachimsthaler most definitely does not say that any part of the Hitler's or Braun's skulls, except for the dentures, were part of the remains. In fact he scornfully dismisses it as a possibility, on the grounds that if the Russians had skulls, or even skull fragments, why the hell would they pull the dentures out instead of displaying the dentures in the skulls? Certainly the dental identification wouldn't have been in any way hindered by the dentures being in situ, and any part of an intact skull could have been compared to the existing x-rays.  He concludes -- rightfully so -- that any Soviet talk about the dentures being ripped out of the skulls is pure fantasy -- to what purpose we can only guess, but probably to confuse the situation as much as possible so that the various conspiracy theories -- only made possible by Stalin's original insistence that Hitler was not dead -- could continue to fester. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, there was no skull produced, sans the jawbone fragment. I will admit the strength of the argument that the bodily remains, if produced at all, were merely ashes, or little more. It is possible but undocumented that loose parts of bones, etc., were included in these ashes (like the jawbone), which would explain why nothing remained once the forensics had been moved about. And it is clear that the autopsies were largely falsified, mischaracterizing the remains as 'charred bodies' rather than ashes/bits of burnt bones. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The photographic evidence, while lacking, appears to corroborate my point. The pictures of the ammunition boxes with Hitler and Braun's remains are at an angle so that heaps of flesh are visible within, but not a body per se. This is not great evidence but more than rumors of ashes. The photo of the lower jawbone may provide a clue, as it appears to be only the portion holding together the teeth, and not 95% of the entire mandible as implied by the autopsy report. In the same way, the report exaggerates the completeness of the body. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm happy to share the photos via email for anyone who wants them. I'm not sure if they've been republished outside of Bezymenski. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Joachimsthaler page 224. Axmann is quoted as saying that numerous bodies were thrown into the craters in the garden because "Hitler did not care to see corpses lying about when he went into the garden for his half-hour walks..." Joachimsthaler states that there were 13 to 15 corpses found in the vicinity of the bunker. "...many people died in the vicinity" and the bodies were for the most part "no longer identifiable". So these could have been someone else's bodies. The only DNA analysis mentioned in out article so far is that of a skull belonging to a woman. There's a clear photo of the dental remains here — Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No jawbone from Hitler or Braun was found, only dental bridges. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The only thing to remain of Hitler was a gold bridge with porcelain facets from his upper jaw and the lower jawbone with some teeth and two bridges." Joachimsthaler, 1999, p. 225. Kierzek (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction, I missed that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2004 documentary Death in the Bunker: The True Story of Hitler's Downfall shows the dental remains in their modern state. The lower teeth are attached to small bits of jawbone, which seem to visually correspond to the teeth in the Soviet forensic "photographs". No evidence of a more complete jawbone. For what that is worth. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The melting point of gold is very high (1,064 °C), which is why gold dental work might survive a fire when the rest of the corpse is destroyed. Reminds me of this— Diannaa (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It reminds me of the scene early on in The Fellowship of the Ring where Gandalf throws the One Ring into Frodo's fireplace, and then fetches it out. He says something like "Of course your little fire isn't hot enough to melt even ordinary gold," but, of course, it's hot enough to reveal the hidden writing on the ring: "One Ring to Rule them all..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done a couple rounds of copy editing to tie up the loose ends and make things consistent throughout; it's ready for checking.— Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a few changes, otherwise it looks good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been out of town and was supposed to get back yesterday but just arrived, this afternoon. I’ll look over the article and see if I believe, it needs further ce work to the recent changes and additions. Kierzek (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Gunshot or Cyanide ??
This article from a reliable source states: "The state of the dentures also seemed to tally with the traditionally accepted account that Hitler took cyanide before a bullet was fired into his skull. The research team suggested that bluish deposits on the dentures might indicate a chemical reaction between the cyanide and the metal dentures." There are many other citations available. Blockhouse321 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The multiple sources all came out in May 2018 as a result of this study. That's the only actual source for this. I found a link to the study in The Washington Post. It shouldn't be presented as fact when it's only a possibility, and it doesn't belong in the lead. I've removed it from the lead and mentioned it in the body as a possibility only.— Diannaa (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's try to build a consensus on the talk page. This is not the only fact, Eva used cyanide and Hitler poisoned his dog Blondi to ensure the cyanide was powerful enough to kill him.  Death by both gunshot and cyanide is accepted now.  In addition, you are deleting other relevant information I added to the article, please do not do that too, thank you. If you wish to discuss further, I do not mind. Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that was conclusive, which it certainly is not, it would be cyanide followed by a gunshot not “or”. If you read the full analysis, which I have, it states they were unable to determine exactly what the bluish residue is exactly. Brisard’s recent book sets it all out in detail. There’s no reason to change what is written at this time in the article. As to the other changes, this is a GA rated article and for major changes one must have consensus first.Kierzek (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't find your other changes to be helpful, and removed them for the following reasons:
 * We don't put excessive detail in the lead, such as the kind of gun he used. We do mention it in the body, but it's too trivial to mention in the lead.
 * He did work as an artist for a little while and was a soldier in WWI, but it's not important enough to mention in the lead of this article. These details are not even mentioned in the lead of the main article Adolf Hitler.
 * Excessive linking (gunshot, temple, capsule). Wikipedia is long past the point where we link every noun. The links artist and soldier are what we call easter egg links, because they point to unexpected places. Our manual of style says not to do that.— Diannaa (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to note, the accepted fact is that Hitler died by gunshot alone, self-inflicted, with no cyanide involved. No smell of cyanide about Hitler's body, as there was about Braun's, per participants who handled Hitler's body. I've reverted to LGV before the recent changes, as they were not useful.  No major changes to the article should be made without a consensus here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BMK, thanks for catching the small recent addition I missed when I reverted to prior. I agree with you as to the known facts to be presented, in line with the RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fate of Hitler's remains
This article claims that the narrative about how Hitler's remains (and that of Eva Braun, the Goebbels family and others) were reburied several times, then cremated and thrown in a river is Soviet misinformation. This claim was based on two sources: "The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth" by Anton Joachimsthaler, published in 1999 and "Inside Hitler's Bunker: The Last Days of the Third Reich" by Joachim Fest, published in 2004. However, in 2005 the book "Hitler's Death: Russia's Last Great Secret from the Files of the KGB" by V. K. Vinogradov et all was published which lays out in detail the above described version, with multiple supporting documents from the Soviet archives. In 2009 the same information was publicly released by "a top Russian security official". This version has been later mentioned by mainstream media, including the article "Adolf Hitler really is dead: scientific study debunks conspiracy theories that he escaped to South America" by Adam Lusher which is currently used as a source in this article. Vinogradov's book is also used as a source in the article, in fact the very section (pp. 111-116) that describes the reburials of Hitler and the other bodies is cited (but omitting Hitler among those reburied). Vinogradov's book clearly states that the book reveals previously unknown information which along with the fact that the books by Joachimsthaler and Fest were published before 2005 makes it clear that neither of them were aware of the version described by Vinogradov. Therefore, it's clear that the version described by Vinogradov and later reported multiple times in mainstream media supersedes earlier statements about Soviet misinformation and therefore must be included in the article as the currently most widely accepted version of events. At most the claims by Joachimsthaler and Fest can be included as representing earlier views of events.

Of course it's possible that the current version is also misinformation, but sources which specifically mention this version as misinformation and which were published after 2005 would be needed to support such claims. Kostja (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I for one think that the Joachimsthaler version is too narrow-minded, but it outshines the other sources by exhaustively acknowledging all other viewpoints. The official Soviet documents have been discredited. If there is newer evidence, which is omitted by Joachimsthaler or our article, it ought to be mentioned with the appropriate weight. Just a word of caution though: I know from experience that you need to present changes to this article more gradually, and be willing to discuss them, or you will be ignored.
 * Joachimsthaler's argument is the most exhaustive that the Soviet version was false. In my opinion, it must be more of a misleading exaggeration than an outright lie, but their botched investigation and intentional disinformation makes it hard to argue this. I fall back on the photographic evidence, presented in the Bezymenski book—the prose of which is unreliable—but Photoshop didn't exist pre-1968. The lower teeth are held together by a portion of a jawbone (which had deteriorated by 2004, when the teeth were filmed attached to small fragments). If this bone survived the cremation, other parts could have as well, although Joachimsthaler argues successfully that we cannot certainly know this, because of the holes in witness testimony. I think out article is 98% accurate, but should use more phrases like "extremely likely", etc, rather than "this did" or "did not" happen.
 * Joachimsthaler's garden-sifting story regarding the discovery of the remains seems reverse-engineered from the fact that this is how the Americans searched the area, and is only one version of what might have happened. Similarly, that any of Hitler and Braun's remains were included with those moved by the Red Army is possible and certainly argued by some who were there, it has only been put under strong scrutiny by Joachimsthaler, not outright disproven. But any potential remains would have been unrecognizable bits mixed in with the others. Perhaps not ash nor bodies per se; we should keep the uncertainty in mind. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think the documents describing the repeated burial of Hitler and the others and their later cremation (which are laid out in Vinogradov's book) have been discredited - at least I did not see any source discrediting these documents. It should be pointed out that these were secret documents, not meant for disinformation purposes. What is in doubt whether the human remains described in these documents actually contained any part of Hitler's remains, which as you say, can't be known with certainty.
 * Perhaps the now widely accepted version should be laid out, but qualifying it with the statements that some authors dispute the Soviet claims of having found Hitler and Braun's bodies. Kostja (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to read Joachimsthaler for why these accounts are incredibly difficult to take at face value. At the very least, nothing corroborates that an actual recognizable body was found. Just bits and pieces at most, at the least only dental remains.
 * Why would the verifiability of secret Soviet documents be any different from the autopsy reports, which were withheld until 1968? For the most part it seems they concerned a second investigation in 1946, because they knew they botched the first. But they also botched the second; eyewitness testimony (as well as later DNA testing) contradict that the back of Hitler's skull had a gunshot wound. If bodies existed, why were they not re-exhumed then to verify that the skull fragment fit? Probably they were already too mixed up for proper examination, but that the Soviets never tried nor admitted the disorderly state of the remains is even more telling. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No one -- and I do mean no one -- except perhaps some Russians accept the Russian "documentation". It's been thoroughly debunked and respected mainline scholars do not accept it.  It's simply not going to appear in this article, as it's non-factual, and we present facts which was supported by WP:reliable sources, not the kind of garbage the Soviets were peddling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Kostja, your reasoning is flawed. The Vinogradov work is based on old Soviet documents and statements made back in the 1940s (with the exception of the removal account by the KGB in 1970, which had been mentioned in other western works before the Vinogradov book). Just because the book was not published in the west until 2005, does not mean anything therein is more recent information at all. It does have reproduction's of the early SMERSH (Military Counter-Espionage Dept.) interviews, statements, maps, photos and reports of the investigation as to Hitler's last days, but that's my point; dated, incomplete investigation/information. Further, this book relies too heavily on SS General Rattenhuber's speculation. Following the same old tired Soviet doctrine over the years that his suicide was by poison; this rumor has been debunked by contemporary historians and even was in the Soviet based work, "The Hitler Book"; a work with it's own Soviet bias, per the RS sources/historian's opinions. "The Hitler Book" (2006) by Henrik Eberle and Matthias Uhi (as editors) was put together from the full compilation file from the subsequent secret investigation (Operation Myth) by the Soviet NKVD (later known as the MVD, the forerunner of the KGB). Stalin ordered it as he was not satisfied with the original SMERSH conclusions. (see Daly-Groves, Eberle & Uhi and Petrova & Watson for cites). A dossier put together for Stalin started in Feb. 1946 and was received by Stalin on Dec. 30, 1949. Both Linge and Gunsche being interrogated (and worse) in this subsequent investigation. As Daly-Groves, Fest, Joachimsthaler and Kershaw agree, the Soviets did not find Hitler's body, the blood-stained sofa and blood-stained wall and cigar box of dental remains/fragments further show Hitler did not escape. What was found and what remained of him was in a small cigar box, which was flown to the USSR where the contents have been kept and occasionally allowed to be examined over the years. Kierzek (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The Soviet photographs are available online. The first two are very unsatisfactory views of the ammunition boxes with the alleged remains of Hitler and Braun. While not admissible proof of identifiable corpses they show something other than complete bodies or piles of ash and are claimed to belong to Hitler and Braun. I see no reason to doubt their identifications by the Soviets who also found the dental remains, presumably together with the bodily remains. Only the autopsy reports themselves are really problematic—even falsifiable by these very photographs—exaggerating the state of completeness of the bodies, perhaps to sound more authoritative, who knows.
 * The next four images are front and back views of Hitler's upper and lower dental remains. Joachimsthaler doesn't directly acknowledge these, despite his exhaustive presentation. I think this is an Achilles' heel to our interpretation of his argument. Most specifically, I'm not convinced that he explicates that there was nothing but ash or that the Soviets sifted the dirt for the gold bridge. He may imply these are possibilities, but does not argue them outright... I do not believe. Even if he clearly stated these arguments, they're only examples of an extreme point of view, not the 'mean', or the consensus of all the RS. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to putting anything in the article that lends credence to debunked and extraordinary Soviet claims. Many people see a photograph, and it's description, and they automatically take it as "proof" that the thing supposedly shown is real and what it purports to be.  This serves only to confuse what is a sometimes confusing situation.  Further, the provenance of any of these photos is automatically suspect given the Soviets' politically-motivated evasions and lies.Update Nerd, as I told you before, if you continue attempting to water down this article with false information, I will seek to have you blocked from editing it further. We really don't need a conspiracy theorist editing this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I also object to putting the Soviet "photographs" in this article. They show nothing of a corpse of Hitler and proof nothing. As historian Richard J. Evans states in his recent book, "The Hitler Conspiracies", "the Soviet obfuscation continued with the short book... by Lev Bezymenski...it was full of inaccuracies"...(pp. 168-169). The book includes these photographs. As Historian Daly-Groves states, "...the Soviet soldiers picked up whatever mush they could find in front of Hitler's bunker exit, put it in a box and claimed it was the corpses of Adolf and Eva Hitler"... (p. 157). "The unprofessional behavior of the Soviet intelligence officers and the resulting poor quality of their investigations, the dubious autopsy report riddled with scientific inconsistencies and tainted by ideological motivations... lead me to agree with historians, such as Joachimsthaler, Fest and Kershaw... the Soviets did not find Hitler's body." (see p. 158). As Joachimsthaler writes, "They [Soviets] did in fact find many corpses in the garden of the Chancellery, in the ruins of the buildings and in the bunkers. The suspicious Russians took photographs of all the other corpses, Goebbels, Magda Goebbels, the Goebbels children, General Krebs, etc., and... had them identified... in the case of Hitler's body, the Russians failed to do this! To this day the Russians have not presented a single piece of evidence that they found Hitler's corpse." (p. 222). He goes into it in further detail later, but I believe the point is made. Those so-called photos of the ammunition boxes show nothing of a Hitler corpse. All the Soviet's found of Hitler was the dental remains/fragments that were flown to Moscow in a cigar box. Kierzek (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional quotes as that clarifies some things. I don't suggest "putting the Soviet 'photographs'" in the article, but they demonstrate that more than a gold bridge and ashes were recovered, as the article currently states. It's important to avoid WP:SYNTH as it concerns Joachimsthaler's arguments. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, please disregard my confusion. Joachimsthaler mentions the lower dental remains, which was the essential missing detail, and footnoted in the next paragraph. I've duplicated said footnote since it supports the statement. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
The reference named "Bezymenski 45" is no longer in use, but still appears in the reflist. It should be commented out or removed. Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you for the suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)