Talk:List of Nazi ideologues/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of Nazi ideologues. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article issues

I am including some of my comments from the AfD here for further consideration.

1) The article doesn't follow standard article format on Wikipedia (see wp: lead). The introduction needs to introduce the whole article. The way it's structured is more like a disambiguation page of different topics. I tried to correct this but was reverted.
2)The article needs sources that demonstrate the topic itself is notable. The sources should also establish the inclusion exclusion criteria. I find the terminology "nazi philosopher" highly ambiguous.
3) The listing as whole needs to be cited or the individual names need to be cited to reliable sources where the term "nazi philosopher" or words to that effect are included. I'm left guessing what "nazi philosopher" means and who it does or doesn't include because there is no explanation and no sources in the article. The article's intro says "may refer to" <which is unclear> actual party members, and then later it starts bringing up other groups of people.
4) If it's just part members then Philosophers of the nazi part might be a better title. What about fascists? National socialists? People actually involved in the support of nazism but not part of the party itself? What about philosophers who advocated some of the ideologies that make up nazism before or after World War II? Are they excluded because they weren't part of the nazi party or included because they support some of the same ideas? And if someone renounced the ideology after the war are they still a "nazi philosopher"?
5)Is anyone who professed support for aspects of nazism a nazi philosopher? What if their views changed before during or after the war? Should Ezra Pound be on the list or Henry Ford (who I think made some comments in sympathy with Nazism)? What about other thinkers who supported some, most or all of the nazi ideologies? I think better sourcing and a clearer introduction to the article would help. Charles Darwin's theories provided a lot of the foundation for nazi ideas, should he be on the list? And what about neo-nazis?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Except for the formal points you make, ie, 1) & 2) I believe I have given a reply to you questions here below in the following extract from the deletion page, you'll find them under your questions and prefixed by, "Comment - Reply" or as indented replies directly beneath these singular confusions regarding what it might mean to be a Nazi Philosopher. What is a Renaissance philosopher, what is a Priest of the Inquisition...what is what? 84.203.39.11 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion From Deletion Forum

I include below details of a discussion regarding the deletion of this page just so as we can see how the page began, why it is needed and the issues that arose as problematic.84.203.39.11 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

o-----------------------included text----------------------------------------------------------

Reason: I would like wider consideration on this article. Does the grouping and title amount to original research? Are these philosophers who were members of the Nazi party? It's unreferenced so I'm not sure about an article on "nazi philosophers". If people think it's legitimate I'm happy to respect that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep – surprisingly, I know I shouldn’t be, there is a genre in the scholarly area dealing with this specific subject as shown here [1]. Likewise, the article does have room for expansion, based on the above references. This brings us to the area of the lack of references in the piece right now. I do not see that as an issue in that as the article is currently represented as a list of individuals already included here on Wikipedia, other than one, whose own articles are well referenced and cited. As for original research, I would say no, in that these individuals have been grouped with the Nazi’s through second and third party reliable – verifiable and creditable sources. Hence not OR Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Nazism was a philosophy, and these were its thinkers. If the list of names can be verified (and i'm sure it can) then it's OK. needs flashing out from a list though. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This is not original research (OR) anymore than wikipedia itself is, since it is just a list or gathering point (like a disambiguation?) which takes only one click to verify. One risk is that it may be open to name-calling, so I think it is best to keep the list quite conservative or lock it, otherwise who knows what names might appear on it! I can see at least that those claimed on the page to have been members of the Nazi party were in fact members. I can't find such a useful collection of dodgy philosophers elsewhere, though of course one might suggest another page with leftist philosophers connected with Stalinism -- a number of 30s 40s philosophers were Stalinist -- or connected with Maoism -- of whom there were quite a few in the 60s; though they usually merely approved of it without actually forming it from the inside, as for example the Biologistic race "theorists", or the New Christianity "theologians" did for Nazism. Thanks.84.203.39.11 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Okay. Sounds reasonable. Although I suspect (without being well schooled on the subject) that these pholosphers and other thinkers and writers were not exclusively "Nazi philosophers" or advocates only of that way of thinking. I should have mentioned that I tried to move the article to German philosphers during World War 2, but got reverted. On the one hand the title I tried doesn't focus as much on the nazi aspect, which seems to be the article's focus. But on the other hand I'm not sure it's accurate to call philosophers who professed support for aspects of nazism Nazi philosophers. Did they always support nazism? What about after the war? Should Ezra Pound be on the list? Henry Ford (assuming he espoused philosophical support for the cause which I think is right)? Other thinkers who support some, most or all of the nazi ideologies? I guess better sourcing of the article would help.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Reply There were lots of German philosophers during WWII that were not Nazis! WWII is not the issue but membership of the Nazi party or being an ideologue for it. As to accuracy, yes we should be careful to check that they were, unlike Ford, actually intelligent or intellectual level thinkers who fell for the Nazi ideology and joined the party or helped create racist ideology. If in doubt I would say leave Ezra Pound or others you seem to be thinking about off the list. No point talking about details such as what happened to them later, they signed up, lots of others didn't, and that's the simple point of it, those details can be checked on the individual's page. 84.203.39.11 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and explanation. I think the title itself is a bit ambiguous and the article being unsourced doesn't help matters. Are you saying this is a list of Philosophers who joined the Nazi party? Or is it philosophers who advocated Nazism? It's still not clear to me what the article is about exactly. What are the criteria for inclusion and exclusion? Can a non-German be on it? What about a philosopher who didn't espouse Nazism but joined the party out of expediency. I suppose it might have been difficult not to show support for a fascist regime (not to excuse the behavior) but does this still make them nazi philosophers? And by moving it to German philosophers during World War II, I was certainly not intending to imply that all German philosophers at that time were Nazis (although I think life would have been made difficult for those who refused to show support), but to broaden the topic to an inclusion criteria that made sense to me. I'm just not clear on what is meant by "Nazi philosopher". Fascist? National socialist party? People actually involved in Nazism? What about philosophers who advocated some of the ideologies that make up Nazism before or after World War II? Are they excluded because they weren't part of the Nazi party or included because they support some of the same ideas? And if someone renounced the ideology after the war are they still a "Nazi philosopher"?ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok let us agree to keep the criteria tight, and the criteria are: philosophers or intellectuals who were members of the Nazi party in Germany at some point during its existence, ie, 1920-1945 or provided ideology, chiefly racist ideology, for that regime and was explicitly taken up by that regime. Membership of the party is a crition and regardless of excuses or other subjective pleas: it was not quite that difficult to remain a non-member of the party itself in Germany. Those intellectuals who advocated fasicsm or nazism but were not members nor provided ideological support (other than their virtual vote) should not be included. There have been right wing advocates throughout history they are excluded from this list unless their ideology was explicitly taken up by the Nazi party that existed between 1920 and 1945 in Germany. I think you would need to give an example of such confusion before assuming it, are you thinking of someone in particular who was forced to join the party? 84.203.39.11 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

One issue is that the article doesn't follow standard article format on Wikipedia (see wp: lead). The introduction needs to introduce the whole article. The way it's structured is more like a disambiguation page of different topics. That's why I made the edits I did, not to nationalize the subject matter.

Secondly, to avoid being original research, the article needs sources that demonstrate the topic itself is notable. The sources should also establish the inclusion exclusion criteria. If, as everyone seems to agree, it's a notable subject, then the sources for it will show who is on the established list of "nazi philosophers". The list needs to be cited or the individual names need to be cited to reliable sources where the term "nazi philosopher" or words to that effect are included. I'm left guessing what "nazi philosopher" means and who it does and doesn't include, because there is no explanation and no sources in the article. The article's intro says "may refer to" (which is unclear) actual party members, and then later it starts bringing up other groups of people. So it's not clear to me what the article is about or where it came from. That's what I tried to fix and what I'm trying to addressed. I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to explain my perspective and how I think the article needs to be fixed.ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment – I hear what you are saying, and I am in agreement with the points you are trying to make. However, I believe these topics are better discussed on the article’s talk page rather than the AFD. The Afd is to gather consensus on whether the article is notable – verifiable – creditable and finally hand and hand with verifiable, sourceablefor inclusion here on Wikipedia. I believe, all the criteria have been proven and we do have a viable article. Now comes the hard part, written – formatting and editing. That is what I believe your questions are addressed too. Hence, let’s discuss over at the articles talk page. I’ll start given you a hand next week. Take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep but the contents of the article aren't as promised. In actuality it is a bit of an indiscriminate list. Some entries are philosophers who were Nazis (e.g. Martin Heidegger); others are apologists for Nazism (e.g. Julius Rosenberg); still others aren't in any sense philosophers (e.g. Julius Streicher). If kept it needs to be ruthlessly pruned. Mangoe (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Reply Philosophers or Intellectuals are covered, but perhaps its debatable if the founder of a newspaper (Streicher) was intellectual, remove him if you like. Julius Rosenberg is not on the page, if you meant Alfred Rosenberg, then as one of the most influential intellectuals in the Nazi movement, I would think he couldn't be removed.84.203.39.11 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep, I think it has potential, although it needs to be tightened up a bit; e.g, only people who particularly contributed to the ideologies of the party or what not; an encyclopedic topic, though, to be sure. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Aside from the article mainly being just being a list, the terminology isn't verified. Nobody in the second list is explicitly associated with Nazism, and the third list is mostly a scattershot listing of people who followed some Nazi ideology. In addition, "intellectual" is grouped into the description which is a vague term. Perhaps this should be recreated as a category with a better definition of the term. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep but get sources and rewrite (and change the name to Nazi philosophers). This is a valid category in academic research. But the article sucks; there are only two names on it, and some of the most well known (e.g. Martin Heidegger) are not even listed. And this should not be just a list of philosophers who some think are Nazis as others suggest; it should only include those who willingly provided intellectual support and justification for the Nazi regime. csloat (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete In practice, I don't think this article as a list is salvageable. Looking at the way it is being defended, it is always going to be indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am trying to improve the article, in particular trying to sort out some of the willy-nilly inclusions in it. I am dubious that it can be saved, however. Mangoe (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Helpful list, to see if there are any Intellectuals or philosophers on it who provided intellectual material for the Nazism/Fascism parties 1920-45

---Austrian Nazis--- :

Hanna_Reitsch (1912-1979) :
Arthur_Seyss-Inquart (1892-1946) :
Otto_Skorzeny (1908-1975)

--Belgium--

Léon_Degrelle (1906-1994)
Hendrik_Elias (1902-1973)
Bert_Eriksson (1931-2005)
Henri_de_Man (1885-1953)
Lucien_Lippert (1913-1944)
Remi_Schrijnen (1921-2006)
José_Streel (1911-1946)
~~Jean-Francois_Thiriart (1922-1992)~~
Reimond_Tollenaere (1909-1942)
Jef_Van_de_Wiele (1903-1979)
Joris_Van_Severen (1894-1940)
Cyriel_Verschaeve (1874-1949)

--Bulgaria--

Hristo_Lukov (1887-1943)
Aleksandar_Tsankov (1897-1959)

--Belarus--

Radasłaŭ_Astroŭski (?)

--Canada--

Don_Andrews (born 1942)
Adrien_Arcand (1899-1967)
Paul_Fromm (born 1949)
John_Ross_Taylor (1910-1994)
Ernst_Zündel (born 1939)

--Central and South_America--

Salvador_Abascal (1910–2000)
Roberto_D'Aubuisson (1943-1992)
Jorge_González_von_Mareés (1900-1962)
Carlos_Keller (1898-1974)
Arnulfo_Arias_Madrid (1901-1988)
Plínio_Salgado (1895-1975)
Mario_Sandoval_Alarcón (d. 2003)
Miguel_Serrano (born 1917)
Oscar_Unzaga_de_la_Vega (1916-1959)
Getúlio_Vargas (debated) (1883-1954)

--Croatia--

Mile_Budak (1889-1945)
Anto_Đapić
Jure_Francetić (1912-1942)
Slavko_Kvaternik (1878-1947)
Ante_Pavelić (1889-1959)
Mladen_Schwartz (born 1947)

--Czechoslovakia--

Karl_Hermann_Frank (1898-1946)
Radola_Gajda (1892-1948)
Konrad_Henlein (1898-1945)
Emanuel_Moravec (1893-1945)

--Denmark--

Frits_Clausen (1893-1947)
Povl_Riis-Knudsen (born 1950)

--Estonia--

Karl_Linnas (1919 - July_2 1987)
Ain-Ervin_Mere (1903-1969)
Hjalmar_Mäe (1901-1978)
Johannes_Soodla (SS-Oberführer; 1897‑1965)

--Finland--

Herman_Gummerus (1877-1948)
Vihtori_Kosola (1884-1936)
Pentti_Linkola (1932-)
Elias_Simojoki (1899-1940)

--France--

Marc_Augier, aka Saint-Loup (1909-1990)
Maurice_Bardèche (1909-1998)
René_Binet
Abel_Bonnard (1883-1968)
Robert_Brasillach (1909-1945)
Pierre_Clementi (1910-1982)
Joseph_Darnand (1897-1945)
Marcel_Déat (1894-1955)
Jacques_Doriot (1898-1945)
Pierre_Drieu_La_Rochelle (1893-1945)
Pierre_Laval (1883-1945)
Henri_Philippe_Pétain (1856-1951)
François_de_La_Rocque (1885-1946)
Savitri_Devi (1905-1982)
Xavier_Vallat (1891-1972)
Georges_Valois (1894-1945)

--Germany--

Gunter_d'Alquen (1910-1998)
Benno_von_Arent (1898-1956)
Erich_von_dem_Bach (1899-1972)
Herbert_Backe (1896-1947)
Gottlob_Berger (1896-1975)
Heinrich_Class (1868-1953)
Werner_Daitz
Richard Walther Darré (1895-1953)
Anton_Drexler (1884-1942)
Dietrich_Eckart (1868-1923)
Arthur_Erhardt
Gottfried_Feder (1883-1941)
Karl_Fiehler (1895-1969)
Albert_Förster (1902-1952)
Gerhard_Frey
Joseph_Goebbels (1897-1945)
Hermann_Göring (1893-1946)
Hans_Grimm (1875-1959)
Walter_Gross (1904-1945)
E._Günter_Gründel
Hans_Günther (1891-1968)
Ernst_Hanfstaengl (1887-1975)
Erik_Jan_Hanussen (d. 1933)
Erich_Hartmann (1922-1993)
Martin_Heidegger (1889-1976)
Hans_S._V._Heister
Paul_Herre
Rudolf_Hess (1894-1987)
Reinhard_Heydrich (1904-1942)
Heinrich_Himmler (1900-1945)
Adolf_Hitler (1889-1945)
Rudolf_Höss (1900-1947)
Hanns_Johst (1890-1978)
Erich_Koch (1896-1986)
Pierre_Krebs
Johann_von_Leers (1902-1965)
Josef_Mengele (1911-1979)
Robert_Michels (1876-1936)
Heinrich_Müller (1900-?)
Thomas_Müller
Otto_Rahn (1904-1939)
Otto_Ernst_Remer (1912-1997)
Paul_Ritter
Ernst_Röhm (1887-1934)
Alfred_Rosenberg (1893-1946)
Hans_Rudel (1916-1982)
Baldur_von_Schirach (1907-1974)
Carl_Schmitt (1888-1985)
Lutz_Schwerin_von_Krosigk (1887-1977)
Christoph_Steding (1903-1938)
Paula_Siber
Otto_Skorzeny (1908-1975)
Albert_Speer (1905-1981)
Gregor_Strasser (1892-1934)
Otto_Strasser (1897-1974)
Julius_Streicher (1885-1946)
Josef_Terboven (1898-1945)
Adolf_Wagner (1890-1944)
Robert_Heinrich_Wagner (1895-1946)
Karl_Maria_Wiligut (alias Weisthor) (1866?-1946)
Karl_Wolff (1900-1984)

--Greece--

George_S._Mercouris (1886-1943)
Ioannis_Metaxas

--Hungary--

Zoltán_Böszörmény (1893-?)
Sándor_Graf_Festetics (1882-1956)
Gyula_Gömbös (1886-1936)
Zoltán_Meskó (1883-1959)
Ferenc_Szálasi (1897-1946)

--India--

Asit_Krishna_Mukherji (1898-1977)
Savitri_Devi_Mukherji (1905-1982)

--Ireland--

Eoin_O'Duffy (1892-1944)
William_Joyce (1906-1946)

--Italy--

Giorgio_Almirante (1914-1988)
Pietro_Badoglio (1871-1956)
Italo_Balbo (1896-1940)
Carlo_Alberto_Biggini (1902-1945)
Emilio_De_Bono (1866-1944)
Junio_Valerio_Borghese (1906-1974)
Giuseppe_Bottai (1895-1959)
Guido_Buffarini-Guidi (1895-1945)
Ugo_Cavallero (1880–1943)
Francesco_Coppola (1878-1959)
Carlo_Costamagna (1881-1965)
Julius_Evola (1898-1974)
Roberto_Farinacci (1892-1945)
Luigi_Federzoni (1878-1967)
Giovanni_Gentile (1875-1944)
Rodolfo_Graziani (1882-1955)
Guido_Buffarini_Guidi (1895-1945
Telesio_Interlandi (1894-1965)
Agostino_Lanzillo (1886-1952)
Curzio_Malaparte (1898-1957)
Filippo_Tommaso_Marinetti (1876-1944)
Fernando_Mazzasoma (1907-1945)
Alessandra_Mussolini (born 1962)
Benito_Mussolini (1883-1945)
Ettore_Muti (1902-1943)
Sergio_Panunzio (1886-1944)
Alessandro_Pavolini (1903-1945)
Piero_Pisenti (1887-1980)
Achille_Starace (1889-1945)
Alberto_De_Stefani (1879-1969)
Antonino_Tringali-Casanova (1888-1943)
Alfredo_Rocco (1875-1935)

--Japan--

Kita_Ikki (1883-1937)
Nakano_Seigo (1886-1943)
Nobuhiro_Sato (1769-1850)
Prince_Kanin (1865-1945)
Tanaka_Giichi (1866–1949)
Prince_Asaka (1887-1981)
Shunroku_Hata (1879-1962)
Kingoro_Hashimoto (1890-1957)
Heisuke_Yanagawa (1879-1945)
Jinsaburo_Mazaki (1876-1956)
Hideyoshi_Obata (1911-1944)
Gen_Sugiyama (1880-1945)
Prince_Higashikuni (1887-1990)
Tetsuzan_Nagata (1884-1935)
Tojo_Hideki (1884-1948)
Kinoaki_Matsuo
Osami_Nagano (1880-1947)
Shigetaro_Shimada (1883-1976)
Mitsumasa_Yonai (1880-1948)
Nobuyuki_Abe (1875-1953)
Teijiro_Toyoda (1885-?)
Kazushige_Ugaki (1868-1956)
Senjuro_Hayashi (1876-1943)
Konoe_Fumimaro (1891-1945)
Ryoichi_Sasakawa (1899-1995)
Yoshio_Kodama (1911-1984)
Sadao_Araki (1877-1966)
Yosuke_Matsuoka (1880-1966)
Kanji_Ishiwara (1889-1949)
Kenji_Doihara (1883-1948)
Itagaki_Seishiro (1885-1948)
Isoroku_Yamamoto (1884-1943)
Chuichi_Nagumo (1887-1944)
Takijiro_Ohnishi (1899-1945)
Korechika_Anami (1887-1945)
Yoshijiro_Umezu (1882-1949)
Hiranuma_Kiichiro (1867-1952)
Hirota_Koki (1878-1948)
Kōichi_Kido (1889-1977)
Kuniaki_Koiso (1880-1950)
Kantaro_Suzuki (1867-1948)
Kichisaburo_Nomura (1877-1964)
Hachiro_Arita (1884-1965)
Yoshisuke_Aikawa (1880-1967)
Hiroshi_Oshima (1886-1975)
Shigenori_Togo (1882-1950)

--Latvia--

Rūdolfs Bangerskis (1878-1958), SS-Gruppenführer, Generalleutnant der Waffen_SS
Gustavs Celmiņš (1899-1968)
Oskars_Dankers (1883-1965), Director-General for Internal Affairs, Latvian_Self-Administration

--Liechtenstein--

Theodor_Schaedler ([?])

--Lithuania--

Augustinas_Voldemaras (1883-1942)

--Luxembourg--

Damian_Kratzenberg (1878-1946)

--Netherlands--

Jan_Baars (1903-1989)
Max_Blokzijl (1884-1946)
Marius_Brinkgreve (1888-1966)
Nicolaas_Brouwer (1902)
Karel_van_Charante (1894-1985)
Marius_Dijt (1893)
Henk_Feldmeijer (1910-1945)
Cornelis_van_Geelkerken (1901-1979)
Robert_Groeninx_van_Zoelen (1889-1979)
Horace_van_Gybland_Oosterhoff (1887-1937)
C.J._van_Knotsenborg
Gustav_Larsen (1911)
Wouter_Lutkie (1887-1968)
Arnold_Meijer (1905-1965)
Cornelis_van_der_Mijle (1867-1951)
Gerard_Mooijman (1923-1987)
Anton_Mussert (1894-1946)
Meinoud_Rost_van_Tonningen (1894-1945)
Joris_van_Severen (1894-1940)
Bertus_Smit (1897)

--New_Zealand--

Kerry_Bolton (born 1956)
Kyle_Chapman (born 1971)

--Norway--

Albert_Viljam_Hagelin (1881-1946)
Knut_Hamsun (1859-1952)
Jonas Lie (1899-1945)
Vidkun_Quisling (1887-1945)
Ragnar_Skancke (1890-1948)
Varg_Vikernes (born 1973)

--Palestinian_Territories--

Amin_al-Husayni (1895-1974)

--Portugal--

Marcelo_Caetano (1906-1980)
Francisco_Rolão_Preto (1893-1977)
António_de_Oliveira_Salazar (1889-1970)

--Poland--

Leon Kozłowski (1892-1944)

--Romania--

Ion_Antonescu (1882-1946)
Corneliu_Zelea_Codreanu (1899-1938)
Ion_Moţa (1902-1936)
Horia_Sima (1907-1993)

--Russia--

Aleksandr_Barkashov (born 1953)
Bronislaw_Kaminski (1903-1944)
Konstantin_Kasimovsky
Georg_Leibbrandt (1899-1982)
Konstantin_Vladimirovich_Rodzaevsky (1909-1946)
Anastase_Andreivich_Vonsiatsky (1898-1965)

--Slovakia--

Jozef_Tiso (1887-1947)
Vojtech_Tuka (1880-1946)

--Slovenia--

Leon_Rupnik (1880-1946)

--South_Africa--

Oswald_Pirow (1890-1959)
Johannes_Van_Rensburg (1898-1966)
Louis_Theodor_Weichardt (1894-1985)
Eugène_Terre'Blanche (b. 1941)

--Spain--

Sancho_Dávila_y_Fernández_de_Celis (1905-1972)
Emilio_Esteban_Infantes (1892-1966)
Francisco_Franco (1892-1975)
Manuel_Fraga_Iribarne (born 1922)
Ernesto_Giménez_Caballero (1899-1988)
Manuel_Hedilla_Larrey (1902-1970)
Ramiro_Ledesma_Ramos (1905-1936)
Agustín_Muñoz_Grandes (1896-1970)
José_Antonio_Primo_de_Rivera (1903-1936)
Antonio_Vallejo-Nágera

--Sweden--

Carl-Ehrenfried_Carlberg (1889-1962)
Martin_Eugen_Ekström (1887-1954)
Birger_Furugård (1887-1961)
Sven_Olof_Lindholm (1903-1998)

--Switzerland--

Guy_Amaudruz
Wilhelm_Gustloff (1895-1936)
François_Genoud (1915-1996)
Ahmed_Huber (born 1927)
Hans_Oehler (1888-1967)
Jakob_Schaffner (1875-1944)

--Turkey--

Nihal_Atsız (1905-1975)
Devlet_Bahçeli (1948- )
Abdullah_Çatlı (1956-1996)
Alparslan_Turkes (1917-1997)

--Ukraine--

Andrii_Melnyk (1890-1964)
Volodymyr_Kubiyovych (1900-1985)
Taras_Borodajkewycz (1902-1986)
Roman_Shukhevych (1907-1950)
Andriy_Shkil (born 1963)

--United_Kingdom--

John_Amery (1912-1945)
Norman_Baillie-Stewart (1909-1966)
A._F._X._Baron (?)
John_Beckett (1894-1964)
A._K._Chesterton (1896-1973)
J.F.C._Fuller (1878-1966)
Jeffrey_Hamm (1915-1994)
Neil_Francis_Hawkins (1903-1950)
Colin_Jordan (born 1923)
Arnold_Leese (1877-1956)
Rotha_Lintorn-Orman (1895-1935)
Diana_Mitford (1910–2003)
Unity_Mitford (1914-1948)
Tommy_Moran (?)
Oswald_Mosley (1896-1980)
David_Myatt (born 1950)
E._D._Randell
Alexander_Raven_Thomson (1899-1955)
John Tyndall (1934-2005)
Henry_Williamson (1895-1977)

--United_States--

Don_Black_(nationalist) (born 1953)
Emory_Burke
Richard Butler (1918-2004)
Frank_Collin (born 1944)
Seward_B._Collins (1899-1952)
Lawrence_Dennis (1893-1977)
David_Duke (born 1950)
Matthew_F._Hale (born 1971)
Ben_Klassen (1918-1993)
Matt_Koehl (born 1935)
Fritz Kuhn (1896-1951)
David Lane (born 1938)
James_H._Madole (1927-1979)
Robert_Jay_Mathews (1953-1984)
Joseph_E._McWilliams (1904- ?)
Bill_Medland (born 1960)
Tom_Metzger (born 1938)
Revilo_P._Oliver (1908-1994)
William_Dudley_Pelley (1890-1965)
William Pierce (1933-2002)
Ezra_Pound (1885-1972)
George_Lincoln_Rockwell (1918-1967)
Gerald_L.K._Smith (1898-1976)
J.B._Stoner (1924-2005)
H._Keith_Thompson (born 1920)
George_Sylvester_Viereck (1884-1962)
Bill White (born 1977)
Gerald_B._Winrod (1900-1957)
Francis_Parker_Yockey (1917-1960)

84.203.39.11 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Who counts as a Nazi Philosopher/Intellectual?

The question regarding how we might go about citing a reference for the meaning of our phrase "Nazi Philosopher" was raised during the afd, and it is as follows

"The list needs to be cited or the individual names need to be cited to reliable sources where the term "nazi philosopher" or words to that effect are included. I'm left guessing what "nazi philosopher" means and who it does and doesn't include, because there is no explanation and no sources in the article. The article's intro says "may refer to" (which is unclear) actual party members, and then later it starts bringing up other groups of people. So it's not clear to me what the article is about or where it came from. That's what I tried to fix and what I'm trying to addressed. I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to explain my perspective and how I think the article needs to be fixed" --ChildofMidnight

The current opening paragraph tries to establish this definition and limits it to philosopher/intellectuals who had either:

Membership of the Nazi party (1920-1945), or
Been explicitly used by Nazi, chiefly racist, ideology

--We should seek to minimize use of the term fascist since that has become a word of its own and departs from its specific historical incarnations in ancient Rome and 1920s Italy. Though perhaps that is a local prejudice of my own.

--As to finding a source to back up this definition, that is a question, but we must first figure out logically what kind of article it should be, even if it ends up that we need to change the name and/or make redirects from a better title.

--Why this article? Background, it may show, in a very simple but concrete way, how limited the appeal of Nazism was to most intellectuals, also it may show how stupid intellectuals can be at what was thought of as a peak in historical/technological "progress". The danger here then might be that we limit the list to too few and fail to include connections to a broader scientific and philosophic culture.

--That brings us to the articles purpose on wiki, I suppose it might hope to bring together the connections that allow further investigations in this web of horror, even if those links become quite nebulous. So it might allow, for example, someone surprised to see Schopenhauer on the list, a man often presented as a dotty but grumpy old idealist; yet had he set himself up perfectly for misuse by the evil Rosenberg? But was Schopenhauer, who knew he was hugely influential and fully aware of how horrific history could be, living in any more innocence than Rosenberg when he designated a master race?

--It is also a simple and purely intellectual trace and so is very limited since it leaves out the massive historical forces that came to bear on, or bring up in the first place, the Nazi question. Yet this thin intellectual veneer was absolutely necessary for the story that they sold the public.

--It might be nice also to try and add some links that might alude to some of today's ideologies, unless of course we are foolish enough to think we are now wise to them. I'll give a prize for anyone who can see how Dawkins might come to be taken up in an evil way, that is, if ways turn evil again, something we can never predict.
84.203.39.11 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The article – now that is the big question. I cam across this at AFD and it just struck a cord. We had no list of Nazism thinkers, be they called Philosopher – intellectual – Influential Supporter or little old opinion-makers. I viewed the purpose of the piece as a list, and only a list, for a starting point that individuals interested in the subject, as it pertains to the era of the 1920’s through the end of the war, would be able to use as a quick reference. Than an opinion was expressed that it probably should look to who had influenced the individuals on this list and that is were the likes of Schopenhauer and Förster enter the picture. The addition of your suggestions would take this from a list to an actual article. In that, a quick explanation would be required, at least under my standards, for why the more controversial individuals are listed here. So where is the piece going, I am not sure at this point!

Regarding the name change - Technically it should probably be something about Fascism as Nazism is just a branch of Fascism. On the other hand, if I am allowed to view Dawkins from the religious right or creationist stand-point. I think I can claim the prize.ShoesssS ^Talk 18:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it is initially better just as a handy list which then allows one to explore the genuine articles. I was really trying to say little more than this when I said it'd bring them together "in a very simple way". Unless you see more in it. The background I gave could be that 'more' but I only gave it as background not as what might become the content of the article. But I'm open to that kind of an article too if it is susceptible to collaboration.

Viewing Dawkins from the creationist stand-point? I wasn't quite thinking, of that, anyhow, since you're the only one who answered you win it!

84.203.39.11 (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What is an philosopher/intellectual?

I think we may need also to close up what we considered in this article to be an "intellectual".

We need here to consider excluding three kinds of people,

Those who only had local intellectual powers perhaps excepting some of those inside Germany
Those who may have had a degree from university but were chiefly political apparatchiks
Those local intellects who were just parroting a line from Fascist ideology.

In other words it is better to have a concentrated list that allows one to focus on certain movements in the creation and support of this ideology, than to have a scattered list of all 180 countries and their respective "fascist intellectuals." In other words. I think it is quite a small group that we can trace back to a mis-approriation of Darwin and other scientific and philosophic ideas such as those that entertain issues of fighting communism or finding moral bearing in the world.

If we want to grant an objective criteria to the above exclusions an initial suggestion is, respectively:

Someone who had intellectual contacts and influence abroad, was published/translated etc.
Someone who spent the largest part active in politics rather than in writing/teaching.
Someone not considered as important outside their own country.

At the moment I'd suggest removing those under the new sections of Austria, Flem, Belgium. Considering that their bios start "he was chancellor of..." or "he was leader of the nationalist wing off..." obviously not philosopher, nor natural philosophers, perhaps political genius' but not intellectual in the sense of its philosophical and academic side that we use here.
84.203.39.11 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Ahhh, I see we are back to our original discussion. What should be the label of the list. Do we just look at only what we call or label as Nazi philosophers, or do we take into account individuals who have furthered the cause through written or spoken words, though not considered in the true sense of the word Nazi philosophers, but rather informed intellectuals? Likewise do we also include or exclude actions, be they the actual support through service and awards by and to the Nazi regime, and I note here feverate support versus being conscripted into support of the movement or do we say they those individuals were only doing their duty and had not advanced the movement through their own willing actions? Likewise do we consider those individuals exempt from the label Nazi because it happened in Belgium - Finland - Belgium - Poland or even in the UK and the United States, because they were not considered Nazi, in that they were not members of the party, but in their own right fascists, which is just the foundation of Nazism? That would certainly eliminate a vast majority of the list. Tough questions! I am approaching the list within a specific time era, 1920’s through the end of World War II. Can I see the list expanding on either sides of those dates, defiantly. However, that is an argument for a different day. Likewise, I have chosen individual, primarily through your list, that have been verified, through independent and creditable sources, that though they may not be labeled as Nazi, they were certainly fascists through their action and deeds. Appreciate your thoughts on my approach, after reading this :-) Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Reply We are back to question yes, but not to our original discussion which was on the question of what a "Nazi intellectual" was. We now approach the question of what we mean by "intellectual" and this is what I want to focus on now rather than the question as to what was a Nazi or a Nazi/Fascist ideology or precursor constitutes, eg, Was Ernst Haeckel a precursor? So does a minor figure who had only a primary degree and wrote a book and was only known locally, major enough to be considered intellectual in this article? Is a genius politician an intellectual? etc. Do we include anyone who had a thought and a pen or a voice to give it? For the moment I would like to remove these assorted local luminaries from the article until we can come up with criteria for question:what should we consider to be a philosopher/intellectual in this article?

84.203.39.11 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote from Frank Furedi , “Intellectuals are not defined according to the jobs they do but the manner in which they act, the way they see themselves, and the values that they uphold".ShoesssS ^Talk 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment: The above remark was done on the fly, as real life intrudes on what we like to do versus what we have to do, so a brisk answer is given, hoping that the reader understands the thought process behind the remark. Which is rarely the case! To expand on Furedi, which is the bases of my inclusion of certain individuals, is that I believe who we label as intelluctals/philospheres is completely subjective and is not necessary conveyed by men of letters or Academic degrees but by the people the individual interacts with. A basic example is a father/mother giving advice to their son/daughter. Does not the son/daughter view the advice given as that coming from a philosopher/intellectual? Likewise, to extend the metaphor/parable, that same mother/father speaks to a friend, giving advise, and that friend highly respects that individual, is not the person receiving the advice viewing that individual as a philosopher/intellectual, in the truest sense of the meaning bestowed on philosopher/intellectual? That being wisdom. Now to take it to the next level, when that son - daughter - friend extends their comments to family - friends and co-workers, regarding the advice received, and that advice is taken and acted on, does not that legitimize the title philosopher/intellectual to the origin of the advice? I understand the conotations associated with the terms Nazi and Fascism, and certainly do not want to label any individual with those titles. However, if it can be cited and sourced that a particular individual had further the cause through words or actions, even if it affected only 1 individual, should not that individual carry the weight of the label? Thanks for listening . ShoesssS ^Talk 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment -- Reply: I see the point you are making but if you consider how this article may be useful to someone in allowing them to further understand the philosophically element in Nazism (and vice-verse) directly through those who created the ideology or were objectively recognized as clever but taken in by it, then expanding the list to those who influenced their children in Nazism may need a considerably larger list of largely unknown individuals, in a kind of black listing that theoretically would include millions. This we should avoid at all costs.

I recognise the problem of classifying just who is and who is not considered to be an intellectual but your definition would include every elected politicians that ever existed since, by definition, they influence people. So it is not just the influence they had on other's ideas but the fact that they were publicly recognized in a certain field of the intellect, eg, as a biologist, or as a philsoopher. We need to use objective criteria, and such criteria are not hard to find. Recognition as an intellectual does not mean they must have a Phd, though a Phd would automatically be an objective criteria. Nor a particular job title (many writers and artists would be included in this category) Hitler was an artist but a very bad one objectively but maybe he influenced members of his family and they told someone else...so what, he was not publicly recognized as an artist. If he was we could say he was an intellectual.

In the end I think we need to say an intellectual is someone who is considered to be an intellectual on some level even if that means they were like some of the nazi racists quite stupid. So in further defining it I suppose we need people who at least bothered to dress up their ideas in some pseudo-scientific way or were independently (of Nazism that is) recognized as intellectuals, nor just local populists. So one example is Heidegger, lots of books, translated to many languages but apparently independent of Nazi ideology.

Looking at the new names you added under Austria, Belgium, Flemish, Albanians, they are all politicians not intellectuals. If I said to you "the American intellectual, George Bush", I think you might laugh but not because he is not influential with his ideas, Tony Blair, the same. What you seem to want is a list of "Public Figures" who described themselves Nazis or Fascists. There was a list here like that and it was removed, it is just a black list, if you want restore that list then let me know. The question is, who needs a list of every fascist politician in the world, now probably long dead.

I was hoping the article would get deeper and not just skim along through every country. What does it matter what country they were in for our understanding of "Nazi Philosophers"? The only reason to list headings with country names is because otherwise these new names would be incomprehensible since the person was unknown on the intellectual stage and the country name lends them a bit of recognition. I'll replace it with headings such as "Writers", "Biologists", "Theologians", "Academic Philosophers", "Artists", etc., if you want to add the heading "Intellectual Politicians" then that is a possibility.

84.203.39.11 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment -Ah if we could only eliminate emotions from our thought process, what a Wonderful Life this would be. Yes, that was for the holiday season and pun intended. By the way, since this is Wikipedia, and any and all are welcome to make changes as they see fit, please feel free to edit at will, as I have no inherent right to say what is right and what is wrong, but only inherited this project through a AFD I participated in. The worst that happens we are both blocked for edit warring.

Back to the piece. I agree the headings defiantly have to be revisited and have no problem with your recommendations. Location and or nationality should not matter. Regarding my approach to the list, yes it is extremely broad with regards to the inclusion of individuals. However, I am still struggling with the concept of what differentiates the characteristics of what constitutes a Intellectual from a Philosopher from a Politician. If we look to Plato, I believe he pretty much groups them as one. Or at least that is what I interpreted from his writings. Since his time we have tried to separate individuals into specific categories that represent at least two separate groups Philosophers/intellectuals versus politicians. However, for me, this is just one gray area, versus black and white. A prime example of my conflict would be the relationship of Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini. Do we include Gentile as the philospher/intellecutal and exclude Mussolini as just a politician, even though I would consider him an intellectual based on his journalistic abilities? Or do we include them both. In including both individuals do we than open the list to include all politicians or just Heads of State. Welcome your comments. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tried to re-order the headings giving prominence to the various disciplines. I suppose you problem, for example, with gentile and Mussolini is not that difficult if we add some bits of text, maybe a line or two under the names, to explain why they are included, so if you added Mussolini we could add a line beneath his name saying that though he is categorised under "politicians" he was also a writer of some talent. Though of course a heading of "politicians" is problematic given the name of the article I concede to your notion that they may also have had "intellectual"or verbal fluency and prowess on the level of charisma or something of that sort.

I have also added trial subheadings beneath, so far, only one heading (Philosophers/Sociologists) that give names of "misused" philosophers and another subheading of those philosophers who were suppressed by the regime. Not sure how it looks, see what you think. It looks a little odd on my screen because the subheadings appear big and bold compared to the main heading, but that seems to be how wiki does it, how odd that a subheading stands out more than a heading!

84.203.39.11 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have been watching you work and it looks great on my screen. I do appreciate the help and advice. The one problem that the article has been experiencing, and this has nothing to do with our discussions, is that when you are editing under an IP address versus registered user name, other editors have been reverting your work as vandalism. This is a common problem on Wikipedia, with editors using automated tools, they typically look for an IP address making significant changes, and usually they automatically assume vandalism and undo the IP’s work. I was able to catch some of the edits. Nevertheless, I also believe I may have missed a few. I will double check to make sure later today. However, have you given thought to registering here on Wikipedia? It would eliminate the problem of having your work undone. Again, thanks for the help. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I should have edited it all in one go but I just clicked edit on each section. There are still a number of other names to move around in the article. And we might also be able to add the same subheadings of "Used/Misused" and "Suppressed" that are now only under the first heading to some of the other headings. All of those under the subheadings, "see also" and "book burnings" could be also moved up and removed from these sections. I will leave it for a while though since the edits see to go with clashes and also I think my computer seems to give me older versions of the files when I go to edit and I have to hit reload. The number is enough for me I don't like giving myself names.

84.203.39.11 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Retitle

I hope everyone approves of the move. The retitle is supported by the article content. I think it's a better fit in a lot of ways, but I'm happy to consider objections. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It fits better in one way but it is not going to fit it completely and so it is better to keep with the simple title which allows us more scope to define in the article itself what we mean by the title.

The new title now gives the impression to the phrase "Nazi Philosophers" that it refers more or less only to rigid ideologues but we also do and hope to include an exploration of those "source" philosophers/intellectuals who knew nothing about Nazism and also those that were suppressed by Nazism. In other words the simple title can also refer to the philosophy *of* the Nazis, which in the broad sense of that word (ie, including natural philosophy) would include Darwin as a misused character in the Nazi eugenic "sciences." and would include Freud as a suppressed form of thinking. Now we could instead title it "Nazi Scientists" or "intellectuals" but then we definitely exclude philosophers and since German history is strewn with several major philosophers we would miss the point.

84.203.39.11 (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this then, Nazi ideologues. Then in the intro you can bold other terminology like: Nazi ideologues are Nazi philosophers, Nazi poets, Nazi intellectuals and other ideological supporters of Nazism. That way people have a chance to find your article when they are searching, and you can even redirect the legitimate search terms. If you're going to keep it Nazi philosophers you really have a problem including the content that's been added. It's like having a Klingon listed under Star Wars characters. "If it doesn't fit you must acquit!" ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Reply: The title you propose would still exclude the content that is included under what I described above as the "philosophy of the Nazis." In other words, this article is not just about ideologues of Nazism or Fascism but also about those philosophers that were suppressed by it, and those that pre-existed it but were misused by it in being taken up incorrectly, as in for example, Nietzsche, who was vehemently against anti-semitism but was still mis-appropriated by Nazism. As to searching, a search will through up anything in the article so once the phrase "nazi ideologues" is included it'll be found 84.203.39.11 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion The name should be moved back. Given the fact that a name change or a move was not suggested by the Afd and it was agreed not to delete the article under the title "Nazi Philosophers." It is to the authority of that we can resort but also it seems that only one person here wants the new name --which was changed before discussion here-- but nor have the issued raised about the new name been answered to satisfaction, so I hope you will agree that it is best to move the name back to the original one. I think in future any major changes should be discussed and agreed here, or at least given a chance to be refuted here for some time, before any drastic change is made. 84.203.39.11 (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have been trying to push away from the exclusive use of the term Nazi and move more towards the inclusion of fascism in the title. My thoughts were that when we use only the word Nazi in the title, the first thought that comes to the majority of peoples minds is the ideology of only a limited number of individuals and a very specific location, i.e. Hitler and Germany, and a extremely specific time period of the 30’s onward. When in fact, Nazism is only the more recognized term for a extreme extension of fascism, that had been growing for a number of years, especially as a counter to socialism and communism. Likewise, when an individual reads the list and sees an individual like Madison Grant on the list , their first though is who the hell is he? Now if they do recognize the name, they will wonder why a American could be included as a Nazi. Yet the ideology he expressed and furthered, through his book “The Passing of the Great Race” was actually introduced into evidence by the defense of Karl Brandt, at the Nuremberg Trails , in order to justify the population policies of the Third Reich. As, with regards to the simple use of Philosopher, that is more to my liking in that it opens the list to a larger group of individuals. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Reply:I agree and I would also veer toward using the word fascist if it wasn't for the fact that it has come to mean any right wing authoritarianism, benevolent seeming or not. The rise of authoritarianism is important but so is the question of why it tipped over to this extreme in Germany, had they lost something that allowed this? Did being "Protestant" or Prussian fascism did that make it more virulent? Or is it inevitable with the rise of widespread authoritarianism on the back of depression that such extremity appears? I think the anti-Semitism in Germany and the cover of pseudo-science allowed different use to be made of it in Germany than in Catholic Italy and Spain, ie, the ideology which of course being only a cover for the real part of its cause, the grinding conditions of post WWI Germany, and hence the very real possibility of communism pushed those who wanted to retain the old property structure further. Whereas in Italy they only had to regress to Catholic authoritarianism in order to retain the old structure. Now these of course are interesting questions and our little article is just a helpful gathering of people and their philosophies that might allow some of the names around these matters to be explored. On Madison Grant, an interesting note you made on his book, I suppose what is new there is the authority science (and/or liberal utilitarianism) seemed hold over action toward others began to surpass that of the old religion. 84.203.39.11 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As the article has been moved back to Nazi philosophers I am adding a disputed tag. I don't think you can have a list article under this title and include people who aren't Nazis and who aren't philosophers. Not trying to be difficult, but I think my reasoning is fairly sound. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you believe you have sound reasoning then why did you fail to respond to the comments above which lay out pretty clearly why this title covers what is in the article by remaining simple, a full title would be something like: Intellectuals, Philosophers, scientists, artits and politicians who were used, misused or suppressed by the Nazi of Fascist organizations in Europe between 1920 and 1945 in Germany. But even that title may limit the scope that could go here, admittedly at some point parts of the article could be moved off and put under various article titles but since it is mainly a simple list, a gathering point that is not available elsewhere, and for the reasons given above it is best to leave it as is.

Nor am I trying to just make this name remain for any reason other than the fact that a more specific name, like the one you gave it would seriously misname some of the people included. "Nazi Philosophers" I agree is not a perfect name but let's try and find an *agree upon*, ie, the right one first. Because of the AFD however, we must work from the assumption that the name is good, since a new name would be open to another AFD.

More important than the name may be that we don't go making major changes without

A chance for people to comment on the proposal here.
An amount of consensus before making the change. After all who wouldn't say that they have reason on their side, reason is something that is proved in discussion it is not effected by fiat.84.203.39.11a (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Internal references

The list shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a source as it does now. If an article used a references names someone, copy and paste the original source here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Richard, though many experienced and respected editors here at Wikipedia consider referencing back to a well cited and referenced original article, located here on Wikipedia, as sufficient and acceptable, I am in agreement with you and the individuals in this article should be cited properly here on this page. You will note, that this is taking place, and that in fact all are referenced with only a small number as being cited back to the original Wikipedia article. However, like most days, there are only 24 hours in them and I could use a hand. Can you help out? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 02:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The prohibition is in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources." I think the anon wasn't clear on this policy and I didn't do a great job of providing a great source for where the policy is actually stated. As long as we're all on the same page that citations are needed and working towards that end I'm happy to be patient. I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience - I'm working boss :-). And Happy Holidays to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Your only effort appears to be deleting changes others make to the article. You are not addressing any concerns brought up by others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion/Exclusion of individuals

What about Hanna Reitsch , was she a Nazi yes, however I would consider her more a Nazi Celebrity than an individual who would fall within the concept of the list we are trying to collate. If we do start a other heading Nazi Celebrities, won't we be falling into the trap you wisely pointed out earlier, the list could contain millions? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Artists suppressed by Nazis

Isn't that a topic for another article? The list is starting to sprawl. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - At this point, I believe it is still manageable. However, I am only one of several editors working on the piece at the moment. Care to help? ShoesssS ^Talk 22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does look expanded but there were already artists on it for some time. If you read the opening paragraph you'll see why. Another list is an idea but if we can accommodate them here then all the better since those who were suppressed have perhaps an even more important role in showing up Nazi philosophy in its negative image. By keeping them all in the one place, for the time being at least, it may allow for a more comprehensive article overall, especially if it becomes more than just a list-style article. The title of course is not perfect as ChildofMidnight has pointed out but we await to find a better one (see above discussion) 84.203.39.11a (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

List format

Instead of just a list of names, add some context. People won't click on a name without some context that will make them want to. Also you should add birth and death years. Look at a typical disambiguation page like William Norton (disambiguation). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

- Comment - Hello Richard let me answer your requests/questions in the order you asked. First, as you pointed out, yes it is a list of names. That is its purpose, to be a reference list of names. Nothing more and nothing less other than a reference list and just a reference list. Concerning context, take a quick look at List of people with depression or List of scientific constants named after people the first is strictly alphabetical and the second just places the constants next to the individual it is named after. This list is actually going a step further and using headings and subheadings as a reference point, there by supplying a more in-depth context than the two examples I noted. Regarding comparing this list to a disambiguation page, I would have to disagree with you here. Typically, a disambiguation list is used when there is conflict in titles. I do not see any conflict in titles here. Lastly, regarding birth/death dates, we are working within a particular timeframe, as the title of the list implies. The addition of these dates adds no value to the piece. That is why all the names are blue linked, other than one at this point, so if a viewer wants to research deeper into an individual’s life – education – birth – death and any number of other areas dealing with that individual all they have to do is click. Hope this answers your questions. Happy Holidays. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree largely with this, though I think Richard may have a point regarding extra information, the question is, what kind of things would give that bit extra? Is it that a caption giving the bare information for why that name is listed is needed? On the dates, here I agree with Shoesss, the dates would be largely irrelevant but they may be useful for those who fall outside of this time period, so adding dates, for example for Nietzsche might be useful.84.203.39.11a (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, you had to pick Nietzsche, if you notice my edit summary, dated December 20 18:52, as shown here [[2]], I struggled with Nietzsche even being included, as part of this list. In that vain, I tried to find the best reference that balanced his name being included on this list, and the reasons why his name is included on this list.

However, after reviewing articles dealing with Nietzsche’s writings and reading several myself, yes the college years flooded back, and reviewing the relationship with regards to Arthur Schopenhauer and than of course Martin Heidegger, you had to see that that the opportunity for misuse of his philosophy, with regards to the necessity of the state, and necessity of state to take violent measures, to check the destructive tendencies inherent to man, was actually laying the foundation of misuse . It so happens we call it fascism/Nazism, and sorry to say, he was not here to see it. Which leads me to disagreeing in putting additional context into this list. I presumed the list was being collated to be a list and just list. A list of individuals, that could be used to view those individuals who influenced and brought about that era in time. How do you explain Nietache being on the list in a sentence or two, or explain why an individual who died in 1900, if we include dates, was included in the list when most individuals view Nazism only starting with Hitler. If we start placing dates on the individuals, I know my first response will be to ask why someone such as Satō Nobuhiro who is not only Japanese, but died in 1850, would have the possibility of being listed here. Let's let viewers decide for themselfs, without any influence other than a heading - name and reference. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about Nietzsche since he so often repeats his hatred of anti-semitism. I believe it was his sister who "edited" a Nazi version of his work. But I don't think we should struggle here with inclusions, we have plenty of space to clarify the nuances for the reader. And it is better in the beginning to have too many names which later perhaps we can whittle down. Schopenhauer was oft quoted by Rosenberg but his and Nietzsche's notions of Mastery (for Schopenhauer it was a race, for Nietzsche the individual ubermensch) read very differently post-holocaust. One stubborn philosopher was Strauss who even after fleeing Nazi Germany still maintained that authoritarianism was beautiful.

I don't suggest adding dates for everyone just those who fall outside the 20-45 period. I don't want to buy into adding dates or a caption either but thought I'd bring it into discussion and perhaps you are right not to add more. But there is no problem with some dying in1900, the article explicitly covers prior ideologies utilized by the Nazi party. Perhaps there is no caption short enough for why Nietzsche is there, but could we not just say, some of his philosophy was utilized by the Nazi regime though he was an anti-antisemite. One reason to add captions is so that if something is forgotten about why we have added a name or comes into dispute (say the article name is changed and some names no longer suit it) we will know why that name is in the list and be able to hold it there or remove it if needs be.

As to the article title, you remain quiet on that, have you any ideas about a better name?

84.203.77.29 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Title

As y'all are working in good faith, I hesitate to interfere any further, but I remain concerned about the title Nazi philosophers for an article that includes lots of people who don't fit this title. Should we get a third opinion? Request for comment? Or should I close my eyes and try to look the other way? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't mean to put you off working on the retitling, perhaps it is necessary to discuss it more, I notice you still don't reply to the issues brought up in the discussion of retitling above that you started but begin your reply with a brand new name suggestion of "Nazi ideologues." and your next move was to suddenly talk of it being disputed.

Let's take it one step at a time, your first problem with the title is what? That the title says philosophers and we have biologists etc .on the list? Your second problem is that many on the list were not Nazis but we have Nazi in the title. We all see the problem but let us start first with your first problem, philosophers being used when biologists, anthropologists, etc are on the list, I already gave an explanation of this above what do you reply to it? 84.203.77.29 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I read your explanation, but it didn't change my mind about the need for an accurate title and article. The article needs to be based on sources, not original research, to determine who is included. And your arguments didn't change the fact that this article, as presently constituted, is not about Nazi philosophers. I'm happy to consider other ideas for titles, and I'm not going to make and radical moves or changes, but you can't have an article called Nazi philosophers that includes lots of people who aren't nazis and aren't philosophers. Several editors have commented regarding this, and at some point your going to have to do more than explain a title that doesn't work for the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You say "not convinced" and you talk of "reason", but for the third time, what reasons do you have against the points I made above on the need for a simple title and on "philosophy of Nazism" and on the matter of article direction and on the meaning of natural philosopher and its connection with the word intellectual. You just keep repeating the same line. I gave you explicit reasons against each point you made. Of the dozen or so editors that have commented here, I can find only one that suggested a name change, and that was "Amwestover", then again that person recommended a deletion and also condemned the use of the word "intellectual."

To make it easier I'll quote my reply to your retitling to Ideologists:

---------------quote:

"It fits better in one way but it is not going to fit it completely and so it is better to keep with the simple title which allows us more scope to define in the article itself what we mean by the title.

The new title now gives the impression to the phrase "Nazi Philosophers" that it refers more or less only to rigid ideologues but we also do and hope to include an exploration of those "source" philosophers/intellectuals who knew nothing about Nazism and also those that were suppressed by Nazism. In other words the simple title can also refer to the philosophy *of* the Nazis, which in the broad sense of that word (ie, including natural philosophy) would include Darwin as a misused character in the Nazi eugenic "sciences." and would include Freud as a suppressed form of thinking. Now we could instead title it "Nazi Scientists" or "intellectuals" but then we definitely exclude philosophers and since German history is strewn with several major philosophers we would miss the point.

The title you propose would still exclude the content that is included under what I described above as the "philosophy of the Nazis." In other words, this article is not just about ideologues of Nazism or Fascism but also about those philosophers that were suppressed by it, and those that pre-existed it but were misused by it in being taken up incorrectly, as in for example, Nietzsche, who was vehemently against anti-semitism but was still mis-appropriated by Nazism. As to searching, a search will through up anything in the article so once the phrase "nazi ideologues" is included it'll be found "

----------------end quote

84.203.77.29 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Marc Chagall a Nazi pholosopher? This is becoming an article on anyone associated with the arts during the Nazi era. There already is an article on degenerate art. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the opening paragraphs of the article you will see that it specifies intellectuals and artist, to quote:

"We also include here philosophers or intellectuals who were actively suppressed by the Nazi regime. In a sense this destructive or barbaric approach of Nazism to the history of philosophy may be even be more relevant to the topic of Nazi philosophy." 84.203.77.29 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why it is in there. You can't just type "we also include here Pokemon characters" in an article on Green Energy. There are rules for lists and a Manual of Style to follow. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In actually does explain it! If you read it instead of making some hypothetical example regarding "green energy" that could apply to any article you like. It explains it, as did the discussion on retitling above, ie, that suppressed philosophers may give an even deeper insight into the philosophy of Nazism. And other editors also agree with this, so you should see to why this is the case and maybe question your own assumptions. As to it being a list, that is not sure, we can only rely on the result of the Afd for this and its outcome was that the article should not be titled "List of..." . 84.203.77.29 (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The AFD is not relevant, it was a decision to keep the topic. Lists must follow the rules for lists and follow the Manual of Style. You can't have a list called "Colors in the rainbow" and then include a list of vegetables and their colors. Lists must be specific and have discriminating criteria for inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have hidden sections on degenerate art, and hid a "see also" section as big as the article. I also changed it to a "List" in the title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC).

Please return the title to its original, we are having quite a long discussion of it and we are not yet even sure if it should be merely a list, a number of editors talked of making it an article. Being a list is obvious so putting it in the title is superfluous, regardless, we agreed above not to make major changes, such as a title change, without allowing time for discussion and some consensus here. See above comment, to quote:

"More important than the name may be that we don't go making major changes without

A chance for people to comment on the proposal here.
An amount of consensus before making the change. After all who wouldn't say that they have reason on their side, reason is something that is proved in discussion it is not effected by fiat."

84.203.77.29 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Returning title to original as per result of Afd. 84.203.77.29 (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy quote:

"If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. Otherwise, post your request in the Uncontroversial proposals section of this page. If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.77.29 (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)