" Template:Unsigned >  

 I think that Adolf Hitler was a man with many ""issuse"" this resulted in him being very unstable. I also think that he was amazingly clever, think about it this man out smarted a whole democracy, remeber every thing he did before he became dictator of germany in tearms of how he over threw the goverment was perfectly leagle. I think that people don't give this man enough credit, I know he killed many inocent people, but he also did a lot of good... remember before he started the war he did sort the shambles of a german econamy out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 == Other victims == 

 Many blacks from the Rhineland and the 'rhineland bastards' as they were termed by the Nazi state were sterilized under Nazi rule.  

 How come they do not appear on the other victims section? 

 == Hitler: not ""right-wing"" and not ""left-wing"" == 

 Before I even begin, let me make mention of the fact I am not speaking out of personal bias or political interest. I am neither a ""Conservative"" or ""Liberal"", and do not affiliate with the political ""right"" or ""left"". I also do not support either mainstream political party in the United States. 

 This article states, implies and attempts to reinforce several times that Hitler was, in some way, a ""right-wing"" extremist or ""Conservative"". 

 ""The Weimar Republic had never been firmly rooted and was openly opposed by right-wing conservatives (including monarchists), communists and the Nazis."" 

 ...that also seems to imply that communists and monarchists are also ""right-wing"", which is untrue. 

 ""Another candidate was a Communist and member of a fringe right-wing party."" 

 ...here we go again... 

 ""Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Hindu Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler."" 

 ...now I have to question the idea that Hindu Shiv Sena is actually a ""right-wing"" party. It all depends on who's writing the article I suppose. If it's a ""Conservative"", he'll turn out to be a batty commie. If it's a ""Liberal"", he magically turns out to be a far-right, racist koo-koo. 

 Other articles all throughout Wikipedia have the same ""spin"" attached to them, but it's outside the scope of this appeal for the most part. However, if you go to the ""far right"" article, you are bombarded with the idea that ""Far Right"" means such things as racist, authoritarian, totalitarian, militant, etc. This is simply untrue, just as untrue as saying the ""Far Left"" is all about creating Soviet-like, autocratic states and domestic oppression.  

 The whole concept of wrapping all political ideals (and politicians) into the simpleton's explanation of politics we call ""wings"" is misleading and inaccurate. The definition changes from person to person, viewpoint to viewpoint and even country to country. Therefore, I think it wise that Wikipedia stay clear of treading this ground except where it is absolutely necessary. Here it is not. We need only describe what Hitler believed, what happened and what he did. There is great debate among political scientists about how Hitler, Nazism and ""fascism"" should be classified; or if it is even possible by conventional means. The very concept of ""left-wing"" and ""right-wing"" comes from the French Revolution, where the ""right"" meant those who sat on the right and supported the king (monarchists). This was obviously not a good thing to be at the time. The definition of ""right-wing politics"" grew out of that, and has never been defined neutrally. When you define the position of your opponents, you tend to set up a straw man. The spectrum itself is inherently flawed to begin with; no real political spectrum could be linear. It totally ignores the complexities of political science and makes no attempt at explaining how particular groups can be identified with one ""side"", yet interpolate between the ""wings"" on particular issues. If it were presented to Wikipedia today to be verified, it would be rejected. 

 So I STRONGLY suggest we remove ALL talk about what ""wing"" people were from the article. It will only serve to confuse, mislead and even offend. It contributes absolutely nothing to the article and its information; save possibly advancing the political positions of the writers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  ([[User talk:67.142.163.29|