User talk:Ozhistory

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Ozhistory! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Bidgee (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Skiing in Australia has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm, http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm, http://goaustralia.about.com/od/skiing/a/skitasmania.htm). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added  do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the  before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Culture of Australia - under construction
I've put an "under construction" template on Culture of Australia, because we've already had a couple of edit conflicts with three people editing it today. I'll wait until you finish until I do any more. Please remove the "under construction" template, when you're done. (My intended edits are copy-edits, not restructures.) Thanks, Mitch Ames (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will do. Almost done really. For time being I am only planning to add a Theatre in Australia section.Ozhistory (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Please do review.Ozhistory (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those many sensible corrections and additions. Ozhistory (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Aust Hist
Hi. Nice section on Australian democracy you just added to History of Australia. Just a thought - should it be headed "Development of Australian Democracy" or similar? CheersNickm57 (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - yeah, sounds good. Done.Ozhistory (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Great work on the page - terrific to have another set of eyes across the topic, I was beginning to dispair! (Pls note - A couple of citations seem to be errors) Cheers Nickm57 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pacific War
I noticed you've been working on Pacific War and I don't want to mess with it. but I made a mistake when I change the lede to add It is generally considered that the Pacific War began on 7/8 December 1941 with the Japanese invasion of Thailand[14] for the invasion of British Malaya.... It actually began about an hour earlier. See comments I added to Talk:Citations needed badly. The present Note [14] linking to Churchill's broadcast should be deleted; or if considered of import, moved somewhere else. --Pawyilee (talk)

Nice to know you
How about letting us have more detail about yourself? Greenmaven (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How to make redirects
Hi Ozhistory, I noticed you made a page at Catholic church and medicine with a note saying "see Catholic Church and health care". I have turned it into an actual redirect page so visitors will be automatically taken to Catholic Church and health care. I hope that's okay. If you want to make redirects yourself you can take a look at Help:Redirect. Have a nice day! —Noiratsi (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I coudn't remember how! Ozhistory (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany
Hello Ozhistory. Good to meet you. Recently you "undid" an edit I created. You make a valid point and caution that we're not to "cut and paste" copyrighted publications. This I too am aware of, which is why I did not; the wording is slightly different for that reason. Perhaps, it is too close to the actual wording so there is the possibility to paraphrase with genuine intent and providing a citation for detail.

One of the problems with this Article and any involving religion and the Nazi Era is that it lends itself to emotion, controversy and sometimes, unfortunately, selective and "creative" editing of legitimate sources. This introduction allows a tone to take hold early on that promotes a NPOV to assist and encourage the Article away from becoming a battle ground of "edit wars" between those who go to extremes from all camps. This is the heart of this particular edit and should be our goal overall objective, which I'm certain you share. This Third Party reference helps in that way.

As for Pius XII - well, it is rather challenging - if not impossible - to discuss the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany without his pontificate becoming the central focus with regard to the Catholic response to Nazism and Nazi Germany. Yes? And, ultimately, it leads us there regardless of our best efforts because this is how the history unfolds naturally. Therefore, why not "cut to the chase" early on and diffuse a topic that is bound to be contentious? Not much one can do about that. So, I ask you to collaborate. I invite you to edit my input rather than simply "undo" to reach a working compromise. So, I will revert my edit for you and I look forward to your future input. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look - but it seemed to follow the Britannica text awfully closely. As for Pius XII being the crux of an article on Catholicism and Nazi Germany, I'd say he is mightily important, but there's far more to it - his predecessor Pius XI was on the spot for the rise of Nazism for a start.  Ozhistory (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a difficult job, but I've tried a rewrite, keeping shorter than original but longer than yours. It now encompasses Pius number 11 as well as 12, and discusses some of the complexities of the Catholic response to Nazism and the Nazi response to Catholicism. On the material taken from Britannica, I see no reason to give focus to The Deputy or Hitler's Pope in the opening of this article as they are plainly among the least credible accounts of Pius' pontificate. I think it is enough to refer to and wikilink to existing wikipedia discussion of debate and controversy where that stuff can be found. Ozhistory (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to say, Ozhistory, I think it was maybe unnecessary to revert the most recent edit on this article even allowing for the other circumstances. Adding the word 'German' in front of 'Catholic priests' would have brought it into line with the scholarship in question (the Polish Catholics, of course, were not praying for a Nazi victory!) and Ericksen is an internationally renowned expert on the subject whose views certainly should be represented. Of course, the priests' precise motives for wanting to show support for Nazism may be debated, and may have practical (supporting the nation in time of war to avoid trouble/conflict) rather than theological. But there is a body of serious scholarship that makes a convincing case for criticism of at least some Catholic priests over their actions and I think that should be reflected in both the article and the lead. If of course there is another reason why you reverted it, do please let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcc01 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily, I might be inclined to make an alteration along the lines of what you say above. But in view of a the ongoing issues with that editor, my "revert" was motivated by:


 * your point: the editor is combining/confusing the complex reactions of a multinational church - ie the statement cannot be extended beyond German priests and obviously in no sense was the response of Polish priests;
 * my fear, born of experience, is that he will give no quarter in recognition of this blatantly obvious point, and that any efforts to nuance the point would be futile;
 * the experience of him serially misquoting sources and the possibility that I could be nuancing a source that doesn't even say what he says it says;
 * I have reached a point of believing that he is a disruptive editor without either the will or ability to accurately present the views of the authors he is quoting


 * In relation to his requests for citations, they are either already provided in the body of the article, are generally common knowledge in nature or verifiable by quick reference to the content referred to (eg Summi Pontificatus on the "resurrection of Poland" etc.). I could spend a day referring him to the citations - it would have no effect (as you have witnessed from previous exchanges). Greengrounds has taken to thoroughly declaring his trust in John Toland as a source (solely it seems on the basis of Toland's comment that Hitler was "in good standing with Rome"), but I doubt very much that he has read Toland, as Toland, for all his criticisms, accuses the church of a "sin of omission rather than commission", stating unambiguously: "The Church, under the Pope’s guidance, had already saved the lives of more Jews than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined, and was presently hiding thousands of Jews in its monasteries, convents and the Vatican itself." (Hitler, 1997, p.760) - a view fervently denied by Greengrounds.


 * If you feel you are in a position to shift Greengrounds' text into an accurate, or adequate reflection of the point his cited author is trying to make - by all means go ahead. I am afraid I am beyond trying, and would prefer to wait until the referral to a moderator has run its course. In the meantime, the text he has inserted is clearly inadequate and should be revised or reverted. Ozhistory (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I entirely understand your frustration Ozhistory and after my own bruising encounters can sympathise. This is how it now reads after I have tidied it up a bit; On the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland, the German Army murdered up to 1,000 Polish priests, fearing they would be foci for discontent, while German Catholic priests and bishops prayed in support of Germany's cause, seeking to show their support for Germany's (and by extension, Hitler's) cause was undimished. I think that's a fair reflection of what's in the book. It's maybe a bit of a side point for an introduction, but it does deserve to be mentioned. As it happens, it was sort of right...although if you will pardon my borrowing a phrase, there were some 'sins of ommission' in it! Hope that you are OK with that edit.Hcc01 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Much better, thanks. I've just shortened a little further (+ added wikilink) on basis that lead is very crowded. In view of aforementioned editors requests for citations, I have provided same, including one from his aforementioned preferred source: John Toland. Ozhistory (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler, User talk:Greengrounds". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and Nazi Germany
Hello Ozhistory- sorry to ask you to jump in. . . . but as serious fiasco just took place at the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany Article. An editor by the name Biknsternet - on a whim -discarded weeks of solid work by yourself, Sayerselle, Greengrounds and myself. Please go to Talk page to voice your input. Thank you!


 * Hello Ozhistory- someone removed your link in the Articel lede of, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, attached to the phrase "spoke out". It was probably not intentional, so you might want to correct that. Keep up the good work. Best of luck.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've done some more work and actually think that we may just about have the topic covered - for the first time! But, it is still too wordy to pass muster for many a passing editor, so if efficiencies of language can't be found, I fear a well intentioned editor will again erase much of it. Have you put those stats on 20,000 priests etc into the body of the article, with citations? They are good, but are an example of a detail which could be transferred, no? Ozhistory (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Ozhistory- Good work. The link attached to "German Catholics", I would suggest, s/b Religion in Nazi Germany because of its relevance to the topic. The alternative offers such a glossing over of the period it overs little to shed light on the Article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrityandhonesty (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ozhistory- Just left a note with the good editor Sayerselle to request he self-edit his recent offering in the lede and place them in an appropriate Section. We need to focus rather on reducing the verbiage of the lede. We now have had two Senior Editors point out that its too long. And, I truly desire to avoid the "roll-back" fiasco. I intend to exercise the same discipline. All the essentials are already there. Now its about an economy of words w/o loosing the essentials.

What I have noted is that Articles that cover complex epic subjects have no citations - at all, but rather 4 "simple" paragraphs. We're doing great work - just desire that this round it all "sticks". Until next time Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ozhistory-Left a message on the Talk page making a formal request that Sayerselle start genuinely collaborating. He has been editing this Article since 12.11 - nearly half the life of the Article. And now, 35-40% of the word count is sourced to his edits alone! Yet, he seems to feel his voice is being muted. Not sure where this is headed -but my take is if we turn our heads for a matter of weeks all this work is for naught and he'll jump right back in and edit our work to a stub. As we say here in Chicago, "Just say'n." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integrityandhonesty (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's good. Yes, that editor is generally not constructive. I will support any further action by way of referring him to administrators, as it is clear from his talk page that he is a serial offender, who has been banned often. By the way, when you want to post something like that on a talk page, look for the "new topic" button, which will separate your content from previous. Ozhistory (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars
Hello there, I see you are quite interested in Australian history. I myself have been working on the article Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars. But it has turned out to be much longer than I realised and I haven't had much time to add to the war parts or even properly finish the origins section. If you would like to help me with this please contact me on my talk page and we can go from there. Cheers. --Collingwood26 (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, I will try to review it. Ozhistory (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Historical Jesus
I enjoyed your reply back to Greengrounds. It was very well said. Since he seems to be very active this week on many of the Christian pages I watch, its been interesting to read (and reply to) some of the comments he has made on Talk pages. He has a serious axe he's trying to grind... Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Hey Ozhistory, I think Greengrouds has calmed down a bit on the relationship between science and religion page and is going ok there. I think Greengrounds biases are quite strong, but as long as wiki protocols are followed there should be no problems. Appreciate the heads up.--Ramos1990 (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update and for keeping an eye on the page. There is a pattern of behaviour with that editor, the hardest of which to pick up can be misquotation of sources which shift the tone of an article towards his "very strong biases", and perhaps the most distressing of which is his habit of personally attacking editors who challenge his edits. On that basis I thought a "heads up" to longstanding editors would help guard the integrity of the page. Best regards and happy editing! Ozhistory (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki pages for various catholic Martyrs
I have nominated several of your articles on non notable christians for deletion. The reasons are as follows: poor sourcing (the Huffington Post, catholic news, obscure German websites), non notability of the articles, and bias. We don't generally keep a list or provide a memorial for non notable islamic "martyrs" AFIK, so why would we have one for non notable christians. Keep up the good work, though. You're trying.Greengrounds (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reported your comments above and disruptive edits to the [|Admin noticeboard currently reviewing your conduct]. Your final personal attack is evidence of Harassment. In reply to your "points" above: firstly, the articles you have marked for deletion are not all by me. Secondly and without exception they also appear on multiple other language wikis (somewhere between 3 and 5 language wikis in total in each case), excellent evidence for notability, if such factors as being important figures in the German Resistance, or the fact of being honoured as Blesseds by the Catholic Church are not sufficient evidence for you. On sourcing, The |German Resistance Memorial Centre website is a useful resource, as is Yad Vashem and newspapers like The Australian, the Jerusalem Post etc are perfectly valid. Sources like Paul Berben; Dachau: The Official History 1933-1945; Norfolk Press; London; 1975 are more than adequate. Your reference to Christian v Islamic martyrs is infantile. Ozhistory (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of his recent conduct could be characterized as infantile, actually. Sorry about the abuse here. Also, for what it might be worth, regarding Christians of at least previous eras, archive.org contains a truly astonishing number and variety of highly regarded, if older, reference books and history, including Baring-Gould's Lives of the Saints and the early edition of the Ramsgate Benedictines' book, among others. I'm going to try to put a lot of them on Wikimedia commons and some of the longer articles from some of them on WikiSource, but they are all available for at least use for reference purposes. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that sounds interesting. Actually, and contrary to the impression Greengrounds might be giving above, I haven't been writing up on Catholic saints, but rather, I am in the middle of some interesting research on Resistance to the Third Reich, and have honed in on "Christian Resistance", which is/was a topic not well covered on wikipedia, in part I think because the bulk of literature is in German. These are the "martyrs" GG objected to having on wikipedia. Ozhistory (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your question re Green issues at AN/I
Re the section "Resolution?" and how to get a decision, what happens is that we just have to wait for an "uninvolved" admin to decide to "close" the discussion with or without some action. It is very frustrating, I know, and they always dilly dally about such things, why I do not know, these procedures are all so bureaucratic and time-consuming, how there could be anything clearer than the current green problems I cannot imagine. Whatever happens we must not let it go 36 hours on that thread without any comment from someone or the bot will archive the whole thing without any decision or comment from an admin at all. Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds IPs
Hi, Ozhistory, I happened to see your posts about IPs presumed to be used by Greengrounds on User:Penwhale's page. I think 209.91.107.139 must be the same also, and 209.91.107.167 editing Religious views of Adolf Hitler, and… in fact, take a look at contributions of the 209.91.107.128/25 range for yourself, as listed by Helloannyong's neat tool. It's not a very large range, by my notions, and I'm sure most of the edits from it are Greengrounds'. I've blocked the range for two weeks. I'm new to range blocking, so I hope there won't be a lot of collateral damage (=innocent IPs caught in the same net). If you see continued disruption from similar IPs at the end of the two weeks, you might let me know about it. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC).
 * P.S. Ha. When I got there, User:Salvio guiliano had just blocked the range one minute ahead of me. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC).
 * As I requested it on WP:SPI. Bishonen is as sharp-eyed as I remember she was. :) - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 23:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done and thanks. I'd spotted a few of those, but not all. Ozhistory (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It continues: see here (particularly the reversions in Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, for which false edit summaries are given) and here. user: Smeat75 picked up this lot and others. There have been plenty of others. Bishonen, Penwhale, User:Salvio guiliano or John Carter can you put a protection back on Catholic Church and Nazi Germany for an extended period, and keep a watch on those IPs? Ozhistory (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've re-blocked the range for a month. Hopefully that'll mean we can manage without protecting the articles. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC).


 * I semi'd the Church & Nazi Germany article for 1month, but was called to question why. I have directed User:IRWolfie- to here. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Penwhale, Greengrounds has deleted a new round here. Thanks for your work. Ozhistory (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear user:Penwhale, User:IRWolfie-, user: Smeat75, Bishonen, User:Salvio guiliano or John Carter - action is required to block new sock puppets of Greengrounds and protect Religion in Nazi Germany page, where he has reverted a considerable amount of well sourced content and made a | personal attack and false allegations on the talk page. I can see two IP puppet addresses used for this latest round of vandalism: here and here. Ozhistory (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the month-long block on the 209.91.107.128/25 range just expired. Time flies! I've re-blocked it for three months and semi'd the article for a month (it had never been protected before, so I couldn't really make it longer). Bishonen &#124; talk 00:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC).


 * Hi User:Bishonen - are you able to put a temporary protection on the page Religious views of Adolf Hitler. A German based IP editor, using a few IPs is attempting some significant re-writes, but is not nearly familiar enough with reliable sourcing (he is also changing cited quotations). I think it's inexperience, rather than genuine vandalism but it's a difficult task to quality check it all. At least if it's temporarily protected he will be more likely to establish a single name account and it will be easier to communicate with him. He's been active on a few Hitler and religion pages, altering RS material, like here and here. Ozhistory (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit doubtful about semi. They seem to be a reasonable individual with plenty to offer Wikipedia, and might feel bitten by suddenly being shut out. And if they do create an account, it will still take four days before they can edit a semi'd page. Perhaps you'd like to encourage them to create an account and take ownership of their contributions? You might explain how using different IPs makes communication etc difficult for others. Let me know if it doesn't turn out well, and I'll consider it again. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

Pius XII and the German Resistance
Were you aware that this article had been nominated for DYK? I've reviewed it at Did you know nominations/Pius XII and the German Resistance and raised a couple of substantive issues and one stylistic one; I'd appreciate it if you'd go there and respond at least to the substantive objections. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wasn't aware. I have made adjustments to article and will advise at the nomination page. Ozhistory (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

catholic church and Nazi G
do you mind not putting 'happy now sayerslle' and such fatuous personal directed notes in your edit summaries? - I watched  a programme on the rise of hitler on Sunday and , after the Reichstag fire, it  said Hitler addressed  the 'parliament' in an opera house that was serving as a new temporary Reichstag and at this point it said simply, the Communists  having been banned , the socialists bravely voted against hitler, while the Catholic Centre Party and the Right voted for him -  your whole drive is to portray the catholics , and at this point, their party, as victims, but there , in a simple portrait, they are rather conniving at Hitlers rise. you are, like (soi-disant) 'integrity and honesty' determined to portray things in a certain light and just because I do sometimes add a tag, or question wording or sources, that is legitimate Sayerslle (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You saw a documentary on Sunday so you put up a tag?? The information is already in our article. It's in every history book of the period. I regret if you were offended, but it was an unnecessary tag, that led to an unnecessary expansion and the issue has been dealt with before. What do you suppose the documentarian meant by calling socialists "brave"? They were indeed brave, because the vote was conducted in a climate of intimidation. Same goes for your re-request for the already multiply cited line on the Nazi radicals led the persecution of the churches. Your POV is simple and clear enough "there, in a simple portrait, they are rather conniving at Hitlers rise". History is so much more complex than that. Clearly the church in Germany claimed to be unjustly oppressed during the Nazi era. That smaller minorities were more harshly treated is of course true. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.Ozhistory (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * it is complex. your pov simplifies in its waySayerslle (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * On the topic of the Nazi takeover, I really can't quite understand your assessment of the times. I agree that the Centre Party vote raises moral issues. But surely you recognise that it did not take place in ordinary "parliamentary" conditions? Ditto the dissolution of the party, only more so. Ozhistory (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerns regarding your edits to "Religious views of Adolf Hitler"
FYI, I have a few concerns about your recent edits to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler article. I wasn't sure if you were done editing the page, plus I'm not exactly sure I'm unbiased in this area, so I wrote up my concerns on the talk page. Since it directly related to your edits I thought I should let you know I posted my comment about your edits there. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Hi  Ev  22:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message, I'll take a look. Ozhistory (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just another heads up. I looked into your source, Richard Weikart and his book From Darwin to Hitler, and found them to be an unreliable source (as now explained on the talk page), so I removed most of the references to it.  --  Hi  Ev  17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pius XII and the German Resistance
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's now featured on Portal:Germany, - if you have other DYK related to German, please feel free to add it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  Catholic resistance to Nazism

Thank you for quality articles such as Pius XII and the German Resistance, the general Catholic resistance to Nazism and biographies such as Karl Friedrich Stellbrink, for in the history of the Catholic church, for your modest user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Awww shucks! Danke, Gerda. I've travelled down a huge side track of researching resistance to Nazi Germany, which I am finding fascinating. I keep thinking I've finished on it, then find more. All the best. Ozhistory (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent project! I nominated Stellbrink for DYK, there are more details in German, I also asked to get his image to the commons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A good German (and general) DYK could be on Otto Neururer. Does the German page agree, or mention, if he was the first priest (I assume Catholic priest) killed in a Nazi Concentration Camp? If so, that could be the DYK? The fact appears here, so could benefit from a corroboration. Ozhistory (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * de says he was the first Austrian priest, - I didn't find "first priest" (yet). The article is a bit too short, but will probably grow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I ask because I thought that 1940 seemed very late in the Nazi reign for him to be the "first" to die. Please keep an eye out for a reliable German source that might clear up the point. Danke shoen. Ozhistory (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 623rd recipient of my ]PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 623 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Many thanks. Ozhistory (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Karl Friedrich Stellbrink
The DYK project (nominate) 08:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * On the Pope Pius XI and Germany page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581159213 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20Pope Pius XI and Germany Ask for help])

WP:CITE
Ozhistory, please do not include complete bibliographical information in each and every individual footnote in which a book is cited. I've deleted thousands of bytes from Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, to discover that it's all because of redundant information in footnotes. There was a bibliography already, so a footnote need only contain a brief reference, not full name, full title, year of publication, publisher, and year. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Thaddeus Ma Daqin‎
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Gottgläubig
I'm not contesting the work of Evans, however I think the paraphrased formulation of his work now present in the article is misleading since the quote "convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid 1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society" most certainly directly refers to those in the category "gottgläubig" and to them alone, but not to the 1.5% atheists. Unfortunately I don't have access to the book so I can't present the original quote, but I believe it has been either misconstrued or the author was not careful with his wording, hence the misleading interpretation in this article, taken out of the original context. As I said there is an entire article about gottgläubig in the German version of Wikipedia, unfortunately all sources provided there are naturally not in English. I think it is important to point out that "gottgläubig" was a specific religious affiliation only present in the "third reich" and not equatable with deism since deism has no specific ideology attached to it very much unlike "gottgläubig" which explicitly included the worship of Hitler as a messiah-figure. Unfortunately, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and unsure how to go about this myself. All I know is that the current wording is certainly better than the previous one (which falsely equated gottgläubig to agnosticism) but still less than ideal.178.5.161.105 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, while I don't entirely agree with some of your conclusions, I think there have been some improvements to the text prompted by your involvement. This is a problematic article as it attracts a lot of agenda pushers, who aren't necessarily basing their work on good scholarship. Your writing style seems nice and clear, I think you just need to familiarise yourself with some wikipedia protocols, such as that you be careful not to change attributed quotes, and if you are adding new material like the gottgläubig definition, then you need to provide a reliable source for it. Another thing you might consider is logging on with a user name, so you can set up a proper talk page and edit from different computers. It might be worth creating a Gottlaubig article in English. It's an interesting topic. I have read about the movement it before but am a little rusty. On the question of Nazi support for atheism, it did in fact exist - if not on the scale of officially atheist Communist states. There were very senior Nazis like Martin Bormann who were militant atheists, and the Nazis legislated against discriminating against atheists. Only non-Nazi atheist groups were banned in Germany (Nazi atheists had perfect liberty). As I understand it, the claim that Hitler "opposed" atheism arises mainly when his rhetoric is taken out of context, because when he spoke of battling the "atheistical movement" he was actually referring to Bolshevism. Also there are Hitler quotes on the importance of religious education for example, which were made when he was negotiating a Concordat with the Vatican as part of his plan to shut down political Catholicism (which he knew only too well had bested Bismark) - but such comments did not translate into policy once he had secured power, and the regime proceeded to shut the churches out of schooling. Can I ask what source you are relying on for believing that the Nazis gave "no" support to atheist groups? Ozhistory (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Your edit to Religious views of Adolf Hitler was in violation to WP:NPOV, so your edit has been reverted. TheGFish (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Greengrounds - what edit to Religious views of Adolf Hitler?? As far as I can see you are seeking to replace longstanding, cited  content without discussing with other editors. You have undone useful bundling of sources, deleted several citations and attempted to add contentious content. Ozhistory (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:VAN
If you keep making nonconstructive edits as you did to Religious views of Adolf Hitler, you may be subjected to a block after farther warnings. TheGFish (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I notice you have been warned against your false allegation against me here. This constitutes a personal attack. Ozhistory (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This confirms again that you have made a false allegation: here. Ozhistory (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I was mistaken that you were a vandal. Sorry, it was not a personal attack either. I thought at first that you tried to remove large content for no reason, but I accidentally deleted something of your's while I included something. TheGFish (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saying this. I am still confused as to how and why this happened. I hope we can dialogue in future. I have some concerns about your use of sourcing in your latest edit on the Hitler religion page - it doesn't yet comply with wikipedia policies. At the moment there are issues of synthesis and reliance on interpretation of primary sources rather than evaluation from an historian. If an historian is saying something that might be contentious, then we should name who that historian is to give a clue to the reader that it may not be every historian's view or that the assessment is coming from a respected source (or otherwise). We cannot use a public speech by Hitler from one year as evidence of his position on a topic for his entire career, but we can cite that he said such a thing on such a date. Currently, you are citing a speech from 1922 as evidence  for a claim about "many" speeches. In fact it is only evidence of one speech. In order for your claim to remain in the text, we need a line from a reliable historian saying that he used this same rhetoric throughout his career. The fact is though - he didn't. His public references to Christ had largely died out once he had become dictator of Germany - though he still used some generic religious rhetoric, as our intro already says. Further, we know that in private, he was singing an even more radical tune -- some of which may indeed be interpreted as atheistical. Some as deistical, or at least nature-spiritualist. But not Christian -- Goebbels, Bormann, Speer etc are clear on this. The synthesis in your edit needs to be addressed. And an actual quote from an historian still has to be found. Thanks  Ozhistory (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Hitler wasn't an atheist or Christian. He was definitely not for religion. A person can be anti-religious and still believe in a god.

"In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that He would give His blessing to our work, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right. I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty. No man can fashion world history unless upon his purpose and his powers there rests the blessings of this Providence." 1937,

"But on one point it is well that there should be no uncertainty: the German priest as servant of God we shall protect, the priest as political enemy of the German State we shall destroy.", Adolf Hitler, a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939,

He did stop mentioning his beliefs in Christianity in these speeches, but still proclaim belief in a god in those. He's a believer that's against religion. Could I reword the article sentence to something like, "Contrary to popular belief, Hitler was not an atheist or a Christian". 98.235.17.150 (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm TheGFish, I somehow logged out. I'm going to log back in. 98.235.17.150 (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion for that line would be simply: "Although Hitler was skeptical about religious belief and hostile to the churches, his language suggests he probably wasn't atheist. As a politician, he did not present himself to the German people as an atheist." (this seems to me to reflect the modern consensus - both within our article, and in broader scholarship - and leads in well to the content of that paragraph). How does that sound? Ozhistory (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good. Thanks! 98.235.17.150 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

My Apologies
I'm sorry for mistaking you for a vandal. TheGFish (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Old Adaminaby flooded and becomes s Ghost Town
You may not have read the article about Adaminaby enough to realise that the original "Adaminaby" was flooded by the waters of the Snowy River Scheme and becomes a kind of Ghost Town.

Strictly speaking, a new topic List of flooded towns is required, but as flooded towns are rare, the List of ghost towns will have to do. Please therefore undo your reversion.

A new article Old Adaminaby may be required. Indeed this article does already exist as a redirection. Tabletop (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for explaining - I thought the edit might have been a joke. I think you are right that a second article would be clearer? Or, yes, a new category for flooded towns. Particularly since the old town itself is not exactly a ghost town either - there are people and houses and a caravan park there as you can see from a quick google search. Ozhistory (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The old town is habitable only during droughts!! Tabletop (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not entirely, as I understand it. But I won't undo your edit if you do decide to redo it as you are obviously a good faith editor. My preference though would be for your suggestion of a new category flooded towns. Ozhistory (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My latest edits on the Hitler religion page
I tried to be as transparent as possible with my edit summaries, I thought those changes are sufficiently explained. If I removed any sources then I'm sorry, that was accidental. I was still not done with reviewing my changes when you stepped in, it was unfortunate timing. No vandalism intended. However, to go deeper into the reasoning as to why the sentence about eradication of Christianity is misplaced and misleading taken out of context, it is A) a false paraphrasing of the provided sources since it disregards the support of "positive Christianity" and generalizes Christianity as a whole and B) draws implied parallels to Stalin's oppression of religion which was very much unlike Hitler's actions and intentions. Hitler was more interested in reshaping Christianity according to his ideology than to promote atheism. However with this sentence taken out of context in the first paragraph the reader is reminded of Stalin and draws a false conclusion. There is no valid reason why this sentence should be in the first paragraph since it describes Hitlers relationship to the churches which is talked about in a later paragraph where it is much more fitting.178.0.219.141 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: Yes it's me again, we spoke the other day. Thanks for your patience, I'm still not perfectly well-versed with Wikipedia protocol, but my intentions are still to make the article more objective and logically well-structured.


 * A couple of points about structure - we should stick to four paragraphs (as that is the ideal suggested by wikipedia for long articles). And this particular article intro is already long. Another point - be careful about using the undo button too often, as it can get us in trouble for "edit warring" - it is better, when you strike a disagreement to dialogue with other editors, or to propose changes before you make them (particularly where you are changing long-standing consensus text. You are entitled to be bold an add new material to any article, but you are also entitled to hold the line on existing material if you think a change is not an improvement - and the only way out an impass is dialogue based on reliable sources.


 * On your worry about "implying" that Hitler wanted to eradicate Christianity -- well that precisely what many historians believe, as these citations show:


 * *Sharkey, Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity, New York Times, 13 January 2002
 * Michael Phayer; The Response of the German Catholic Church to National Socialism, published by Yad Vashem: "By the latter part of the decade of the Thirties church officials were well aware that the ultimate aim of Hitler and other Nazis was the total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion. Since the overwhelming majority of Germans were either Catholic or Protestant this goal had to be a long-term rather than a short-term Nazi objective."
 * Shirer, William L., Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, p. p 240, Simon and Schuster, 1990: "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists."
 * Fischel, Jack R., Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust, p. 123, Scarecrow Press, 2010: “The objective was to either destroy Christianity and restore the German gods of antiquity or to turn Jesus into an Aryan.”
 * Gill, Anton (1994). An Honourable Defeat; A History of the German Resistance to Hitler. Heinemann Mandarin. 1995 paperback ISBN 9780434292761, pp. 14–15: "[the Nazis planned to] de-Christianise Germany after the final victory".
 * Mosse, George Lachmann, Nazi culture: intellectual, cultural and social life in the Third Reich, p. 240, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2003: "Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church.
 * Dill, Marshall, Germany: a modern history, p. 365, University of Michigan Press, 1970: “It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.”
 * Wheaton, Eliot Barculo The Nazi revolution, 1933–1935: prelude to calamity:with a background survey of the Weimar era, p. 290, 363, Doubleday 1968: The Nazis sought to "to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch."


 * While these ones come close to saying the same, but use the word churches:


 * Bendersky, Joseph W., A concise history of Nazi Germany, p. 147, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007: “Consequently, it was Hitler’s long range goal to eliminate the churches once he had consolidated control over his European empire.”
 * Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p 219: "Once the war was over, [Hitler] promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches, but until then he would be circumspect"


 * So, it may be your belief that he did not have any such plan, but I am afraid there is a strong body of scholars who disagree with you. Alan Bullock in particular sees strong parallels in Hitler and Stalin's religious outlook. Given the number of serious historians of the topic who say that Chrisianity itself was his long term target, I think you'll have to accept that the line must stay - though again, if you have a good reliable source arguing a contrary view, you may like to add it to the line saying: " others maintain that there is insufficient evidence for such a plan". Currently that line is not cited as strongly as the alternative view. Ozhistory (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand that and I respect that point of view as valid (unlike GFish apparently). Nevertheless, I find the current placement sensationalistic and nonsensical since the first paragraph is focusing on Hitler's personal religious convictions, not about his political goals. The paragraph about the struggle of the churches aka. Kirchenkampf is much more fitting and a logical coherent placement of the sentence. While I do not believe in a crowd-sourced platform anyone should ask for permission of changes, since you apparently interpreted my previous restructuring of the article as a hostile attack I will now kindly ask you for your approval to move the sentence about destruction of the churches to the appropriate paragraph again.178.0.219.141 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your courteous message. Actually, I thought you were TheGFish. As I can't agree that Hitler's long term aims for Christianity in the Reich is not a valid starting point for an outline of his religious views, I suggest you put it to the [|talk page] and see what other's have to say? It seems to be that it is sufficient that we already say that some historians are not sure that this was the plan. Can I ask, by the way, who your sources are for supposing that this was Hitler's ultimate intention? I would be interested to review them, as they do seem to contradict my reading of Goebbels, Speer, Bormann as the primary texts, and of course Bullock, Kershaw et al as biographers. Ozhistory (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No I wouldn't have accused you of vandalism, you have shown your good intentions already and I think we left our last conversation a few days ago in good standing, so the hostility of GFish would have been uncalled for if it had been me. As far as I have seen he apologized though, I guess he took your edits the wrong way. The thing is, this article is quite frustrating to read, knowing that many people have a preconceived misconception about Hitler and are convinced that he tried to turn everyone into atheists which there is absolutely zero evidence for, but can easily be read into the POV influenced wording of many sections in this article. He DID indeed fight the Christian churches that is a fact. Their influence was a potential threat to his power and parts of the church doctrines, especially those rooted in Judaism, didn't fit his word-view. However there are strong indications that he was honestly motivated by the fanatic idea that some form of heavenly guidance has made it his destiny to put through his plans. He explicitly encouraged and perpetuated the Christian values and traditional family ideas he had been raised with and banned books on Evolution. http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines Also his statements were quite clear: Of course not everything he said should be trusted as honest opinion, however, after he had been preaching these ideas for years there was no possible way he could to a 180° turnaround after the war to start and suddenly promote evolution science and atheism. It's absurd. His actions simply don't fit the idea that he wanted to eradicate a belief in the Christian god. His goal was more to reshape the Christian faith, more like a reformation, but to his dismay of course the "positive Christianity" movement didn't catch on as well as he wished it would. I'm aware that there are many American historians who overgeneralize by not making that distinction that he opposed only the established churches/denominations and not religion in and of itself, but the bare number of sources which perpetrate this view doesn't prove that it is anything more than speculation based on some vague statements. Unfortunately most books about WW2 I have in my possession and most documentaries I watched are in German so they won't be of much use to you. But to cut it short, Hitler was strongly influenced by Christian ideas and likely believed in a god that was at least based on the Judeo-Christian concept of the "almighty Creator". The American historians who claim otherwise are certainly biased since they are Christians themselves. This is quite problematic. Furthermore throughout the article when sources are paraphrased, the wording often is colored to paint a certain image as well, often departing from what the referenced source is actually saying in context, which is also quite problematic but of course harder to demonstrate. Anyway, I'm digressing, to cut it short, regardless of the controversy what Hitler's actual goal was, he never got a chance to go through with this alleged plan so it is a what-if scenario. What-if scenarios shouldn't be elevated to a status of importance as this is in this article since this aledged aim was not reflected in his politics, his public perception, or the events that lead up to the war whatsoever. It would be more useful to outline his public portrayal as a devout catholic more since that is what influenced the German people a lot more than what could have, would have, happened after the war was over if Germany had won. Do you see where I'm coming from?178.0.219.141 (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."
 * “It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will."
 * “The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator."


 * On a couple of points, I see exactly where you are coming from: "when sources are paraphrased, the wording often is colored to paint a certain image". I agree. And I also feel the article overall reads poorly - and is a mish-mash. I see too that Hitler did seek support from Christians who were afraid of militant atheist-Communism, and used his political skills in this regard. But on a few of the other specifics you raise, I can't say I agree with you. For example, Hitler most certainly did not portray himself in public as "devoutly" Catholic. Sometimes he made the claim of "tribal" Catholicism perhaps - but that is quite different to devout Catholicism. That would require him to have at a minimum attended Mass -- or married his mistress -- to have discarded his social Darwinian theories on survival of the fittest -- and his claims that Christ was not a Jew. Secondly, his ideological differences with Christianity were not just centred on its Jewish origins -- he loathed the  "turn the other cheek" philosophy of Christianity and its notions of protecting the weak (as in the Euthanasia clash). Such things conflicted with the "survival of the fittest" Social Darwinian tenets of his ideology.


 * On the quotes you provide above, I need timing and context to pass any judgment. There are dozens of quotes in Hitler's Table Talk, Goebbels diaries, and Speer's book which cast quite a different light. Have you read these in their original forms? I'd say that would be an excellent thing to do on this topic.


 * Your assumption that the cited historians are American is quite wrong and the assumption that are Christian is doubtful. The assumption that a Christian couldn't write a history that accepted Nazi links to Christianity is not right in any case -- that's a dangerous prejudice in fact. A good historian is a good historian -- no matter their creed. At any rate, Bullock, Evans and Kershaw are British (Knights of the realm no less) as is Rees, Fest and I believe Gill are German, Blainey is Australian and the long and diverse list goes on. Needless to say Bormann, Speer and Goebbells were Germans too.


 * Hitler did a 180 degree turn on all sorts of things -- there's no reason to expect he couldn't have launched the all out campaign against Christianity that Bormann and others wanted him to do. It seems to me he vacillated on the point -- from Christianity is "ripe for destruction" to "let Christianity die a slow death". As for Nazis opposing evolution. Well that's new to me -- I've seen the "survival of the fittest" propaganda films they made preaching a very nasty version of evolution as justification for killing invalids. Certainly I know the Nazis worked very hard to remove religious clerics from schools and to shut down church youth groups, presses, cultural societies etc. All good evidence, you would have to conclude for a long term plan to de-Christianize Germany.


 * Overall, there seems to be a little bit of I just don't like it about your arguments for removing the line about many historians believing Hitler wanted to destroy Christianity in the long run. That is not a valid argument, in the end. And besides, you have already added the qualifier: "but some historians don't". Ozhistory (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh yes Hitler did very much so portray himself a strong believer, you should watch some of his recorded speeches how he makes gestures towards the sky and dramatically looks up to heaven when he speaks about divine guidance.


 * Also Eva Braun hardly can be described as his "mistress". The reason he did delay marriage for so many years was because he was aware of his popularity among female voters which he feared would become jealous and therefore concluded they would find him more attractive as a bachelor. She was always hidden from the public. The complete secrecy about his private love life (it is still a mystery until this day whether he and Eva Braun even actually had sexual intercourse) also helped him perpetuate his messianic image. He eventually DID marry her however, in secrecy in his bunker.


 * He also didn't publicly advocate social Darwinism as Stalin did, again, books about evolution were seen as "entartet" (vaguely translated best probably as "degenerated") and strictly banned. This explicitly included books that perpetuated social implications of evolution. http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines The idea of Aryan superiority may be compared to "survival of the fittest" but it's not the same. Hitler never publicly said anything about Darwin or that he is inspired by natural selection in his actions and the opposition to evolutionary ideas also speaks of a creationist mindset. He did believe in the idea of breeding superior humans which can be interpreted as social Darwinism, however, the concept of selective breeding was known long before the theory of evolution so the connection made is to an extent forced to suit an anti-evolutionary agenda (because the argument made of course is, if evolution is taught in schools children will adopt views on humanity similar to Hitler, which is of course propagandist nonsense).


 * I agree that some parts in "Tischgespräche" express an indeed surprisingly strong opinion against Christianity. I will probably read some more of that. I find these kind of second hand sources much more trustworthy than the "educated guesses" of Historians who think they know what Hitler was thinking or planning whilst admitting that only little is known about his private life and convictions since "no one could claim to really know Hitler". Bormann, Speer and Goebbels are some of the few people who could claim to know his private self rather than his public self so I of course consider their statements are fairly reliable sources though one also always has to be careful and not forget they certainly had personal interests in misrepresenting some parts of history as well of course. After all it's really tough to find out what was *really* going on in the head of this fanatic madman.


 * No I never tried to remove the sentence about Hitler's alleged plan to eradicate all Christian beliefs (again, I think it's overgeneralized, but it's supported by sources), I tried to alter the phrasing because I think it's misleading but I didn't try to remove it. However, I might as well argue that you trying to keep it in the first paragraph albeit the good arguments there are against that placement might be a case of "I just like it". After all that plan was never executed, even if he really did plan it. So does it really have such a high relevance that it needs to be put above all other information provided in the intro? I haven't heard a valid argument from you why it should stay there yet, other than "I have sources that prove it" (I'm not contesting that) and "It is its long-standing position". Those are not arguments for the prominent placement. I think it simply doesn't connect and disrupts the flow of the first paragraph. It is also sensationalist because it caters to paranoid persecution fantasies that many Christians are obsessed with. Again, I understand it needs to be in there, but the placement is simply inappropriate and logically inconsistent.178.0.219.141 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Just saw your most recent edit. Well yes, that's certainly a lot better and makes more sense than the previous placement. I'm glad you understand some of my concerns and for now, while I'm of course not perfectly happy with the compromise since it's still lacking the context of the Kirchenkampf, I think it certainly is an improvement, so let's leave it at that.178.0.219.141 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear User:Ozhistory, thank you for your work on the Criticism of atheism article! I found a reference that you might find to be useful in the "Morality" section, available here. You can go ahead and add this in, if you think it would be beneficial to the article. What are your thoughts? I look forward to hearing from you! With regards, AnupamTalk 09:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I never responded to this. I haven't had the time to do a review. Hopefully will get around to it. Ozhistory (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's alright, I understand that we're all quite busy! However, when you get some time, please do see if you can incporate some of the information from that source! With regards, AnupamTalk 02:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=607167812 your edit] to Religious views of Adolf Hitler may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Evans]]; The Third Reich at War; Penguin Press; New York 2009, p. 546 Gottgläubig" lit. "believers in god", had a non-denominational, nazified outlook on god beliefs, often described
 * und den Wahnbildern der Thulegesellschaft wiederbegegente, längst gelößt und in >>Mein Kampf < seine beißende Verachtung für jenen völkischen Romantizismus formuliert, den seine eigene

Evan's original wording
You keep saying you are restoring the original wording of Evans from his book. Do you have that book available at your disposal? There are no quotation marks and it is a clear paraphrasing rather than reciting of his work so for all we know this might very well be a misrepresentation of his work. Since you pay so much attention to what his original wording supposedly was I would strongly encourage a direct quote for this section rather than the current wording. I have seen this section copied into different articles all over wikipedia in different variants. A definite original literal quote from his book could settle this. 178.8.176.145 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 'In 1939, 95 per cent of Germans described themselves either as Catholics or as Protestants; 3.5 per cent were 'Deists' (gottgläubig) and 1.5 per cent atheists: most people in these latter categories were convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid-1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society.' Those are the exact words. Hope that helps. Hcc01 (on a rare flit back to check how things were going). PS do check out Michael Burleigh's Sacred Causes book if you can - a lot of material in there on Hitler's deism and on his 'Darwinism', but unfortunately I've very little time to spare for any editing at the moment.86.183.139.158 (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Hcc01. Meanwhile 178.8.176.145 let me know when you have set up a user name so I can keep track of which edits are yours. Lots of IP editors come and go on those pages, some of them for quite disruptive reasons. Editors will be more likely to revert you if they don't know who you are. Ozhistory (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Re:Atheism
Dear User:Ozhistory, thank you for your comment on my talk page. Yes, I noticed that the material you added there was unfortunately removed. I hope to see it restored and will be participating on the talk page to offer my thoughts. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Ozhistory, glad to see that there was a resolution reached on the Atheism page. Sorry I was not able to help with further additions as I am quite busy now and do not have much time to contribute to wikipedia any more. Nonetheless, the additions you fought for were a significant addition to the article. There are many points that editors there do not like so its tough to get things into this page. --Mayan1990 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

奇安德拉 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 奇安德拉. Since you had some involvement with the 奇安德拉 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 02:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested in the discussion about State Atheism
People are trying to delete the State Atheism article, seemingly for biased reasons. You might want to join here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_atheism#State_atheism_should_be_moved_to_Anti_theistic_government_actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.strangerX (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've now put in my two cents. Some of the self-appointed guardians of atheism on wikipedia can be very unreasonable. Why on earth would they want to remove a useful historical topic like that? Denying there have been nations that used the organs of state to promote atheism (often violently) is silly. Ozhistory (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please vote here on whether the State Atheism article should stay.
This is the important vote that'll determine whether the page is moved or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_atheism#Straw_poll Mr.strangerX (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/Keeping
Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

links to state atheism being removed
Callinus has been removing all links to state atheism all over Wikipedia. You should look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Cuba&diff=prev&oldid=683337655

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIrreligion_sidebar&type=revision&diff=683922715&oldid=666934834

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=684156805

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_North_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=684176371

Mr.strangerX (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turnbull Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Morrison. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Germany and the Jesuits
What you create should be redirects, but who needs the redirects? Several similar actions have been reverted recently (not by me).Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religious views of Adolf Hitler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John S. Conway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Jesuits and Nazi Germany
Please see Talk:Jesuits and Nazi Germany -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Western civilization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Watson Government
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turnbull Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rudd Government. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick message
To see the changes I made to the Catholic/Nazi Germany page, see this link. If you object to any, we'll explore them one by one on the talk. I am not making another bold change before that, regards. --OJ (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I note you've been absent since your contributions to the article in question. So that you know, I had been working on a drive to rid the word "regime" from places I felt it didn't belong for some time before we became acquainted over this issue. Although I made restorations (as you'll see), I am leaving it to you to act as you feel best and from there, we'll discuss all references one by one. Either way, until this happens, I have decided to avoid any further edits on that subject across the other articles. We'll work on an outcome here and I will go from there. --OJ (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the notes. I had a quick look at your changes, and I think they looked fine - except for one I think where the text was describing what an historian had said (and he used the word regime). Perhaps though, it might be useful here if you explain your objection, and what you are hoping to avoid in reducing use of "regime" Particularly in relation to Nazis, where historians so frequently use the word "regime". Ozhistory (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh you're back!! Thanks for replying, can you paste the section for me? The one you're talking about, I'll have a look. You can do it here, I'll keep watch, thanks. --OJ (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Better still, go ahead and change the one you mean - that will be easier since I've said I am not going to revert. I'll comment afterwards. Cheers. --OJ (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turnbull Government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prorogue. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft for re-organized "Religious Views of Adolf Hitler"
In light of the discussion at the "Religious Views of Adolf Hitler" talk page, recognizing that the existing article contains many repeats, I've prepared a draft of a re-organized version of the article. It's based around a chronological outline. I believe the vast majority of repeats have been cleaned up, while preserving every last bit of the information in the original article. The size is reduced from 168K to 155K.

In order to get a page in draft space, I gave the article a new title, but I hope to revert to the original title on approval. This was a lot of work -- it's easy to complain, but not so easy to fix things.

I'm looking forward to your review, I hope you'll like the result.

Draft:Evolution_of_religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Regards, JerryRussell (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) JerryRussell (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * the way to do that is to use your personal sandbox to draft your preferred text, and then to point people there if you want it reviewed. Take a look across the top of your screen and click in on sand box. Cut and paste your draft in to there, then delete the draft article. I will take a look when I have time. Ozhistory (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, now it's copied to my sandbox, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JerryRussell/sandbox


 * Is there some rule against using draft space for this purpose? I'm leaving the article there for now as well, because I already notified several other editors to look for it at that location.


 * Thanks for offering to review, I look forward to your comments.JerryRussell (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Atheist section on the "Forced conversion" article removed
Atheist section on the "Forced conversion" article has been removed. You may want to check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forced_conversion&type=revision&diff=729806496&oldid=729738589

See the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forced_conversion#For_God.27s_sake

Mr.strangerX (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Article for Deletion/Keeping
Hey hope you are doing well. There is a page you have contributed to that is being considered for deletion: List of Christian Nobel laureates. You are welcome to put in any input on the issues by going to the page and clicking on the link for that article. Jobas (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I'm trying to track down who added a reference to Wikipedia. The reference was seemingly added by yourself in two articles. The reference contains the string " " as seen in these diffs:


 * History of Australia on May 15 2011:
 * History of Australia (1851–1900) on May 23 2011:

That's all I can find. Obviously the ref was copied by you from someplace else (unless you are misrepresenting yourself as a bot which I don't expect). Do you remember where the ref came from? Also, when copying text from one article to another it should be attributed in the edit summary. More info at Copying within Wikipedia. -- Green  C  13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahh found the source of that string. The ref had since been deleted from Bushranger so it wasn't easy to track down buried in the history. -- Green  C  13:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia
Hi, WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Abbott Government you included material from a webpage that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, though it wasn't verbatim, and there is little room to move on a factual outline of a government policy like that. Ozhistory (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

State Atheism
Could you provide your input at the talk page state atheism article? The article also needs more sources and expanded further if you have time to do that now. desmay (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

State atheism
I just wanted to let you know that an article you worked on, state atheism, is being truncated as we speak. One user even tried to get the whole article deleted. Please have a look. desmay (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust victims
Holocaust victims, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Catrìona (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964)
Hey Ozhistory, you need to look at the recent activity on the USSR anti-religious campaign (1958–1964) page. It looks like someone just blanked some important statistics about 'Notable atrocities and victims' and then changed the heading to 'Notable accidents'. The information they blanked was properly cited too. I think you should investigate this since the scope of your editing covers this area. Can you also enable the email feature in your Wikipedia account? I would like to contact you but am unable to do so because that feature isn't activated on your end. 2600:1700:DB10:AF0:99E4:2021:C062:656C (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

September 2020
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Christianity in Australia into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 18:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian music in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catholic music. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catholic Church in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Fahey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)