Talk:Nazism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

intro's clipped last sentence

looks like someone was editing the intro's last sentence and got distracted/cut-off/blocked/tickled/UAV-ed. this morning it goes like so: "Under these conditions the economy was to be subordinate to the goals of the political leadership of the state, [21] however" and that's it. after the however there is just empty space. will see what's do-able and later will address the NS=S y/n muddle with sources. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

muddle addressed. as for intro text's cut-off part: just put a period on the comma and deleted the word however and hopefully the vanished user can come back some day to finish their own sentence.Cramyourspam (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps from 1920 We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts, We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. etc. might be interpreted as socialistic? See same at [1], [2], [3] etc. (ensuring that there is no issue aboutWP:RS here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

OED as Reliable source for etymology

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˌnaʃnˌ(ə)l ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/ , /ˌnaʃən(ə)l ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/ , U.S. /ˌnæʃən(ə)l ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪz(ə)m/ , /ˌnæʃn(ə)l ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪz(ə)m/ Etymology: < national adj. + socialism n., after German Nationalsozialismus (1871 with reference to the Marxist doctrines of the General German Workers' Union; 1923 or earlier in Hitler's speeches denoting the doctrines of the National Socialist German Workers' Party). Compare French national-socialisme (1933), Italian nazionalsocialismo (1933 as nazional-socialismo). Compare earlier National Socialist adj. and slightly later Nazism n.

OED etymology and definition of "National socialism." Hope this is adequate for the earlier usage - it is decidely not a POV source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See Webster's: "First known use of NATIONAL SOCIALISM 1931".[4] You should provide a detailed article explaining how the term developed. Also while you and Darkstar1st believe to have proved the term was coined in 1834 and provide sources that connect it with Lassalle, your new source says it was created in 1871 and connects it with Marx. This is Whac-A-Mole. TFD (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Webster is not a dictionary which is correct when its dates are different from those in the OED. The OED is specifically based on historical citations. I suggest that where the OED gives an earlier date that your "Webster" does, that the OED is a teensy bit unlikely to have made up historical citations. Wanna try at RS/N on the two? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you now claiming that the sources you have been arguing for linking ns to Lassallian socialism sare no longer operative since the OED contradicts them? BTW the way the General German Workers' Association was actually Lassallian not Marxist. It seems bizarre anyway that Marx's international socialism would be referred to as national socialism. Have you got a link to the source? TFD (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Marx" and "Marxist doctrines of the General German Workers' Union" are two different things, TFD. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not say Marx. How do "Marxist doctrines" differ from "Marx's international socialism"? (To be frank, it appears to be an error in the source - the Union did not follow "Marxist doctrines" and no other sources say they did.) TFD (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many, many, many Marxist doctrines. Only one of them is that socialism should be international. Others are "revolution" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" etc. It's perfectly possible to cherry-pick Marxist doctrines. They are still Marxist doctrines after cherry-picking. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand Lassalle was the founder and leader of the Union and Marxists did not join it. What Marxist doctrines do you think they followed? TFD (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

1. What you and I think is irrelevant for Wikipedia, as we are not reliable sources. 2. What Marxist doctrines they followed is irrelevant for this discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase. 1. What Marxist doctrines do you think [reliable sources say] they followed? 2. No reliable sources state that they followed Marxist doctrines and instead say that they followed Lassallian doctrines. You should not defend so vigorously something that is an apparent error in the OED. TFD (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

IOW you WP:KNOW the OED is wrong and you are right. That is what your posts seem to boil down to. Amazingly enough, that is not given the status of policy overriding WP:RS and WP:V. There is no "I know the truth" exemption for Wikipedia policies. Really. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If the OED said that Calcutta was the capital of the United States I would WP:KNOW that it was in error because all reliable sources I have read indicate otherwise. Reliable sources can be wrong. Why don't you provide a link to your source or at least the publication details and we can see what it says and whether later editions corrected the error. On the other hand, it is possible that you have incorrectly reported the source. TFD (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OED is published by Oxford University Press. I have access to the full online edition of OED via my university library account and what Collect quoted above is verified. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I found the entry on line [5]. While it provides the etymology given by Collect, it provides only one definition of the term, "The doctrines of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" and presents 1931 as the earliest use of the term in English. However no other sources support this etymology. TFD (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it that the Literary Digest of 1923 then did not exist? Sorry -- when a published source is found which shows that date, your assertion that it was not published in English until 1931 is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I gave my answer to your question at 14:40, 31 August 2011. I'm not going to spend my time answering random irrelevant questions from you. Try to stay on topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Now let's all be cautious about this. "Nationalsozialismus" in terms of etymology dates back to an 1871 Marxist application according to OED. Please, no more hostile challenging of each other's propositions, stick to the basic criteria that we are looking for. The question is this: is it related to Nazism (if it is being claimed to be)?. If it isn't related to Nazism and is being used to justify an independent article for National Socialism then is it a significant form? Significant in the sense that it challenges the numbers of search results for Nazism showing up by typing "National Socialism" into a search engine--R-41 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the General German Workers' Association, which is not rs but summarizes rs correctly I believe says it was "founded... 1863... and existed under this name until 1875.... Its members were known colloquially throughout Germany as Lassalleans. Lassalles's article says, "when Lassalle founded the Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein (General German Workers' Association, ADAV) on 23 May 1863, Marx's supporters in Germany did not join it". It seems that other sources called it Lassallean, rather than Marxist. TFD (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And again, R-41: The word "Nationalsozialismus" was in use before and after WWI. You claim it meant one thing before WWI, and another completely different and wholly unrelated thing after WWI. You will need a source for that claim. With no such sources, a word must be assumed to mean approximately the same thing one year as it means the next year. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I am in dispute with you on a noticeboard for your accusations against me for soapboxing that were without evidence, I am not going to respond to this. Until that issue is resolved.--R-41 (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW: [6] shows the article "Misfire of the German Mussolini" dated March 17, 1923 from the Literary Digest ... and it most definitely uses the words "National Socialist" in English in it. QED. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It uses the words "National Socialist" (in capitals) to refer to the political party lead by Adolf Hitler which fyi was called the "National Socialist German Workers Party". It does not use the term to refer to the ideology of the party, which is the subject of this article. TFD (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly shown to be errant in your calims. I suggest that this "colloquy" has reached a position where the outre shifting of topic is not of any utility at all. Cheers. The OED statement: 1923 or earlier in Hitler's speeches denoting the doctrines of the National Socialist German Workers' Party seems quite clear as to use of "National Socialism" in 1923 or earlier. The Literary Digest is quite clear. You earlier asserted Are you now claiming that the sources you have been arguing for linking ns to Lassallian socialism sare no longer operative since the OED contradicts them? when I had made no such mention. You wrote found the entry on line [41]. While it provides the etymology given by Collect, it provides only one definition of the term, "The doctrines of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" and presents 1931 as the earliest use of the term in English. However no other sources support this etymology when it is clear the OED did in fact make that statement, and the Literary Digest supported it. In short -- how many errant claims must be made here? Cheers again. Collect (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, when you introduce an article from Readers Digest (1923) and argue it is evidence of your theories, you are inviting us to engage in original research. TFD (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How errant can you be conflating "Readers' Digest" with "Literary Digest"? What it proves is that the term was used in print in a reliable source in 1923. What it proves is that someone who knows the term was not used until 1931 is likely to know something that ain't so. Cheers - you have demonstrated the problem here quite well. Collect (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the party was called the "National Socialist German Workers Party", it is hardly surprising that news media would refer to it by its name. Similarly in 1923 U.S. politicians are referred to as "Democrats" and "Republicans". If a magazine called a KKK leader a "Democrat", only a tendentious editor would interpret that to mean the ideology of the KKK was democracy. TFD (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential disruptive behaviour

It looks at the moment as though a small number of editors are raising the same issue (an attempt to associate Nazism with Socialism) under multiple headings. This makes it difficult for other editors to track and is disruptive. I suggest that if those editors wish to continue to attempt to get agreement to make such changes they consolidate their proposals. Continued multi-threaded conversations are not conducive to collegiate editing. --Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that from 1923 to some point before 1933, the Nazis did, indeed, have avowedly socialist goals. Cheers. And threaded discussions are how Wikipedia works, so I fear I demur on your dictum. Collect (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Socialism means many things to many people and sometimes awful people take socialist positions that fit one of the various definitions of socialism. The Nazis regarded themselves as National Socialists and were advocates for certain positions commonly seen as socialist. The soviets also viewed themselves as socialist and tried to build a state modeled on what they thought were socialist ideals. I'm sure that bothers some people that call themselves "socialist", but simply being bothered is no justification for obscuring the more ugly chapters in the history of socialism. Maybe the trouble is with the concept itself. Maybe its just too ill-defined to begin with and that allows anyone to take up the label and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean. If that's the case then we're reduced to knowing the meaning of the term by only observing the positions and actions of those that label themselves "socialist". It is historical fact that the Nazis called themselves socialists and so contributed in some way to the definition of the word. If that definition is disturbing, then maybe those bothered should pick some other word as a label to denote their political positions. But all that is beside the point. The proper name for the Nazi Party was National Socialist German Workers' Party. Any effort to obscure this fact is an effort to deceive the reader and to turn "Nazi Party" in to weasel words. Mc6809e (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue your personal theories. TFD (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you "know" all the facts? I had assumed, for some strange reason, that article talk pages are the right place to discuss material in the articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see above: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." TFD (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood my point - we do discuss which claims are to be in the article and the weight given to them (iow the "material in the article"). We do not debate the topic. But I should have expected this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere (will post a cite when I find it) that Nazism was basically socialism of the master race, while Communism was socialism of the proletariat. Same socialist principles, just a different focus, apparently. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, TFD. I'll just point out that acronyms in general are to be expanded "at the first occurrence of the acronym within a given text" with the exception of those listed the Wikipedia Manual of Style . "Nazi party" is not listed among the exceptions, and so must be expanded on first use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mc6809e (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Nazi" is neither an acronym nor an initialism. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

But "Nazi party" is an abbreviation, and so must be expanded on first use. True, it's not an acronym or an initialism, and so cannot be listed among the exceptions. Mc6809e (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are a number of issues that have been mentioned. You are quite correct that the first mention of the Nazi Party in the article should be as the National Socialist Germany Workers Party, with the alternative shortform in brackets and subsequent references should use the shortform. TFD (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no "attempt" to associate Nazism with socialism, as it is associated, obviously so, and the article already makes clear that association. There is an attempt to classify Nazism as nothing more than a version of socialism, though. This is probably what you meant, but I think it's clear from the earlier debate that clarity and exactness is necessary if discussion here is going to have any chance of being constructive at all. In any case I would recommend anyone who are dissatisfied with the article as it stands to make concrete suggestions of how to change it so these concrete changes can be discussed. I personally think the last weeks have made small but significant improvements and clarifications, and think it as it's stands right now is close to being acceptable. I'll make a couple of proposals for small changes. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

should we mention Lassalle in the history section?

"Lassalle's politics were power-politics, his socialism was national-socialism" The roots of national socialism, 1783-1933, Rohan d'Olier Butler Darkstar1st (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read and understand the source rather than waste everyone's time with your lack of comprehension of the sources you present. TFD (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

As usual you take to insults when you don't have any arguments. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A statement which in and of itself is uncivil and insulting. There have been many, many arguments presented on this page to counter Darkstar1st, to no avail. freshacconci talktalk 21:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not insulting to point out when somebody uses insult. And your failure to reach an understandning with Darkstar1st is no reason for a whole talk page to resort to name calling, as seems to be the case here. Use dispute resolution processes instead, when communictaion has broken down. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

since there be no actual argument to including the source, i will insert the material, unless there be further objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Nazis would never have endorsed Lassalle's politics regardless of what they were, because Lassalle was a Jew and Nazis are violently anti-Semitic.--R-41 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

do you have an actual rebuttal of the reliable source Rohan d'Olier Butler, or was that solely your opinion? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's common sense, Nazis attempted to destroy all works of literature of Jews. If the author Butler is suggesting that the Nazis, a group fanatically committed to anti-Semitism, openly adopted the political ideology of a Jewish German, I seriously doubt his awareness of the contradiction and thus I doubt his credibility.--R-41 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Roots of National Socialism, being published in 1941, is terribly outdated with regards this question. Stop cherry picking sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

the date a book was published is not a reason to exclude a source according to wp:policy. unless you are able to state the specific policy which is the bases of your objection, i will add the material. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a very good reason to exclude a source that it is 70 years old and numerous better sources have been produced since. Basing a controversial statement on a single source from 1941 is not in line with either the policies WP:V or WP:UNDUE.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

lets pick one, WP:V whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true did you not find the quote in the book? were you unable to verify the book was published? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is hardly the issue here, but WP:UNDUE. But to show that it is UNDUE we need numerous sources that contradict them. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

since no one has provided sources supporting undue, i will add material from this source tomorrow, unless any further objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See comments on other sections, you do not have agreement to add this material--Snowded ^TALK 10:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

i wasn't seeking a vote, i was asking for specific objection to the source based on policy. Since none has withstood scrutiny, i will add the text. should the edit be reverted, i am sure a relevant policy will arise. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar you have made no efforts to counter the objections to the addition of this material. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Furthermore this discussion is connected to many of the discussions below about the different meanings of national socialism. The term "national socialism" in connection with Lasalle has nothing to do with the "national socialism" that is nazism. Your "if noone presents a policy against this I am going to add it" arguments is not how Wikipedia works. Once again you show your lack of knowledge of the most basic concepts of Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

International Socialism is oppressive, National Socialism is emancipating. Henry Slobodin, National Secretary of Socialist Labor Party of America

the above paraphrased material is from The International socialist review, Volume 16, page 690. Algie Martin Simons, Charles H. Kerr, Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1915. unless there be objection, i would like to add material from this source.

• Henry Slobodin was the National Secretary of Socialist Labor Party of America and editor of The People
• Henry L. Slobodin was later the Executive Secretary the Socialist Labor Party. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinions expressed by by Marxist-Deleonist supporters do not represent a mainstream viewpoint. TFD (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." TFD (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is redirected from "National Socialism." If the article does not fully cover that topic, then the redirect should be deleted. If the redirect remains, then it is proper for this article to fully cover the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Small change in the lead.

Currently the lead states that

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]; historically also Hitlerism,[2] Hitlerismus[3]) was the ideology and practice of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (or Nazi Party) and of Nazi Germany.[4][5][6][7] It is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[8]

This gives the impression that NSDAP was the only Nazis in history, especially in conjunction with the "unique variety of fascism" claim. We need to make it clear that National Socialism exists before and after NSDAP. Maybe something like this?

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]; historically also Hitlerism,[2] Hitlerismus[3]) is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism[8]. It is mostly assocated with the National Socialist German Workers' Party (or Nazi Party) and of Nazi Germany[4][5][6][7].

I'm sure this can be improved upon by people who has a better way with words than me, but something like this would be much less misleading. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a source. TFD (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources are already provided. This is just a rewording to clarify. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first source for the changed text (Dictionary of poltics, p. 327) defines National Socialism as "The philosophy and political programs of the Nazi Party of Germany under Adolf Hitler (1933-1945)."[7] When I ask for sources I mean sources that support what you wish the article to say. TFD (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. The purpose of all sources is only to support what you know, and anything else is grossly inconvenient. Which, unfortunately, is not in WP:RS. Plenty of sources show the early (pre-1933) official stance as supporting socialism. Which is inconvenient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we keep the smarminess to a minimum? TFD is asking a legitimate question. Most sources support there being left-wing elements within German Nazism but not of an "official stance" of supporting socialism. Hitler was never a socialist nor were those that remained standing after the 1934 purge. All ideologies have right and left factions. To claim Nazism was ever officially socialist is fanciful revisionism and no RS supports such a claim. freshacconci talktalk 13:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, while there may be sources to support Darkstar1st's definition, the source he presents does not. Do you not understand that the description of Nazism as "The philosophy and political programs of the Nazi Party of Germany under Adolf Hitler (1933-1945)" [footnote 4] does not support the description "mostly assocated with the National Socialist German Workers' Party (or Nazi Party) and of Nazi Germany" (my emphasis)? The whole point of WP:KNOW is that we write what sources say, not what we WP:KNOW. TFD (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that a definition from a dictionary that has a whole sentence to describe a complex concept is not the only objective truth? But OK, if you require a source for "mostly associated" I guess we need one, or we need another way of writing it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We also know from the vast discusson here that this definition isn't the only definition, and the other sources does not support such a strict definition. We can't let one source's view block all the other sources' views. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not following the discussion. Darkstar1st wants to change the lead and I asked him to provide sources for his changes. Do you and Collect think that that is an unreasonable request? (Collect, please explain that it is not what we WP:KNOW, but what sources say.) TFD (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read the discussion. You are clearly not reading very carefully. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You said, "Sources are already provided. This is just a rewording to clarify." The first source I checked contradicts the proposed re-wording. We should not "re-word" without providing sources that support our wording. TFD (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A problem I have with the proposed rewording is the "biological racism and antisemitism" part. That was obviously true of the Nazi party, but if the scope is widened sources would have to be provided that it is true of the other included movements too. Zero^talk 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Scope of this article

As I have not seen any major disagreement with the list of the disputes on this page that I drew up, I would like to make a proposal on how to move forward in resolving them. A running theme throughout all the disputes I listed his how wide the scope of this page should be. There is disagreement over whether it should be narrow in scope, covering only the philosophy of the Nazi party under Hitler, or whether it should cover the wider topic of all forms of national socialism. This theme affects the etymology dispute, the dispute on the relation between Nazism and general socialism, and the dispute about weight that should be given to various theories about Nazism/national socialism. As I see it, it is really the crux of the matter.

My proposal is that we discuss the issue here, and try and come to a consensus about the scope of the page. When the discussion has drawn to a close, I would like to get a uninvolved admin to come and close the thread, so that we can have an objective measure of the current consensus on the matter. It would be a kind of informal RFC, if you will.

In this discussion, I would like everyone to keep in mind that things that can't go on this page can go on another one. We have National Socialism (disambiguation), Strasserism, Austrian National Socialism, and Neo-Nazism, for example. We can also create more if the need calls for them and the topic they cover is notable. Please also keep in mind Wikipedia's policy on article titles, including the use of common names; and also the neutral point of view policy, particularly the part about not giving viewpoints undue weight.

So, let me hear your views. What do you think the scope of this article should be? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---

The redirect from "National Socialism" clearly requires this article to cover all the usages thereof, not just the post-1933 Nazi party, but historic usage as well as the 1023 - 1933 NSDAP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure that redirects require an article to discuss something. From my understanding of Wikipedia:Disambiguation, a redirect to an article just indicates that it is the primary topic for that term, not the only topic. We could change the redirects and the disambiguation pages, but I don't think they in themselves affect what the topic of the article should be. (For any editors who aren't aware of it, the previous discussion about the "National Socialism" redirect can be found at Talk:National Socialism.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• The article is called Nazism, so the article should be only about Nazism, which is the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany. Information about other uses of the term national socialism do not belong in this article. This article is way too long as it is. It takes too long for the page to load up, and it takes too long to make edits. There used to be another article called National Socialism, and that's where that other information belongs.Spylab (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

proposal to split

Into the following articles, and eliminating all redirects:

1. National Socialism (pre 1923) --- To contain all material pre-1923, including antecedents of all types
2. National Socialism (Germany 1923 - 1933) --- To contain all the material about National Socialism, early manifestos of the NSDAP etc. prior to Hitler acquiring power
3. Nazism (1933 - 1945) --- To contain all the material specifically related to the Depression and WW II German history vis-a-vis the NSDAP
4. National Socialism (post 1923 - excluding Germany) --- To cover the miscellaneous groups now with separate articles, merging them into the new article.

Seems like this answers everyone's issues, no? Collect (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly be open to this kind of a solution. If I am understanding this correctly, you are proposing that the current article cover all aspects of National Socialism, and that it be split into smaller articles to reduce the size of the pages involved. In that case, it would seem to make sense to me to rename this page as "National Socialism", as that would be the main topic being discussed, although this would put you in disagreement with the editors who argue that "National Socialism" is almost always used to refer to the Nazism of Hitler's Nazi Party. Is this a fair assessment of your position, do you think? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

sounds good to me. calling the page nazism, which stands for the ideology of a party that used the words national socialist, then redirecting the larger subject of the ideology, national socialism, to this page seems backward to me. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned this above, too, but the issue here is one of disambiguation. To have the "National Socialism" redirect pointing here, the question is not whether this article is about National Socialism, but whether Nazism is the primary topic for the term "National Socialism". If it is the primary topic, then other uses can be pointed to through National Socialism (disambiguation). If it isn't the primary topic, then National Socialism itself could become the disambiguation page, or possibly a full-blown article. Just having National Socialism redirecting here doesn't necessarily mean that we should cover all uses of the term here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(To clarify, for it to be a full-blown article would require proof of notability of "National Socialism" as a stand-alone topic, a position which has already been criticised on this talk page, due to the varying different groups and ideologies which have identified with the term.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

judging by the number of searches as prescribed by primary topic, nazi should be the namesake and nazism redirect here. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

by this logic, nazi or nazism, would be the primary topic for nazi party or vice versa, and or nazi germany. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

National socialism returns 1.8 M Google hits, nazism 6.2 M. Nazism is also unambiguous, cannot refer to other topics. TFD (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

nazi party google hits 6,7M. nazi germany 11.4 M google hits Darkstar1st (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course, if a term is a notable topic, then we can have an article on it, as we do for Nazi Germany and Nazi Party. So, is "National Socialism" a notable topic, or is it a term that various unrelated topics just happened to use? This is the real question here, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

which policies would we violate by redirecting nazism, nazi germany, nazi party, to the most searched variation of the root nazi, which is [[nazi]. this would end the pre-1933 debate, as well as much of the rest. national socialism could be explained as a different form of socialism contained by the boundaries of a nation, rather than uniting the workers of the world. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Then we could name this article National Socialist, given it has the most hits of all, 19,100,000, and redirect National Socialism with 6,740,000 hits here. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's clarify this with a short overview: Although the term "national socialism" has been used in various ways there is no doubt that there is one major strand of usage, although this usage has changed over time. Some confusing non-related usage that has cropped up was a claim that Russians had a tendency for socialism, or the usage of "national social" in the name of some parties.

But the main usage during the 19th century of "national socialism" was to refer to state involvement in economy or business, what we today would call "state socialism". While socialism in general is internationalist, the state socialism of course means that each country does it own thing, so it got picked up by nationalists. This is then taken by Plenge and mixed with anti-semitism to get the national socialism of Nazi Germany. The red thread of development here is completely clear when reading the sources and the usage of the word (Google Ngram is useful here).

I doubt that any other usage of national socialism than this one is notable, but I could be wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support your analysis? Incidentally you appear to be confusing the State Socialism of the German Conservative Party with Lassallian socialism. TFD (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As duly pointed out by our excellent mediator, sources are not needed for explanations on the talk page, only for added material in the article. I'm trying to explain how things are here, so that the discussion is not fueled by ignorance. You can yourself easily verify what I say, by looking at primary sources usage of the word "national socialism" and how that usage develops in the end of the 19th century up the WWI. And no, I do not "confuse" them. Lassalle's policies was a big inspiration and source for Bismarcks policies, as I'm sure you are aware of. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That so many groups have identified with the term "National Socialist" suggests that it is notable. That so many disagree on what form it ought to take perhaps argues for a page cataloging the different types (or minimally a disambiguation page). This would might help to make it clear that while Nazism might have been a kind of National Socialism, National Socialism is not necessarily Nazism. Mc6809e (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that many groups have identified with the term "National Socialism". The problem is, though, that notability is not concerned with terms, but with topics. It is easy to see why this is the case if we pick a couple of obvious examples - I don't think anyone would be in favour of putting Madonna the singer and Madonna the mother of Jesus in the same article; or for that matter police the law enforcement agency, The Police the rock band, and Police the fashion brand. Of course, these things are obviously not connected, but with the various groups that claim use of "National Socialism" it is not so obvious. The way we judge if such things are connected is by how they are presented in reliable sources - if all the groups using "National Socialism" are grouped together in reliable sources as being different flavours of an overarching "National Socialism" topic, then we can treat it as such in Wikipedia. If there is no such connection outlined in reliable sources, then we can't connect them as such in Wikipedia either - instead we use disambiguation to point people to the right articles. I am not taking a position myself on which one of these is correct - that is up to the involved editors to decide. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect's proposal is too complicated. And again, an article called "National Socialism (pre 1923) assumes that there was a unified popular national socialism before the Nazis. I will not accept another rebuke by OpenFuture on my point about this when he/she claims that it must be proven that it was different before the Nazis, it must be proven that there is a linear causal connection between a pre-Nazi "national socialism" and Nazism, otherwise it is speculation and possibly correlation. The current page: National Socialism (disambiguation) is fine for redirects to other "national socialisms". This article should be a general overview of the ideology as a whole - individually-focused sections such as on economics, church and state, and gender relations can be split into other articles. All the history of the Nazi Party should be removed and placed on the Nazi Party article, as it is duplicating it here. The section on the relation of Nazism to Italian Fascism could be an independent article for itself, it strays from the main topic. The section "Nazism in popular culture" it totally trivial and should not be in the article at all. The ideological competition is unnecessary, as it also strays away from the topic.--R-41 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a key issue here, certainly. I agree that we shouldn't use a catch-all name like "National Socialism (pre-1923)" if reliable sources do not categorise the subject in the same way. Including the individual groups and ideologies on the disambiguation page would seem to be an approach that better fits Wikipedia policies and guidelines if we cannot prove notability for a more general category of National Socialism. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no WP requirement that a broad topic must be monolithic in nature - the aim is to separate some major areas into single articles, which is not currently how this article is set up. And it is bringing the other "national socialisms" mainly into the fourth article, and the early historic usage of the term (in all its flavours) into the first one. I agree that Trivia sections are of little use in any artcles at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it, one way we could compromise would be to just add some of the pages Collect proposed to National Socialism (disambiguation). This would provide a place for material about other uses of National Socialism to go, and would also satisfy the editors who would like "National Socialism" to remain as a redirect to this page. How does this idea sound to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that could work, but articles like Nazism (1933-1945) is just Nazism in power - that has an article: Nazi Germany. Nazism (1923-1933) doesn't make sense because Nazism was developed by Drexler and then Hitler from 1919 onwards. National Socialism (pre-1923) assumes that a significant and single unified national socialism existed prior to the Nazis, that needs evidence.--R-41 (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are very good points. We definitely need to bear in mind the notability of any new articles we create. Does anyone have any suggestions for additional articles to add to the disambiguation page for which we could prove notability? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

More should be added to the list on National Socialism (disambiguation) about non-Nazi Marxist and mainstream left-wing socialist "national socialist" parties. There are a series of such "national socialist" parties in South Asia that are unrelated to Nazism, currently listed is the National Socialist Council of Nagaland, a Nagaland nationalist and Maoist political movement in India. There should also be included the National Socialist Party of Tripura, the mainstream socialist Jatiyo Samajtantrik Dal (National Socialist Party) of Bangladesh, and the National Revolutionary Socialist Party of India. There is the Czech National Social Party and the Czech National Socialist Party that are unrelated to Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind several articles, but it might be noted that you don't have to have several articles, we can have sections instead. In any case a main article is needed that links to these four articles. So making them sections first and extracting them to articles if they become to long works for me. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sections might be a good idea, yes. Before I comment more, though, would you mind clarifying which articles you are referring to when you say "several articles"? We have already had a good many existing articles and possible articles discussed, and I for one will lose track if we don't make it clear which articles we are talking about. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The material in this single article alone is circa 110K, The other articles which would be affected come to about another 90K. I really doubt that the current article is short <g>, and it certainly is at a recommended size for splitting. Making sections in a 200K article (that is, putting all the currently disambigged pages together) is "right out". My experience is that each section tends to be a great deal longer than a simple summary - so even making such sections would likely result in a page quite as large as the current page. This suggestion would result in no page being much over 60K. There is no rule against the disambig page having a simple sentence about each section, which would seem to fulfill your desire adequately. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we move the history section (after ideological origins) to the history section of the Nazi Party article and remove the Popular culture section. The popular culture section is extremely trivial. Also I suggest that the specifically focused sections on women's issues and Nazism, Nazism and social class, Nazi racial policy, Nazi policy on homosexuality, Nazi economics, Nazism and totalitarianism, and ideological competition between Nazism and other ideologies be moved to respective articles on those topics so that this article can focus on a general overview of the ideology as a whole.--R-41 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect of Hitlerism

Since hitlerism refers to an ideology created by hitler, should we redirect to nazi party, or nazi germany?

Should redirect to Nazism which is the most common term used to describe his ideology. TFD (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

or maybe to it should have it's own article like marxism? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

or Stalinism, or Leninism, or Maoism? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitlerism is not a common term, one that most people have never heard of. Hitlerism is the ideology of Adolf Hitler, which is Nazism.Spylab (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitlerism is a term used by Strasserist Nazis who condemned Hitler for betraying the original principles of Nazism upon attaining power. A solution is that Hitlerism should redirect to a section on Hitler's ideological beliefs in the Adolf Hitler article.--R-41 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox

Again, apologies for the intrusion. I have moved these nine comments down from the "scope of this article" thread, as I thought they were diverging from the topic. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to create a sandbox for proposed edits in order to avoid edit-warring that will ultimately probably result in two completely different versions of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 19:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Go ahead and use the sandbox then, instead of damaging the much-needed improvements to ths article. There was way too much off-topic and repetitive content in the previous versions.Spylab (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Those "much-needed improvements" are controversial while the previous version was stable for a long time. -- Vision Thing -- 19:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added a request for the article to be rewritten. As I previously mentioned, aside from the introduction and ideological origins sections which are good quality, the rest of the article meanders from topic to topic with too much focus on specific issues like gender issues, homosexuality, social class, ideological competition, social class, economics, and the relation between Nazism and totalitarianism. As a result it does not give a coherent or complete understanding of Nazism as a whole. This article is rated at C-class which is very poor considering that this is a major topic of major importance in politics, so a re-write is neccessary. We need to discuss how to layout the re-write by topics that will form relevant sections in the re-written article.--R-41 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You have added a request for the article to be rewritten and then engaged in a series of fast paced edit that don't leave a room for discussion or review even though this is a very controversial topic. -- Vision Thing -- 19:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I clarified sections that were obviously misplaced, clearly trivial (like popular culture depictions of Nazis), or severely disorganized with the article. I would like to know what others think about the proposals that I have made for the re-write involving the removal of overly specific sections to a more general overview.--R-41 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

"Ideological origins" section according to you is a good quality section but I see it as a mess. Common reader will just skip it because it is too large and unorganized. Also, why have you removed section on totalitarianism? Nazism is usually defined as a totalitarian movement and currently the article doesn't even mention the word totalitarian. -- Vision Thing -- 16:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem was that the section totalitarianism was not connected into any section. If you want to re-insert it into the ideology section, it would make sense. Now, let's discuss reorganizing the ideological origins section to make it more coherant as well as reorganizing the article in general.--R-41 (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have inserted it there. As for organization, I think there is a big overlap between Ideological origins, History and Ideology. For example, Ideological origins section talks a great deal about racism and there is already a subsection on racism in Ideology. Maybe it would be better to combine those parts together. -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to an earlier comment, one should not confuse stability with quality. Another word for stable is stagnant.Spylab (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research in Ideological Origins section

I added the Original Research tag to the Ideological Origins section because some of the content is unreferenced speculation about what may have influenced Nazism. It's not good enough to point out that ideas similar to certain aspects of Nazism existed long before Nazism was developed. There should be reliable references confirming that those aspects really did influence the development of Nazism (or at least the references should show that someone noteworthy has argued that those aspects influenced Nazism).Spylab (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. And calling it off-topic is beyond absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

He did not say it was off-topic (there were of course influences on Nazi thinking} but that is OR. Take for example the extensive reference to Fichte in the section. The source does not say that Hitler read his books and in fact says that the books of J.F. Lehman Verlag were a more important source.[8] But Lehman is not even mentioned in the section and anyway why are we using a popular book about what books Hitler owned rather than a serious intellectual history as a source? TFD (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes he did say it was off-topic: [9]. He also at the same edit removed the bits which could be said to possibly be OR. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is still plenty of original research and content that strays off topic in that section. Many of the paragraphs don't mention Nazism at all. We can't just assume that the Nazis were influenced by certain writers just because some of their views were similar. Maybe the Nazis were influenced by them, but unless a reference says so, it is mere speculation.Spylab (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you point out an example of when influence is claimed without source? Also, you have no example of how it is off topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Repost:

Many of the paragraphs don't mention Nazism at all. We can't just assume that the Nazis were influenced by certain writers just because some of their views were similar. Maybe the Nazis were influenced by them, but unless a reference says so, it is mere speculation.

I'm not sure how I can make the issue any more clear than that.Spylab (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The second para eg refers to the 15th and early 16th century but does not explain how this relates to Nazism. The source used, Tree of Hate, which is about Hispanophobia, does not even discuss nazism.[10] TFD (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You can make it more clear by instead of saying "many", specifying which ones. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to make me go through the entire section for you and identify each sentence/paragraph that either does not mention Nazism, or does not have a reference that shows a link to Nazism, I am more likely to just delete that content instead of pasting it all here. It would take less effort.Spylab (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to paste it, just point it out, or remove the tag. You can't add a tag and refuse to point out the problem. It's not a serious way to behave. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The section mentions Gobineau and Chamberlain, but does not explain how they influenced nazism. The article also mentions influences without explaining what the influence was (e.g., Lamarck, Spengler). Also, there is controversy about some of the influences, which is not addressed. While Bismarck is mentioned as an influence for example, other writers described nazism as "anti-conservative". TFD (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is explained how the influenced Nazism. Both Lamarck and Bismarcks influences are sourced. And you yourself have, if I remember correctly, referred to Bismarcks conservatism as a related concept, so it would be absurd for you to deny it now. This tagging seems frivolous. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Untermensch

It states that Hitler viewed Slavic peoples as untermenschen, yet this is totally incorrect according to the views of Nazism. Under the section "Racism", it states incorrectly, and I quote: "He said that “slave races”, such as the Slavic peoples, had less of a right to life than did the master races — especially concerning Lebensraum." According to all of the sources I have viewed, in addition to the source (115) under which presumably Hitler stated this, it mentions nowhere that the Slavic people are anything but Aryan. The distinction should be noted and taken seriously, if this is to be an encyclopedia, that the term "Russian" is mentioned, not "Slavic", because Slavic peoples (which refers to Glory in many Slavic languages, the word being Slava) were part of the Nazi vision for an Aryan Europe (See the SS Handschar, under the state of NDH - Independent State of Croatia -, and the writings from Himmler regarding Croats, and Serbs (prior to the Serbian Ally allegiance) as a Master Race equally fit to be labeled as such. Just some information for many to not confuse "Russian" with "Slavic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seinemhaus (talk • contribs) 13:12, 15 September 2011

Yes, they were "Aryan" - which in effect meant "non-Jewish European" - but that does not mean he did not think Slavs were racially inferior to Germans. He did. It was part of the standard Nordic/Alpine race distinction of the period, combined with the 'orientalist' notion that eastern peoples are somehow more naturally subservient. Paul B (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NORN thread on Nazism

This is just to note that I have opened a thread at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Nazism to get wider input on who has the burden of evidence in the pre-WWI National Socialism/post-WWI National Socialism debate. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Things look like they have calmed down on this talk page after the noticeboard thread. I think that if we heed the advice Hans Adler gave us there then it will enable us to go forward in a much more constructive manner. As such, I will be taking a step back from this page, but I will continue to watch it to make sure no further problems turn up. If there are any more problems, then I think it may be time to turn to a step higher up in the dispute resolution ladder, but we can make any decisions about that later - there's no need to jump the gun here, in my opinion. Thank you for all of your patience on this. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts here! What did we resolve concerning the disputes? If one of none of the following has been resolved, i suggest we step on rung two on the ladder:

• Disagreement over the scope of the article. Some editors feel that it should deal specifically with the Nazism of the Nazi party under Hitler, and some feel that it should include all types of national socialism, including both other time periods and other countries.
• Disagreement over the etymology of "national socialism", specifically whether the original Marxist application in 1871 is related to the national socialism of Hitler's Nazi party. This is closely related to the previous point.
• Disagreement over the relation between the ideology of Hitler's national socialism and the ideology of others' national socialism.
• Disagreement over the relation of national socialism to socialism in general. This seems to be compounded by the disagreement about scope above.
• Disagreement over which uses of "national socialism" in sources refer to an ideology, and which merely refer to socialism organised on a national scale.
• Disagreement over the weight that should be given to Hayek's interpretation of Nazism.

Darkstar1st (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like any of these issues have been resolved just yet; however, the noticeboard thread at least has given us a framework which we can use to go forward from here. The advice there is good, and actually touches on all the points that are being disputed. I suggest you read it carefully, and then base your contributions to the article on that. If all the editors here do that, then I think we may suddenly find ourselves with no dispute at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Hi everyone, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. In my closing comments at the recent thread there, I said that Steven Zhang would informally mediate this dispute here on the talk page. However, it turns out that he is too busy to do this at the moment. Instead of Steven mediating, I would like to draw up a list of all the content issues that are present on this page at the moment. I think that once we can agree concretely on what things are being disputed, it will be clearer how to proceed with dispute resolution.

Here are the issues I see so far:

• Disagreement over the scope of the article. Some editors feel that it should deal specifically with the Nazism of the Nazi party under Hitler, and some feel that it should include all types of national socialism, including both other time periods and other countries.
• Disagreement over the etymology of "national socialism", specifically whether the original Marxist application in 1871 is related to the national socialism of Hitler's Nazi party. This is closely related to the previous point.
• Disagreement over the relation between the ideology of Hitler's national socialism and the ideology of others' national socialism.
• Disagreement over the relation of national socialism to socialism in general. This seems to be compounded by the disagreement about scope above.
• Disagreement over which uses of "national socialism" in sources refer to an ideology, and which merely refer to socialism organised on a national scale.
• Disagreement over the weight that should be given to Hayek's interpretation of Nazism.

Please let me know if you think this list is accurate. Also, if you have any corrections or additions, feel free to add them below. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

good. thanks. i'd add recent spats including ...whether it was a left or right wing philosophy. (i'm not saying it is left wing, i'm just saying it has been an issue on the article's talk page). this gets muddy because at first there was a vocal left-wing element which lost power to hitler's non-socialist circle. user/s have cited nazi papers with socialist left language to say it was a leftist concept. others (disclosure: including me) cite sources about how the leftist words were empty and were pushed aside by hitler --so as things actually played out (versus as worded in early de facto-retracted party papers) the movement was mostly a right wing non-socialist one. maybe make it ...whether it was a left or right wing philosophy in actual historical practice. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. I think this is similar to the disagreement about the relation between national socialism and socialism in general. Maybe we could amalgamate these two into into one description? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That list seems fine to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

disagreement between minority opinions and tiny minority opinions. wp:undue is often cited, yet no support evidence to support the editors claims some sources discussed actually are a tiny minority and therefore not eligible to be included. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. As an example, the disagreement over the weight we should give to Hayek immediately springs to mind. Were there any others that you were thinking of? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, von Mises
• Robert Nisbet, fichte extended the idea of the nation-state from a legal-political entity to one in which all human needs, including moral and spiritual ones, could be met: 'he is the true author of national socialism.
• Chambers's encyclopaedia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, All income should be dependent on service, instead of property and capital, Johann Karl Rodbertus, early advocate of National Socialism.
• Karl Frederick Geiser, Professor of Political Science at Oberlin College, The growth of national socialism in Germany, and the tendency toward national socialism in America in 1912
• The International socialist review, Volume 16, page 690. Algie Martin Simons, Charles H. Kerr, Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1915, International Socialism is oppressive, National Socialism is emancipating. Henry Slobodin, National Secretary of Socialist Labor Party of America Darkstar1st (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, I think I would just collapse Hayek and these others into one clause that says "disagreement over which theories are minor, and which are fringe theories". Reading this, I think it may be necessary to add "disagreement over which theories are major" too. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Efficacy of mediation

Frankly, as long as any attempt at "resolution" ignores the Big White Elephant in the room...that certain editors are only here with the clear agenda of portraying Nazism as some kind of "Left-Wing," "Socialist," philosophy, in order to make it fit into their "Obama is a Nazi," "Glenn Beck," "tinfoil hat" weltanschauung...there can be no intelligent editing here. This used to be a fairly "normal," fairly informational article...but the addition of all this blatantly POV garbage...by people who seem completely incapable of understanding the basics of academic scholarship...is the exact reason many people don't put any credence in what they read on Wikipedia. And the addition of cherry-picked quotes from sources that one has not read...as well as blatantly POV stuff from guys like Hayek and Von Mises (who are about as RS on this subject as would be Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh...) is proof positive of this agenda. When someone is ready to actually come in and demand that the POV Warriors cease and desist, let me know. Until then, have fun with their conspiracy theories and pseudohistorical revisionism, which really is no better than Holocaust Denial. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So these other editors in your opinion are no better than Holocaust deniers? Ugh. Please remember to be civil.75.253.32.62 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to be "civil" with Holocaust Deniers and other pseudo-historians and conspiracy theorists. Their views are not due the same respect as that of professional historians. Oh yeah, and next time...have the guts to log in on your account, Sport. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the resulting over-reaction where people try to pretend that Nazism has no relationship to Socialism at all. Many topics on Wikipedia has to deal with loony people. That is *not* helped by being loony the opposite way. As long as we deal with facts and sources and ignore the political aims of editors (no matter how crazy those aims may be) there is no reason why this can't be resolved. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan: the "S" in NSDAP stand for "socialism" and this is an undisputed fact. Looking at your self-admitted associations/ideology/beliefs/userboxes on your user page, one can only conclude that you are an extreme Leftist, and therefore you should rather take your discredited and toxic views to the blogosphere, not a mainstream endeavor like "creating an encyclopedia". Wiki doesn't need extremists and POV editors. Thanks. Frankly, someone with your openly skewed and POV views should be banned. MickeyDonald (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The argument that "because National Socialism has 'socialist' in it, it must be a left-wing movement" is directly addressed at the top of the Talk:Nazism page. Multiple far-right movements adopted the term "socialist" in response to the rising popularity for communism immediately following the October Revolution of 1917. Oswald Spengler of the Conservative Revolutionary movement promoted what he called Prussian Socialism and his ideas influenced the Nazis. Would you suggest that the "Conservative Revolutionary" Prussian Socialism is a left-wing ideology?--R-41 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely hilarious, Chief...that you think that my views on this subject, which are backed up by all of the overwhelming evidence and support of every major historian on the planet, are "extreme Leftist," and "should be banned," and you seriously think you are NPOV? You are an Extreme Right-Winger. By your own "logic," that would make you also fit to be banned. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bryonmorrigan and see that OpenFuture has confirmed it. These editors are presenting theories from Cleon Skousen and Jonah Goldberg, which were popularized by the John Birch Society and Glenn Beck, and supporting them with out of context quotes from mainstream historians, texts written before the rise of Nazism and writngs by Austrian Economists. TFD (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I contradicted Bryonmorrigan you may want to re-read what we both said as you otherwise just end up showing me to be right by example. And I suspect you don't want to show me right. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is literature about modern right-wing interpretations of nazism and perhaps they could be added. It is important however that we do not provide parity between mainstream and fringe historiography. TFD (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see a few people calling for blocks and bans, so let me lay out my understanding of how the process works. Blocks and bans are for conduct issues, not content issues, and the vast majority of them are given for relatively obvious conduct issues (vandalism, edit warring, blatant personal attacks). When it gets to more subtle conduct issues, it gets harder to separate these issues from the content issues, and in fact the conduct issues often disappear if the content issues are resolved. For this reason you often see disputes that are taken to ANI being referred to dispute resolution, and also for this reason you do not usually find admins willing to wade into content disputes using blocks and bans.

Sometimes these more contentious cases can go on for months or even years, but there are two main ways in which they can be resolved. The first is by getting community sanctions against specific users, which can take place as the outcome of an RFC/U or directly at ANI. The second is by getting general sanctions imposed on the article and/or editors involved as a result of arbitration. Note that both of these methods require mediation: the RFC/U route needs two different editors to try and resolve dispute with the user in question, and the arbitration route usually requires that disputes progress up the dispute resolution ladder from talk page discussion, to informal mediation, and then to formal mediation before a case can be accepted.

There is a good reason for these requirements: as well as the possibility of the conduct issues simply disappearing, almost every dispute that is purely about content can be resolved by sticking to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and finding compromise between editors. So, mediation provides a way of either making clear how to separate conduct issues from content issues, or it just resolves the dispute outright.

Following from all this, I think it is clear that mediation will also benefit those people who think that bans and blocks are necessary. I should make it clear now, though, that I believe in resolving disputes as early as possible. There is no need to drag a dispute out when it can be resolved on the talk page or in informal mediation. With this page, if we can keep the debate civil, keep in mind Wikipedia policies, and perhaps get some formal clarification on the scope of the page, then I don't think there's any reason we can't nip this dispute in the bud. I think of mediation here as a proactive step to deal with the disputes that have arisen, and I hope that I can have the cooperation of all of you in resolving this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The current major problem is that there is a lot of speculative information being added about supposed predacessors of Nazism, often with little credible evidence or even original research. There needs to be evidence that the Nazis adopted such previous ideas, and not blind assumption that because something had a similar name or some similarities in certain areas. DarkStar1st for instance has added material to the ideological origins section claiming that Ferdinand Lassalle, a Jewish German political theorist directly influenced Nazism because he used the term "national socialism" for the ideology he promoted. This is not backed up by evidence, early Nazi party member Dietrich Eckart denounced Lassalle because he was a Jew among other reasons, after all the Nazis are anti-Semitic. The whole issue of people debating whether Nazism is right-wing or left-wing is purely based on the etymological use of the term "socialism" in the Nazi's name. A number of people naively assume that that means that they must be left-wing, when historical analysis reveals that the Nazis utilized the term "socialist" and socialist rhetoric mixed with volkisch nationalism as a means to challenge the rising popularity of communism in post World War I Germany. Furthermore a number of far-right groups took on "socialism" as an ideology in the aftermath of the Bolsheviks' October Revolution of 1917 post-World War I, including Oswald Spengler's Prussian Socialism of the Conservative Revolutionary movement. In practice, the Nazis were associated with many of the ideals developed by Italian Fascism, an ideology that was self-described as a right-wing ideology in the Doctrine of Fascism. It is true that Hitler and many Nazis despised capitalism which they saw as being run by Jews and for promoting decadence through its advocacy of materialism and economic individualism, but the Nazi economy was not left-wing because had no egalitarian aims, it supported the idea of survival of the fittest, opposed egalitarian social welfare - social welfare was only provided to the unemployed during the Great Depression because it wasn't deemed the unemployed's fault for being jobless during the crisis.--R-41 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the NSDAP had an official manifesto which is manifestly socialistic, and which appears to have been totally ignored by Hitler when he achieved power. This is quite inconvenient for those who insist that the Nazi's were never "socialist" but it remains a palpable fact. Alas, we can not rewrite history to make everyone fit into nice political cubbyholes, and so the article ought to reflect the original manifesto, and the later apparent ignoring thereof. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but this is no place for original research. To me, it reads a lot like a Tea Party platform, with a lot of complaints about immigrants, foreign systems of laws, international organizations, the need for a strong defense, etc. In fact the American Right in the 1930s was highly sympathetic to the Nazis. When you listen to the Glenn Beck show or other FNC hosts, notice how often they refer to "the elites", "the establishment, etc.". It is called right-wing populism. TFD (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Uhg. You complain about others' original research then go on to provide your own "[i]n fact the American Right in the 1930s was highly sympathetic to the Nazis". Mc6809e (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Collect is correct, the NSDAP were socialist but Hitler abandoned those ideals when he came into power. See The Shaping of the Nazi State By Peter D. Stachura pp92-93 The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact this source says "The regimes shared many common attributes such as an extreme form of socialist ideology" Legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity By Jiří Přibáň pp154 The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

R-41: Are you claiming that we need reliable sources that the word "liberalism" meant the same, say in 1942 as it did in 1941? Because you *are* saying that we need sources to show that the word "national socialism" meant the same thing in 1919 as it did in 1918. I claim that you need reliable sources that the words do NOT mean the same thing. I thought this issue was dealt with and that we had reached a consensus, but apparently not. That then needs to be added to the list of issues in this conflict. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

All: Please stop conflating "socialist" and "left". These terms have never been equivalent. And neither is "right" and "non-socialist". It's perfectly possible to be non-socialist left and be socialist and right. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

*Ahem* - I think we are all getting a little off-topic here. Let's keep this thread about mediation and what everyone's thoughts and reactions to it are. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to OpenFuture's argument, liberalism has greatly changed over the years - today people would not relate the racist and even genocidal liberalism of the 19th century as pursued by U.S. President Andrew Jackson, that involved ethnic cleansing and a campaign of extermination against Native Americans and support of slavery of blacks, with modern liberalism that promotes cultural equality and multiculturalism. Or for a matter of fact that in the past that classical liberals supported forced sterilization of disabled people, supported colonialism over "savage" peoples, were reluctant and even hostile to giving democratic voting rights to people without a significant sum of property, today these policies are taboo in modern liberal society. The term "social democracy" originally referred to Marxist parties but now refers to moderate centre-left parties with most of them committed to the Socialist International that is opposed to communism. The point is that a major ideology called "National Socialism" arose under the leadership of Hitler that became so influential that the term "National Socialism" came to be expressly mean Nazism. It was and remains the dominant ideology termed "national socialism". In order to determine the evolution and creation of a specific ideology, it is necessary to work backwards from present to past to find the causation and avoid the danger of connecting correlation with it because of this important analytical fact: correlation does not imply causation. It is also necessary to bear in mind that before a popular ideology "seizes" a name and entrenches it in culture as its own, it often can refer to many disparate meanings as promoted by various people for various reasons. For instance, let's say a Marxist party in a certain country in 1900 called itself the "National Socialist Party" and adhered to a "national socialism" because it wanted the development of socialism and communism in a certain nation, it is not a Nazi movement and not related to the history of Nazism in spite of a similar name.--R-41 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't know if Andrew Jackson ever called himself a liberal, your basic point is correct: Liberalism has changed a lot over the years. And unsurprisingly, the article on Liberalism covers this. So this article should cover the changing versions of National Socialism. Yes, National Socialism rose to power with Hitler. But: 1. The claim that National Socialism now only means "Hitlers opinions" is incorrect. 2. That National Socialism came to prominence duing Hitler is no reason to pretend that he invented it, which he did not, or to ignore the early history of NS. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What about the social democracy example: it meant Marxist parties before Bernstein's creation of contemporary social democracy that is centre-left and officially since the creation of the Socialist International, is anti-communist. Since then communists have attacked contemporary social democracy, but prior to contemporary social democracy being invented, they often called themselves social democrats. This is an example of a complete change in the use of the term. Hitler didn't "invent" National Socialism, but he developed the dominant version of it, National Socialism in scholarly works since Hitler's rise to power almost always refer to Nazi National Socialism.--R-41 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

TLAMN should realize that when authors put expressions in 'scare quotes' (Stakura, pp. 92-93),[11] they are quoting other people (in this case Nazis) not presenting their own opinions. When you present these types of sources you are wasting other people's time. It is offensive to the writer to attribute views expressed by Nazis to him, and you should refactor your comments. TFD (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD don't take an aggressive tone with the user by saying they are "wasting other people's time". I've had a quite nasty dispute with OpenFuture to which I doubt he/she has recovered a sense of respect towards my postings, but I was just going to post, when I noticed your post, that I agree with OpenFuture's statement above that not all socialists have to be left-wing, that there have been right-wing socialists, Karl Marx even acknowledged that there were conservative and reactionary socialist movements - though he claimed that they were not true socialists and that only communism was true socialism. Disprove the point, don't attack the user for "wasting time".--R-41 (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not replying to OpenFuture, but to The Last Angry Man (TLAM). He provided a source that discussed the 'socialism' of the early Nazis, which was put in quotation marks. Writers use 'quotation marks' when they are using someone elses terminology which they themselves do not endorse, in this case the terminology of the Nazi Party. Someone else may write about the Nazi theory of the 'master race', that does not mean the writer is endorsing it. BTW you are confused about "right-wing socialism". Neo-classical liberals refer to social welfare programs introduced by conservatives as "socialism", but it is not considered socialism in mainstream writing. And Marx was not writing about that, but about Lassallean socialism. TFD (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of wasting peoples time please, it does not matter if the author was quoting or using another`s terminology, the fact stands that a great many of the Nazis were socialists, and what of the other source? Why ignore that? Here it is again "The regimes shared many common attributes such as an extreme form of socialist ideology" Legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity By Jiří Přibáň pp154 The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So you misreprepresent sources and say that does not matter because your opinion is right. That is a waste of your time and mine. TFD (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? How have I misrepresented a source? Please comment on Legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity By Jiří Přibáň pp154 as well, it is rude to ignore it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read countless texts that you have provided, you obviously have not read or understood any of these texts and it is a waste of my time and yours. Every time a source is debunked, you provide another one. I appreciate that you have strong very strong views on a number of subjects, such as climate change, and feel that mainstream opinion is wrong. But we are not here to argue about our personal beliefs. If I want to read the types of opinions you express there are countless websites that present them. TFD (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you confusing me with someone else? I have shown exactly two sources on this talk page, were are you getting countless from? Which of the two sources have been debunked? Who cares about climate change? Climate changes, it`s what it does and the only interest I have in it is the fact that I hate snow. I am not arguing about personal beliefs either, not do me a favour and comment on Legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity By Jiří Přibáň pp154 The Last Angry Man (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Legal symbolism is about the law not politics. The fact that the author makes a passing reference to his view (not sourced, not explained and not relevant to the chapter) does not mean that it is a fact or even that it is an opinion worthy of inclusion. Were it not that this book contained something that supports your belief system, you would never have presented it as a source, nor would anyone else. TFD (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Given you know noting of my beliefs I would thank you to refrain from commenting on them. Given this book is published by the academic press means it meets WP:RS, why would it need to be sourced? please point to the relevant policy which says a reliable source must also be reliably sourced. (and I do see a source there at the end of that paragraph) Please explain how this is not a reliable source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And another reliable source which says the Nazis practiced a form of socialism, The rise of the Nazis By Conan Fischer pp54 The Last Angry Man (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There you go again. As soon as the inadequacy of a source is explained to you, you plow right ahead and find another one. You are misrepresenting Fischer's writing. He did not say "the Nazis practiced a form of socialism", rather he uses the phrase "this form of socialism", the meaning of which is clear from the context. TFD (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean again? I am most certainly not misrepresenting anything "This form of socialism could appeal across class barriers with far greater ease than marxist socialism" So what is your issue? He clearly states right there that they practiced a form of socialism. And you have still to say why you think Legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity By Jiří Přibáň pp154 is not a reliable source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Although the writer uses the expression "this form of socialism" he does not call it a form of socialism any more than someone referring to the thousand year Reich is claiming it last 1,000 years. As he said it was the socialism of the "Herrenvolk". It is similar to someone referring to separate but equal as a form of racial equality and then a tendentious editor claiming that the writer said that the South practiced racial equality. Incidentally the nazis did not practice "this form of socialism", they dropped it soon after. TFD (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Again, you are pulling soundbites out of context on the one hand and using sources that have little relevance to the topic. Such an approach is pure POV editing - searching for sources that appear to support a position, rather than identifying relevant sources and explaining what they mean. TFD (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No I am not, sources were asked for which state the Nazis practiced a form of socialism, three have been provided which are quality sources. You just refuse to debate them instead wave your hands vaguely in the air. Now tell me why you think the three sources presented are either not reliable or do not actually say what I am saying they say. The Last Angry Man (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion page is not to "debate", but to improve the article. Do you suggest we should put into the article, "In his book, Fischer referred to the 25 points as "form of socialism". I have no idea what he meant, but think it's really important that you know this." TFD (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Angry Man, the sources provided has all been proven either obsolote or subjective or both. I have provided plenty of sources that points at the Hayek interpretation not being part of contemporary mainstream academia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD How do you discuss improvements to an article is not through debate? You asked for sources which say the Nazis practiced socialism, you got three and have now resorted to muddying the waters with nonsense. Saddhiyama, I have not presented Hayek as a source, I am unsure were you got that from. It i doubtful indeed if sources from 2007 & 2002 are in fact "obsolete" Legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity By Jiří Přibáň pp154 The rise of the Nazis By Conan Fischer pp54 TFD refuses to actually discuss these sources, preferring to hand waving instead. Both those sources say the Nazis practiced a form of socialism. Comments? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been looking for it. Your arguments was completely similar to the editors presenting Hayeks views on the matter. I have been looking high and low but have not been able to find the 2007 and 2002 sources you claim to have presented. I readily admit I have not been following the discussion for awhile and as such has probably missed your presentation, but I do beg of you to provide some kind of hint to your claims, although I admit it is entirely my own fault that I have not been able to find them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Two of the sources presented are in the previous post, I have bolded them so you might see them The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

(out) Still waiting on a response here The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Already explained to you. You are taking Fischer's comments out of context and the law textbook is not relevant to ideology. Anyone can put key word into search engines and find sources like this to support anything they want. If one wanted to know if fascism was a form of socialism one would find a book on socialism and see whether it was included. Incidentally, you wrote at Talk:English Defence League/Archive 6, "[The EDL] has been described as right wing, this does not make them right wing, there is a difference". Seems to be a double standard. TFD (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If one would like to know if some ideology is a form of socialism the best way to find out is to take a book about that ideology and read about it. That's what we did here. -- Vision Thing -- 20:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You lad have two options, you may discus the sources, or I hall add content to this article using said sources. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And more sources which says the Nazis practiced a form of socialism. The Journal of Economic History Socialism and Wages in the Recovery from the Great Depression in the United States and Germany The Economic History Association 1990 DOI: 10.1017/S0022050700036445 "their brand of socialism emphasized centralized control" The Journal of Modern History Vol. 48, No. 1, Mar., 1976 "The combination of nationalism and socialism as it was proclaimed by Hitler's party" The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect of Nazi

when i hear the term "nazi" i think of someone who follows/ed the ideology of the nazi party, should we redirect that term there? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this from the "scope of this article" thread to a new thread. Darkstar1st, I think you misunderstood the purpose of the "scope of this article" thread. It is intended for discussion about the scope of this article - the Nazism of the Nazi Party under Hitler versus a broader article on all types of national socialism. Discussion about the nazi redirect is a little off-topic. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In which case, the current redirect from "Natinal Socialist" to the current article is clearly errant and should be deleted. If the redirect is proper, then the full tipic of the redirect is proper in this article. One cannot reasonably argue that where the redirect exists that the topic of the redirect does not exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Discussions about redirects probably belong on their own talk pages, not this one.Spylab (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but it's hard to get an overview, and redirects may be inconsistent or confusing when done like that. We need to discuss the redirect as a part of the informal mediation here. Probably a notification should be done on each of the talk pages, to say that the discussion is done here, centrally. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

shouldn't nazism redirect to nazi given it is the more recognizable term? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for re-write and revision of ideology section

PROPOSAL FOR RE-WRITE AND REVISION OF IDEOLOGY SECTION

I propose that the ideology section be layed out in a more organized and rational manner than it is now. Currently it has too many headings and subheadings and sections that are too-focused on single issues rather than Nazism as a whole. The sections should be as brief as possible, to-the-point, and cover as wide scope of relevant issues as possible within their parameters without getting bogged down with too narrow of focus on one issue. "See also" links can be put on certain sections for specific articles on major issues within the sections, such as links to articles focused on Nazi economics, or Nazi policy on LGBT issues, etc. I suggest that the ideology section's headings be organized like this - the bracketed portions are notes for possible material to put into the sections, they should not be confused as being part of a heading title:

• Ideology
  • Domestic policy
    • Social (including issues such as cultural policies involving race, gender and sexuality, religion; issues involving political culture, such as opposition to democracy, communism, and support of nationalism, totalitarianism etc.)
    • Economic (including issues such as positions on state economic intervention, private property, social class)
    • Security (including issues such as advocacy of a police state with the Gestapo)
  • International relations policy
    • Social (including cultural policy issues such as the national and racial policies of lebensraum and German irredentism, political culture of promoting anti-Bolshevism and the anti-Comintern agenda)
    • Economic (including trade policy, the economic component of lebensraum policy)
    • Military (including militarism and militarization, imperialism, the long-term agenda of Hitler since the 1920s to have a military alliance between a Nazi-led Germany with Fascist Italy together along with other pro-Nazi regimes against Bolshevism, democracy, and Jews)

--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me. I would say wait a little longer to see if anyone objects, and if not go ahead and re-write it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This whole article is about ideology and practice of the Nazism so there is no need for separate Ideology heading. From your descriptions it seems that you want to discuss Nazi practices, which shouldn't really go under Ideology heading. Instead of Ideology section, I suggest adding four main sections: Economic polices, International relations, Political structure and Social polices. -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I do think we should wait with this reorganisation until we have moved the parts related only to the NDSAP to the relevant articles, as suggested above somewhere. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Policies and ideology are different topics. TFD (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account what has been said, here is a second proposal. It is not focused on "policies" but important themes.

• Components
  • Social
  • Economic
  • Political structure
  • Security
  • International relations

--R-41 (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine to me (only thing I would perhaps change is Security section so that it includes use of propaganda - both "hard" and "soft" power were instrumental). -- Vision Thing -- 20:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to make this outline as being applicable to any ideology, not just totalitarian ideologies that have access to powerful propaganda techniques. However I suppose propaganda could definately be included as a topic within it, or under the "Social" section if it describes the ideology's propaganda involving social and especially cultural issues.--R-41 (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It is too complex. The Nazis originally proposed an economic policy of interventionism, they introduced a policy of laissez-faire, then they re-oriented to a war-time economy. What was their economic ideology? They did not have one, they merely persued policies that were expedient. TFD (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In practice many ideologies have adapted to situations or transformed. Bolshevism transformed over time, it went from minimal interventionist to strong interventionist under war communism, back to less intervention, and then total control under the command economy system. People generally recognize it for its final main agenda, the command economy or in the case of Titoism and Dengism in China, Market Socialism. The Nazis did have general economic policies - militarization of the economy, entrenching state control or authority over the economy, purging the economy of Jewish interests, and establishing Party members in important economic positions.--R-41 (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Socialism portal

I moved the comments made in this section before 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC) from the "WP:NORN thread on Nazism" thread above, to avoid things going off-topic. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

it's well accepted that Nazism did have aspects that can be called socialist, would you support or oppose adding the socialism portal and why? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Socialism has had an influence on all political ideologies, but that is not reason to add all political ideologies to the socialism portal. TFD (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st: Yes, it's well accepted that Nazism did have aspects that can be called socialist. It is NOT well accepted that Nazism is a form of socialism. That's a big difference. Yes, Nazism is much more socialist than what liberalism or conservatism is. But it is not generally seen as socialism. You know this, we've discussed this before. Your previous attempts to get the Socialism portal box on here is soapboxing and trying to make the article into a coatrack. That is not constructive, please don't go down that path again. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If Nazism should be added to the Socialism portal, then Conservatism should be added to the Monarchy and Fascism portals...Democracy and Republicanism should be added to the Hellenismos portal...et cetera. This has been...all along...a campaign to get Nazism labeled as "Left." That's all this is. Pseudohistorical revisionism with a clear and uncompromising POV, aimed at smearing the Left with the Far Right's villains, because they (The Right) refuse to believe that they have any. It's pathological. Leftists don't deny that Stalin, Mao, or Castro were Leftists...but Right-Wingers will never admit take responsibility for Hitler, Mussolini, the KKK, British Loyalists in the American Revolution, or any other Right-Wing "villains" from the past...because they are fundamentally incapable of rational discourse on the subject. This talk page proves this point 100%. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

By merely using the standard of the name of the ideology "National Socialism" to warrant putting it as socialist, then the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) would qualify for being a democracy, a popular-form of government, and a republic that represents all of Korea - when in reality it is totalitarian, undemocratic, and a de facto hereditary monarchy of the ruling Kim family. A more realistic name that I could think of would be the Totalitarian Kim Kingdom of North Korea; as for Nazism, a more realistic name would be National Statism, the Nazis had very close associations with private enterprise such as advertisements for Mercedes Benz being in some Nazi Party pamphlets. Nazism may only qualify for right-wing socialism, a non-mainstream ideology that officially advocates socialism alongside right-wing agendas and purposes that is rejected by mainstream left-wing socialism.--R-41 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

right wing is in the socialism portal. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is still a fringe ideology in comparison with socialism as a whole that is left-wing. If you include Nazism in the Socialism sidebar, I guarantee you that you will start an edit war. It will be brought to your attention that almost all mainstream socialists have denounced Nazism and that Nazism never fulfilled its claimed "socialist" agenda but instead pursued state capitalism. You are welcome to try to put Nazism in the Socialism sidebar, but it will not be successful.--R-41 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As you say, "All the source says is that conservative socialism is not referring to mainstream leftist socialism". All the rest is just your personal opinions, which are of no significance to editing articles. You have failed to provide any reliable source that uses the term "right-wing socialism". Your argument about paternalism is just unsupported original research. Can you please click on the link and read. The talk page is for improving the article not for discussing our personal theories. TFD (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

rw socialism is not socialism, and there is no evidence that anyone other the American New Right call it that. But then they call everything they disagree with, or try to distance themselves from, socialism. It is also called social conservatism. in any case, it's WP:OTHERSTUFF. TFD (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions TFD. Austrian politician Metternich promoted a "conservative socialism" that is not merely "social conservatism" - a morally-based conservatism, Metternich's "conservative socialism" denounced capitalism and the bourgeoisie. There are other examples too, such as conservative Catholic socialism. But as I said, right-wing socialism should not be confused with mainstream socialism on the political left. Mainstream socialists have criticized and condemned Nazism for its close ties with heavy industry, and have claimed it pursued state capitalism and not socialism. Darkstar, as I've said, if you are confident that you can make your case that Nazism can be associated with socialism in general, just attempt to include it as a major mainstream socialist ideology in the Socialism sidebar - there will be an edit war, 99.99% guaranteed, and the very legitimate claims of Nazism's close association with capitalist heavy industry giants and its pursuit of state capitalism will be brought up as a rebuke.--R-41 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to Viereck's description, which he calls an "unfamiliar use of familiar terms". In any case, Metternich was not a socialist, and paternalism is not socialism. TFD (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All the source says is that conservative socialism is not referring to mainstream leftist socialism. It says that Metternich was anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois. It says that "this monarchic socialism boils down to social paternalism", but it is calling Metternich's "conservative socialism" a socialism - just a paternalist monarchist one. Moreover the same source states: "Metternich seemed sincere in his 'conservative socialist' view of liberalism and nationalism as a disguised middle-class dictatorship over the masses." TFD, you claim that "paternalism is not socialism", if that is the case then the Soviet command economy would not qualify as socialism, but it is commonly acknowledged as a very paternalist state socialism. There is such thing as right-wing socialism, but it is fringe in comparison with mainstream socialism that is left-wing. As for right-wing socialism in regards to the Nazis, it must be used carefully, in power many have claimed the Nazi regime did not produce anything resembling a socialist economy but rather a state capitalist or mercantilist economy. That being said there were Nazis who supported socialism and even revolutionary socialism alongside far-right volkisch nationalism - including Nazi leaders such as Joseph Goebbels, Ernst Rohm, and Gregor Strasser (though Rohm was killed and Strasser forced to exile when Hitler purged the party of its most radical members).--R-41 (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a unique view of socialism which is not reflected by mainstream sources. Whether or not your reasoning is correct cannot be discussed here. the issue is whether it can be supported. TFD (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not an issue of a "unique view of socialism" on my part. Personally, I am a social democrat and don't see right-wing socialism as being genuine, in that I see it as unrelated and opposed to the causes that created socialism in the first place such as egalitarianism. However that is my opinion, but I am responding to the claim you made from the book, the author of the book states that Metternich truely believed in conservative socialism. And his ideology was anti-capitalist. What are the "mainstream sources" that you speak of that negate the possibility of right-wing socialisms like Metternich's conservative socialism? Marx spoke of the existence of reactionary socialisms.--R-41 (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The reactionary socialism Marx spoke of was of fellow members of Socialist parties. You should be aware that conservatism was developed as a reaction to liberalism, which is the ideology that supports capitalism. Socialism was developed in opposition to both conservatism and liberalism. The fact that both conservatives and socialists opposed liberalism does not mean that they were the same thing. BTW why do you keep saying that you are a Social Democrat? TFD (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall that I "keep saying" that I am a social democrat. I've not mentioned it once before this time here. I mentioned it because you seemed to be insinuating that I held a view that mainstream socialism was not left-wing. Now on the topic, Marx is saying that these deviant forms of socialism are "reactionary" - reactionary typically means association with extreme conservative reaction that is considered right-wing. Is it impossible that conservatism and socialism can align, afterall there have been religious socialists including Catholics who promote traditional religious values alongside socialist policies, so this counters your claim of socialism involving anti-conservatism and anti-liberalism. Also, Eduard Bernstein publicly supported an alliance between democratic socialists and liberals, another group that you claim socialists have universally opposed. An ideology of liberal socialism has been claimed to exist just as there exists conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism, so you see ideologies such as conservatism, liberalism, and socialism are not as rigidly segregated and isolated from each other as you seem to be claiming they are. What is the iron law you seem to be suggesting exists that makes the combination conservatism or right-wing politics and a form of socialism incompatible? If it's not mainstream that doesn't mean it cannot exist. Furthermore, why do you believe that Metternich's conservative socialism can be automatically invalidated as a form of socialism even when the author of the reference says that that the ideology advocated socialism, anti-capitalism, and anti-commercialism and that it says that Meternich truly believed in conservative socialism?--R-41 (talk) 06:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You wrote, "Bear in mind that I am a social democrat..." here for example. Anyway while political families do copy one another, their underlying ideologies remain distinct. Here is a link to a site explaining the various ideologies. Note that fascists are part of the extreme right and conservatives and socialists represent opposite ends of the political spectrum. Note too in Canada that socialists and conservatives are considered to be at opposite ends of the spectrum with liberals in the middle. TFD (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that was three years ago I said that. Back to the main topic. Those schema make sense for the mainstream ideologies but for non-mainstream they become complicated. For instance a historical Dixiecrat liberal in the U.S. in the United States is socially far-right while a socially progressive conservative like Lincoln would be to the left in this respect to a Dixiecrat. A Catholic socialist would have strong right-wing views on a number of social issues but also strong left-wing views on others. As you can see, there are clear limitations of universal schema, they only provide an outlook for basic traditional ideologies and pigeonhole ideas into separate ideologies: either conservatism, liberalism, or socialism for example.--R-41 (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Right" and "left" are meaningless entities in politics and bickering about them is an utter waste of time. We have reliable sources for "right wing socialism", and that's that, despite TFD's (and I'd guess perhaps also Darkstar1st's?) view that socialism per definition is left. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

""Right" and "left" are meaningless entities in politics and bickering about them is an utter waste of time." Ahem, that is a very negative, cynical, and arrogant thing to say that contributes nothing to this discussion, Open Future. Me and TFD are not bickering, we are discussing. If understood correctly, as in how left and right came about in response to the French Revolution and developed and what they mean, they are very valuable to political science. OpenFuture, if you think discussing this is a waste of time then you are welcome to stay out of it, but we are discussing this.--R-41 (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to continue waste your time on it if you want. It was only a friendly recommendation. once you really understand what left and right means though, you'll understand why it's pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Resolving differences is not wasting time. Me and TFD are discussing and hopefully we will recognize errors on both our parts. OpenFuture, I have to say that because you are so cynical and negative towards other users that I seriously wonder why you bother editing Wikipedia. It is supposed to be a constructive and cooperative undertaking. If you don't enjoy doing that or are just plain cynical and unhappy then find something else to do. Don't vent your cynicism and negative attitude upon other people, that is wasting our time.--R-41 (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD, we can get back to our discussion if you are still online. I left off with describing the confusion of mixed policies of non-mainstream ideologies like Catholic socialism having right-wing elements or Dixiecrat liberalism in the US having far-right policies on issues of race in combination with liberalism.--R-41 (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

i stay away from left/right, liberal(liberty, libertarian)/Conservative(conservation, Greenpeace, sierra club), meaningless slogans that exchange meaning with the tide. i consider socialism democratic, as the majority of people must want it and vote for it, right? socialism is also anti-authoritarian as elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs. Socialism is a like the robin hood of politics, reclaiming the means of production from those whom currently "own", so the state may efficiently administer such means, resulting in the greater good. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Is it possible to just take the {{redirect}} templates in between the maintenance tags and just put them after the tags? Thanks in advance. -- Luke (Talk) 15:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:HNP, the hatnotes should be at the top of the article, because if a reader is looking for a different article then all those maintenance tags are irrelevant to them. I suppose we could move them above the protection template if you think that would improve the appearance? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I usually add the hatnotes below the maintenance tags. It doesn't look right between the protection banner and tags. -- Luke (Talk) 15:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've put them at the top, and similarly shuffled round the wikt link.—An  optimist on the run! 05:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Johann Karl Rodbertus

This article has been protected following edit-warring where Collect insisted on this edit to the ideological origins section despite the fact that the source used was published in 1901 and obviously does not explain what influence Rodbertus had on Nazism. This is an egregious example of using original research to push a fringe point of view. TFD (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Using the 1901 source for Nazism is original research. The user Collect even stated that the 1901 source is unrelated to Nazism, so there is no reason for it to be in this article at all.--R-41 (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be in National socialism. Cheers. I think you see the problem? Collect (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems physically impossible Rodbertus could have endorsed National Socialism. Rodbertus died in 1875 according to the article on him. While the National Socialist article clearly states the movement started "in post World War I Germany;" ie the 1920s. Sabre ball (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

tdf, r-41, sabre, do anyone you have a specific policy for why we should not include the source? (plz only list 1 policy each) Darkstar1st (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article because it has nothing to do with Nazism, and relies on original research and synthesis for it's inclusion here. Where are the reliable sources that credit Rodbertus for Nazism? Where are the sources that describe Nazi leaders citing Rodbertus? I think you see the problem. Dave Dial (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

dd2, you can only pick one, so lets discuss OR. You are suggesting including material from a RS on national socialism in the nazism page is OR, because this page is not about national socialism, however, the the article begins: Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism, so OR is not relevant here. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Nazism as developed and supported by the Nazi Party and its affiliates. That is what the discussion on the "National Socialism" page (which now redirects to this article, Nazism) determined. National Socialism in 99% of cases refers to Nazism and that is what it is referring to in this article. It is not about any pre-Nazi and non-Nazi fringe group with the two terms "national" and "socialist" connected together, the National Socialism (disambiguation) page deals with that. Since this article is about Nazism and the user Collect notes that Rodbertus had nothing to do with Nazism, plus the fact that it is original research interpretation to assume that Rodbertus is associated with Nazism since it is an article in 1901 prior to the Nazi party even existing.--R-41 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the conclusion of that discussion was that "National Socialism" should redirect to an article that is only about NSDAP. IMO this is a gross misinterpretation of that discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Time for a formal RfC?

We have had much debate on the question of what uses of "national socialism" to include in this article, and we still seem to be arguing the same points as before without the discussion progressing. I think it may be time for a formal RfC to get wider community input on what the scope of this article should be. I propose the RfC be stated as 'The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party, and should only discuss uses of the term "national socialism" if they can be specifically shown to relate to the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party in reliable sources', with commenters saying "agree" or "disagree". What does everyone think of this idea? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

agree Darkstar1st (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree in general with the proposed statement as stated: 'The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party, and should only discuss uses of the term "national socialism" if they can be specifically shown to relate to the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party in reliable sources'. However I reccomend that it be broadened to state "The Nazi article should only be about the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party and derivatives of it in other countries...", to be inclusive of Nazis in other countries like the National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands, Canadian National Socialist Unity Party, or the French Popular Party, etc.--R-41 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree - The current situation where some editors argue that "National Socialism" should redirect to "Nazism" while also claiming that "Nazism" isn't allowed to contain anything but things about NSDAP is untenable and absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What does "Nazism" refer to, the Nazi Party, it is the basis of this article. National Socialism (disambiguation) can redirect people to non-Nazi examples of "national socialism". OpenFuture I think you meant to say "disagree", as you disagree with the statement by Stradivarius that calls for the article to focus on the ideology of the Nazi Party.--R-41 (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

r, would you support redirecting the article nazi party here, or vice versa? Darkstar1st (talk)

You are right, I disagree with the formulation, but I think an RfC is a good idea. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

An explanation: The basic problem here is that there are two incompatible points of view argued by the same people: 1. That an article about National Socialism should be called "Nazism" since that is the cp:commonname. 2. That "Nazism" refers only to the ideology of NSDAP. Both standpoints have merit, but not at the same time. If Nazism refers only to the ideology of NSDAP, then Nazism is *not* the common name of national socialism.

We hence can have this article be just about the NSDAP ideology, and an article about National Socialism in general called National Socialism. *or* we can have this be about National Socialism in general. But the current situation where this article is about NSDAP, and National Socialism redirect here is absurd. We have to make up our minds: Is Nazism just the common name for National Socialism, or is Nazism and National Socialism independent entities. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is WP:COMMONNAME; rather, it's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The primary topic for "National Socialism" is Nazism, so the article at "National Socialism" should be about Nazism (which is most appropriately handled by a redirect here). Other uses of "National Socialism" can and should be covered at other, appropriately named, articles; but that isn't relevant to this article, which is about Nazism.VoluntarySlave (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC is about topics that should have the same name and is hence only relevant if Nazism is seen as the common name of National Socialism, so the fundamental issue is still COMMONNAME. If they are seen as separate, then PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply. But you are right that it is a part of the discussion. But fundamentally, this is about whether the ideology of Nazism is different from the ideology of National Socialism or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is a case for the common usage of "National Socialism" not being Nazism, or maybe not; whichever one it is, it is separate from the debate here. If the status quo did change, it would just mean changing the redirects and disambiguation pages. It wouldn't actually necessitate changing anything in this article itself. We can have a separate RfC on the issue if you like, as it's a perfectly reasonable question, but it doesn't really belong in the one I'm proposing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with treating them as separate is that some editors are having incompatible standpoints in the different discussions, leading to the effect that non-Nazi National Socialism ends up not being discussed anywhere. When talking about National Socialism they insist that there should be a redirect (and hence that the topics are the same and that it should be covered in Nazism) and when discussing on Nazism they insist it's off-topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and I can think of a potential solution. Even if other uses of "national socialism" aren't covered in the Nazism article, and even if "National Socialism" redirects to Nazism, there is still nothing stopping you from creating an article about the different uses of the term "national socialism". You would just have to disambiguate it using the rules at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. You could call it something like National socialism (term). Using "term" has the advantage that the article wouldn't have to claim that all the ideologies discussed in it are related to each other (which is why I'm proposing this RfC in the first place); it could also mention the interesting distinction between nationaler Sozialismus and Nationalsozialismus. You could, in my opinion, create this article right now, and I can't see that anyone would object. As I see it, you are effectively asking the question of whether the article you are proposing should be called National socialism or National socialism (term). I think this is purely a matter of disambiguation, and separate from the matter of what should go into the Nazism article; I hope you can see why I am hesitant to include any recommendation about adding the redirect question into my proposed RfC. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on R-41's comment, I propose changing the RfC wording to this: 'The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party and derivatives of it in other countries. It should only discuss uses of the term "national socialism" that can be specifically shown, in reliable third-party sources, to relate to the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party.' I also intend to include a brief, neutral statement of how the dispute has unfolded so far. I'll make a draft in my userspace and post it back here when I'm done for people to comment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

there already is a nazi party article? relate to the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party Darkstar1st (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we can't have a neutral wording? In any case, I'm OK with the above outcome, but note that in that case the redirect from National Socialism needs to be removed. That needs to be a part of the RfC. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow you: the statement is intended to be one that editors can agree or disagree with; it isn't intended to be a neutral summary of the dispute or anything like that. I've included a neutral summary in my draft, so have a look and see if you think it is acceptable. As for the "National Socialism" redirect, I maintain that is a separate issue; however, as you feel strongly about it, how about having two simultaneous RfCs on this page as a compromise? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Darkstar1st, the Nazi Party article is about the party itself, and Nazism is about its ideology. The distinction is common in reliable sources, so I don't think having two articles is a problem, especially as both are very long now. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

poppycock, 3 articles about nazism, nazi party, and nazi germany, but no mention can be made of national socialism, unless you mean nazi. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I insist that the redirect of National Socialism and the content of Nazism are topics that are so closely tied together that they can't be discussed separately. In the RfC's I've been involved with there hasn't been a non-neutral statement to agree or disagree with, but a statement that describes the conflict in a non-neutral way. Maybe it can be done both ways? In that case I propose the following:

The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party and derivatives of it in other countries. It should only discuss uses of the term "national socialism" that can be specifically shown, in reliable third-party sources, to relate to the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party. Other uses of the term "National Socialism" should be covered in the National Socialism article.

That said, I'd probably prefer a neutral description such as "Editors disagree on whether the National Socialism of the NSDAP is related to earlier common usages of the word National Socialism or not, and as such if the Nazism article should cover National Socialism in general or be only about the ideology of NSDAP." --OpenFuture (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the redirect, please see my post above. About the neutrality of the wording - I included a statement for editors to agree or disagree with because it's important that we have a consensus not only on what generally to do, but also on the specific wording that is used. This is all being done with the aim of making it crystal clear what can go in the article and what cannot. I do see why you would be annoyed at the wording not being neutral, and I did consider changing it to something with two opposing statements, like this:

• Option 1: The topic of the Nazism article should narrowly restricted to the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party and derivatives of it in other countries. It should only discuss uses of the term "national socialism" that can be specifically shown, in reliable third-party sources, to relate to the ideology of Hitler's Nazi Party.
• Option 2: The Nazism article should be broadly defined to include all instances of the term "national socialism", and should have a link to a daughter article called National socialism discussing them all in detail.

I would have have asked editors to state "broad" or "narrow" along with their rationales. The problem with this, though, is that it would put me in the unfortunate position of (as I see it) advocating violation of Wikipedia policy. Let me explain. I have given the opinion before, and I am still of the opinion, that connecting the national socialisms of earlier writers/groups (like Lassalle and Rodbertus) to Nazism would be original research, unless there is an express mention of the connection in reliable sources. I would be presenting the two options in the RfC as equal; as two valid options that uninvolved editors can choose at their will.

Now let us suppose that option 2 gets a clear consensus at the end of the RfC. In that case, I would have a moral dilemma about implementing it: On the one hand, there would be the consensus here of editors willing to use all instances of "national socialism"; on the other, there would be the wider community consensus behind the policy of no original research. There is a rule that covers this situation at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which would impel me to side with the policy rather than the RfC outcome.

For this reason, I think it would be disingenuous of me to list it as an option in the RfC. Rather, if there is no clear consensus, or if there are enough clarifications of the RfC wording in editors' rationales, then that would give us a good indicator that the exact wording was not supported by the wider community. To avoid any dilemmas involving WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, probably the thing to do would be to list your alternative proposals briefly in your rationale and expand on them in the discussion section, so that all the other editors can see them and factor them into their decisions. I can even do that in advance if you want, just to make sure all the other editors have a chance to see it. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've created a draft of the RfC at User:Mr. Stradivarius/Nazism RfC draft - have a look at it and see what you think. Also, feel free to edit it, and if you have any comments, please make them here so that everyone can see them. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we should probably alter the wording so that it also applies to any daughter articles of Nazism, and any other pages where the Nazism ideology is discussed. This page will probably be split fairly soon, and I would like to avoid any arguments that say that the only article the RfC applies to is Nazism. However, this will require careful wording to prevent it from being indiscriminate, and I can't think of that wording right now. Does anyone have any suggestions? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the term "Hitler's" in the RfC and put in "of Germany" following the name "Nazi Party" to avoid claims of personal ownership - as the party was also led by Anton Drexler before Hitler and briefly I believe by Karl Donitz after Hitler's suicide. "of Germany" clarifies that it is talking about the specific party in Germany.--R-41 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the RfC is now up, as you can see below. After more thought on whether we should change the wording to include other articles too, I thought I would keep it simple this time. We can always deal with future problems when they arise. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)