Talk:Jackie (dog)

Hitler's Awareness
Removed the sentence: "It is unclear if Adolf Hitler had ever been aware or had any say in the incident.", because it seems Hitler was aware after all, according to the German Foreign service as quoted in the German newspaper Tagesspiegel on 12 Jan. 2010: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/staatsaffaere-fuehrergruss/3699314.html Alandeus (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great find; if anything the opposite should be included with that as a citation. --Bobak (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, don't simply copy-paste some newsapers, they make mistakes, too: http://blogs.taz.de/hausblog/2011/01/31/wie_unsere_hitler-geschichte_karriere_machte/ this is the blogentry from the original writer about jackie, he writes that the "tagesspiegel" came up with the sentence without any proof, added the sentence again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.159.100.215 (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. As long as the awareness issue was uncertain, it was better to leave it out. Now that the Tagesspiegel story proved false (I'll cancel my subscription!), that note on awareness - or rather unawareness - is welcome to go back in. For the sake of completeness, I put in a reference to the original TAZ article by Hillenbrand as published online the day after the print version. Alandeus (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

sourcing problematic
All media outlets essentially bought an AP story without doing any research on their own. AP itself bought it from a German newspaper. Though the story is probably correct it essentially rest on the contribution of one newspaper journalist rather than being supported by a large number of (independently researched) articles in the international press as one might think at first glance. The situation is explained here (in German) by the original journalist himself: --Kmhkmh (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)