" 

  
 ==Reviled== 
 Wyss, we're talking about the introduction to the article, the part that's supposed to provide a summary of the article.  If you agree that he is widely reviled, let's put it in the intro. 

 I said the intro implied he was remembered only for ""his charisma, his political acumen, and the fact that he was on the losing side in a big war.""  I say that because that's what the intro says.  It mentions ""racial policies"", but it doesn't mention genocide.  It says he ""encouraged"" racial policies, but it doesn't say that he, Adolf Hitler, as his country's leader, was one of those who planned and executed the killing of millions of people on grounds of race (and for other reasons, such as eugenics).  Again you appeal to detail in the article  that reveal highly significant facts that aren't presented in the intro. 

 Finally we're here to write an encyclopedia article, not to write a didactic piece or a polemic.  The introduction should contain a mention (not an evaluation) of Hitler's legacy, because that is the most significant remaining thing about his influence in the modern worldwhether rightly or wronglyas a symbol of evil, often a caricature.  That's a highly significant fact about Hitler that doesn't (remarkably) attach itself so readily to butchers whose deeds were probably the equal of, or exceeded, Hitler's.  Mao and Stalin pale into insignificance in the public mind, it's Hitler we remember as the terrible architect of genocide.  That fact belongs in the introduction.  We can make it as neutral as possible, but we shouldn't weasel it away.   | "