Talk:Nazism/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

National Socialism

I still get annoyed by the absurd attempts of some uneducated simpletons to paint Hitler as far-left just because he called himself a "Nationalsozialist". As European History expert Robert Wilde wrote,

Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself.

There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/germanyandprussia/fl/Was-Adolf-Hitler-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm]

Now, the article already does a very good job explaining the clear difference between the two, but I feel like something as simple as "National socialism, not to be confused with left-wing Socialism" (or something less obvious, such as describing it as "anti-Socialist") may help out even more. The distinction is probably one of the most important aspects about the subject, as Nazism so largely revolved around the opposition of traditional socialism. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia attracts a lot of editors who wish to insert fringe views into articles. I do not think we should write articles to counter their views, but they could be put into articles about fringe theories. The theory needs to be explained in the context of holocaust trivialization, fascist apologetics and extreme anti-Communism, rather than be presented as a reasonable interpretation. TFD (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with both of the above editors, and have only this to add... I think the issue is succinctly described in the "position in the political spectrum" section. It encapsulates how the leaders of the NSDAP each played right and left simply to further their consolidation of power. That even today we still debate whether the NSDAP was right-wing or left is a reflection of the fact that these people had an ideology that placed power before principle. I think it is verifiable (and reflected in the article) that after the [Night of the Long Knives], the NSDAP decisively purged leftist forces from the governing body - but by that point it had already become militaristic, totalitarian and anti-semitic, values which today are not widely considered to be leftist. The folks who put together the "position in the political spectrum" section did a good job. Any lay-reader who comes to this article is going to get a well-defined idea of how left and right collided in the lead up to the Third Reich. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Five days before Hitler attacked USSR, Goebbels wrote in his private diary that after a quick victory over Bolshevism, there would be no going back to tsars in Russia. Instead, "real socialism" will be planted to replace Bolshevism - "Der echte Sozialismus", Goebels wrote.

"Goebbels was a liar, to be sure, but no one can explain why he would lie to his diaries." He believed that Socialism was what National Socialism was all about in private and till the end. George Watson said it much better.[1] Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

George Watson was an obscure Victorian English professor and his book has received no attention. I doubt you read it, but he says that socialism developed out of conservatism and is therefore rightwing. TFD (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

you meant George_G._Watson. a fellow and lecturer at Cambridge, and this specific text was reprinted twice, a copy resides in the US library of congress. socialism developed out of conservatism and is therefore rightwing, are you referring to this passage? Entire races would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age; and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history. If not, what page/paragraph? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be what I assume is the opening chapter or introduction of the book. As noted, he explicitly groups socialism and traditional European-style conservatism together as related forms of collectivist and elitist reaction – contrasted with the only genuine radical philosophy, that of liberalism (in its classical European sense rather than its modern American one). This is a position held, with some variations (eg as to whether you move fascists to the left, to join the socialists and other collectivists; or socialists to the right, to join fascists, conservatives and other reactionaries there) by a few writers, especially some classical liberals and/or modern libertarians such as Watson, Hayek et al. However, it is not of course the mainstream taxonomical position of disinterested academia, as those writers, Watson included, always acknowledge when they try to push it, stressing that they are kicking against standard categorisations and judgments. Perhaps more importantly, as usual, it is not clear what people are asking to happen to this WP page on account of such one-off, non-mainstream opinions. N-HH talk/edits 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Aryan acording to Hitler, might have been indo-germans acording to Mein Kampf (the ideological book of nazism)

I found this about Aryan in Mein Kampf. Hitler seems to be talking about indo-germans when talking about Aryan. I think this should end the discussion about who the Nazis thought were the herrenvolk (master people, usually mistranslated to master race). It were ancient people of Germany that had moved to India, indo-germans.

No definition of the word 'Aryan* is acceptable. German lexicographers were hard pressed to hit upon an accurate description. The term itself is probably of Sanskrit origin, and seems to have meant 'friends/ It was next assumed that these 'friends' were Indo-Germans, who (it was further as- sumed) had invaded India and subjugated the 'lesser breeds/ Finally 'Aryan* became just a synonym for 'Indo-German.' The 1931 edition of the encyclopedia Der grosse Herder said: 'Recently some have used (ethnologically, in an incorrect way) 'Aryan* to indicate Indo-Germans in general. In this case, the term is used as in the nature of a slogan in the struggle over the self-determination and preservation of our race against Jewry, which is of a different order.' For this and similar definitions (surely discreet enough), the earlier volumes of this encyclopedia were ordered withdrawn from circulation. In practice the word is officially used today as a racial term.

Link: https://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt

37.253.210.97 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

firms, concerns, companies, that cooperated with the nazis

ig farben : zyklon b producer ... after 1945 ig farben continues as basf siemens : siemens built trains, with that were the prisoners deported at concentration camps ... krupp thyssen : paid hitler ... volkswagen vw : founded by hitler ... ferdinand porsche is a friend by hitler ibm built punch cards ... telefunken built propaganda radios ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.177.48 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be dishonest to write about these companies on this page, because they had no knowlege about the mass killings of Jews and others that would happend. This is also an article about Nazism, their world view. The companies did probably have no choice either. Jacob3939 (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not true, but neither are some of the accusations; for example, IG Farben didn't produce zyklon B - Degussa did. The inventor of it was executed for war crimes. What's a "propaganda radio" as opposed to a "radio"? At any rate, Jacob is correct - this article isn't about Nazi Germany, it's about the Nazi philosophy. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree, the article is about Nazism the ideology, rather than how they governed. TFD (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Part about nazis meaning Germanic or Nordic people when saying Aryan, removed

A user, some time ago, removed the specification that the nazis meant Nordic or Germanic people when speaking about Aryans, early on in "racial theories". Don't you think this should be included, since people may misunderstand if not specified clearly? This has been discussed before and we concluded that it should be included. I do also think it should have been specified in "nationalism and racialism".

In general the article are in a worse state today, than at 23. August 2016.Jacob3939 (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

I wish to edit the main title to National Socialism. People think this is about Neo Nazism half of the time.

6millionOranges (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done. Please propose specific edits. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Far-right

There´s something that still bothers me in this article.... If nazism (or national socialism) has so many characteristics of leftists forms or government, like government centralization, anti-capitalism, and totalitarism, among others, why the article still consider it as a "far-right" movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.187.133.122 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Just see the countless discussions above – and in the archive. Your basic premises are just wrong. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 17:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. This is an old and somewhat boring debate, and not directly related to any likely improvements to the page, but for what it's worth, the characteristics you single out are not universally or exclusively those of the left as most serious political scientists see the world (for example there are plenty of non-totalitarian leftists and quite a few anti-capitalist rightists). And Nazism is usually bracketed, along with other forms of fascism, as a phenomenon of the right in both academic and general, standard discourse, for reasons not worth repeating here and which discussion here is not going to change. Whether individual commenters or WP editors agree with that broad classification is neither here nor there. Perhaps the next time this comes up, the thread could simply be closed off and hatted. N-HH talk/edits 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

These exceptions you talk about are not relevant to the general understanding - quote -"for example there are plenty of non-totalitarian leftists and quite a few anti-capitalist rightists" - these are exceptions to the general meaning of the words and therefore only confuse the debate and the public. 86.17.94.237 (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It is always hard to tell when this question is being asked in good faith but clearly it is asked in good faith at least some of the time. Maybe we could save ourselves some trouble, while still providing anybody who is genuinely interested with a good quality answer, if we made a little FAQ for this and just referred them to that each time it is asked? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I would just say that articles are supposed to represent what reliable sources say. Further discussion is unproductive, since people who think the nazis were left-wing do not follow the same reasoning process that we do, that is they do not examine evidence and draw conclusions but selectively look for evidence to support their views. I suppose someone who knows little about politics could wonder why a party that called itself "National Socialist" was right-wing, but I have not come across anyone. TFD (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is probably that there is differnt understandings of the "left" and "right". The article claims that they are on the right "because they belived superior elements in society had the right to dominate". The people on the right don't belive this, and view the term as "freedom, liberty, capitalism etc.". And view left as "goverment, anti-capitalism, state intervention in private life (totalitarianism), welfaire etc.". The National Socialist parti fit under their defention of the "left". The only difference is nationalism I guess, because todays left are not nationalists. Jacob3939 (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You are referring to a specific segment of the Right. Most of the "left-wing" policies you mention were introduced by Conservatives and continued by the Nazis. On the other hand, the Nazis actually privatized government owned corporations. Both Left and Right change policies depending on economic circumstances and what is popular at the time. The group that came closest to what you call "right-wing" in the Weimar Republic were "left liberals," who were considered centrist. Some elements on the Left are completely opposed to government, state intervention or welfare, since they see government as an instrument of capitalism. Note that the precursors of the Christian Democratic and Free Democrats voted to make Hitler a dictator while the Social Democrats voted against. TFD (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The term right wing is used to describe political positions that are promoting a social hierarchy and social inequality, and hold that they are natural and desirable. The currents that are more moderate are considered to be center-right (christian democrats, national conservatives and economic liberals), and currents that are more extreme are considered to be far-right (fascist, nazis and racial supremacists.). While the term left wing is used to describe political positions promoting social equity and egalitarian society. Again, currents that are more moderate and want to reduce inequality are considered to be center-left (social democrats, democratic socialists), And currents that are more extreme and want to Abolish hierarchy and the class system are considered to be far-left (socialists, communists and anarchists). The word "socialism" in national socialism has a different meaning from system geralaly known as socialism, in the context of national socialism the term "socialism" means social solidarity and economic security for German peoples, but generally speaking socialism is a system in which the means of production are in social ownership and control. Economically Nazi Germany was corporatist state capitalism and it opposed both free-market capitalism and socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It is an interesting point that Nazi is considered by so many as right wing, and I struggled to find information on it for a couple of years. Hitler's economic policy can be described as taking a Keynesian approach, traditionally 'left wing'. Many of the great Socialist thinkers in Germany had a central role in developing 'National Socialism'. The idea Nazi was just called Socialism to appeal to the masses, whilst not being Socialist, is clearly ridiculous. It could be considered right wing socialism and had early support from the Christian (right wing) socialists, but essentially it was authoritarian and collectivist and both left and right wing Germans (and other nations) loved it in the 1930's. Nazi occupies the same political space as Communism, but has a different 'fairy tale'. The right is harking back to a 'glorious past' and the left looks forward to a 'glorious future'. Hitler understood the similarity, he battled Communism because it was common knowledge 'you could easily convert a Communist to a Nazi and vice versa', with socialists acting as the 'fodder' for this. He was not actively attacking liberals, because there were no liberals in 1930's Germany, left and right were Socialist in approach. For the references to pretty much this entire paragraph, please read FA Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom' written in 1943, it is an excellent treatment of the rise of Fascism from ostensibly left wing beginnings. Hitler did not dismantle democracy in Germany to enact a far right state, it was already gone. But Liberal ideals (traditionally right wing) are not usually concerned with increasing the coercive power of the state and stron governmental control in all aspects of life (Nazi's actually defined how Germans should spend their 'free time' which is obviously nonsense, and also a little to intrusive for a government!). Also, if you want a quick self test on the idea that Nazi is left wing, I sincerely suggest looking up the Nazi Creed and then list points within it that are 1:racist, 2:left wing and 3:right wing (you can have left and right wing racists). You may be surprised at your judgement re left and right in the Nazi Creed. Rhys 11:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We have all heard those arguments before. How Nazism is described cannot be based on users' interpretations but on the assessment of experts. Only if you can persuade the experts they are wrong then we can revise the article. Incidentally, Hayek was not "right wing" in the context of the Weimar Republic, but a centrist. (Conservative=right, liberal=center, socialist=left) TFD (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Rhys you are quite right. The Four Deuces|TFD has been here a long time. When you argue he argues back, he won't accept anything. He tries to shut down the discussion quote "We have all heard those arguments before.....Only if you can persuade the experts they are wrong then we can revise the article." It makes no difference even if you get experts and evidence to change the text and improve it. Once he has lost the academic argument TFD will just repeatedly remove it/undo it. if not today next week or next month. TFD has been here along time. He has his own agenda and most people give up after six months.

Just a further note on TFD : he is a great misinformer : Quote TFD "the Nazis actually privatised government owned corporations......Some elements on the Left are completely opposed to government, state intervention or welfare, since they see government as an instrument of capitalism; and further discussion is unproductive (said like a true left elitist)" - obviously this is absolute nonsense when trying to understand Nazism (the Nazis closed down most small businesses and expropriated the larger ones into the state) or the left. It makes you laugh that he would even write this. Then he goes on to talk about how he is just following the experts. You can add N-HH to that list as well.

So I and many people agree with Rhys that this article is still wrong. (Its why this issue keeps coming back - surprise surprise !)

The arguments in the article that Nazism is right wing are false arguments, these being -

1. Nazi's hate communists therefore they must be right wing - anyone can hate communists left or right. 2. Nazis protected private property - they said this just before they got elected but once in power everything was for the state (a left wing policy) 3. Nazis hate Jews and are racist therefore they are right wing - wrong - left and right can be racist, just look at parts of the British labour party they are anti-Semitic as per scandals today. 4. Some far right parties state they have Nazi affiliations - this does not mean that Nazis are right wing.

This article is more designed to confuse the laymen than educate him.

Having the introduction of this article state that Nazism is right wing is misleading. One would think that some of the editors here have a personal interest in trying to link the right wing with the Nazi party, and absolve the left wing of any Nazi characteristics, hence the dogmatic and unhelpful approach we have seen on the subject and the lack of acceptance of alternative views even where evidenced as main stream political thought.

To step back from the problem I have noted the simple and accepted definitions of Left and right today. I hope this provides more insight for those thoughtful enough to consider the implications.

Politically left/right = much government/less government

Socially left/right = much social security/less social security

Economically left/right = controlled market/free market

This is Isidora Müller's view who is a social scientist; it shows that the answer is not straight forward. But it highlights that the Wikipedia article shows none of this complexity or insight into these issues. Therefore again the wilkopedia article is not a good article and needs to address these issues.

Hitler changed his policies over time, and had to give up his free market (in Germany) idea [economically slightly right] during WW II [and became economically left] even though he was a strong anti-communist [economically right]. ==> All in all I would say he was first economically slightly right then left. He built some kind of a totalitarian state [completely left] which was highly authoritarian aka fascistic [socially left] and was national socialistic (welfare state but only for Germans) [national socially left] but was on the other hand conservative and anti-liberal about society [socially right] ==> He was (national-) socially left. But not that kind of socially left we normally have.

86.17.94.237 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please confine comments to the talk page to referenced material focused on changes to the article rather that expressing your view of other editors and your own opinions on the subject ----Snowded ^TALK 19:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded, articles are based on sources, not our own research. BTW if you are interested in the Nazi privatization policy, I suggest you read, "AGAINST THE MAINSTREAM: NAZI PRIVATIZATION IN 1930S GERMANY". TFD (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article. But Nazi privatization does not have the same meaning and consequences as in Western Europe today, as the author states. Today privatisation means transferring assets into the the modern free market. In the article the word privatisation is used very loosely by the author, it includes transfer of public services to Nazi organisations outside of the government. Quote " Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates20 or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose (Nathan, 1944a, p. 321). In this way, delivery of these services was privatized.21

In addition you have the background of the great crash where the banking sector was nationalised. And some companies were nationalised but ownership of share certificates does not mean much in Nazi Germany as both texts explain.

Also see the link below for the wider context.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian. People1750 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

What did the nazis call themselves?

This article points out that Nazis never really called themselves Nazis. So what did Nazis call themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.40.214.212 (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

12.156.157.42 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please remove your political bias by labeling the German NAZIs as being on the political Right. As Socialist, they were, and are on the political Left.

Brad Sand

 Not done That is your PoV and not supported by most reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

Remove Steve Bannon's picture from this page, as it is completely inappropriate. Argonaut808 (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Already done in this edit. Gulumeemee (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/[1]), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi Germany, as well as other far-right groups.

German far right was dominated by monarchists

The Nazis, the far-right monarchist,

These lines have no references and the links they point to contradict readings further on the page. please provide references Dwgriggs (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear exactly what you want removed or changed, or precisely where any contradiction can be found. As to the general point you seem to be making, as noted ad nauseam, Nazism/National Socialism is usually placed on the far right of the left-right divide in both day-to-day and formal academic discourse. And here is a list of "other far-right groups", contemporaneous and subsequent, that use the term. N-HH talk/edits 10:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article entitled "Nazism?"

The actual "Nazis" called themselves "national socialists" and believed that that title was more representative of their actual ideology. To my understanding "Nazi" stemmed from a derogatory name applied to national socialists by people who were against national socialism. We don't call communists "commies" on this wiki, so why should this article be any different? Also, if this has been discussed before, I would like to be linked to that. It seems like a strange departure from Wikipedia's standards. Ryonne (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy is "Use commonly recognizable names". More people know and use the term "Nazi" than "National Socialism." If you want to read previous discussions, look through the archives. TFD (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

TDF has the correct policy, yet the understanding of such could be expanded. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. The most common name is vulgar (meaning derogatory OR word malformation) and certainly has problems as it attempts to conflate the entire National Socialist ideology with Hitlerism. [2] Darkstar1st (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Vulgar of course can mean common as in the sense that people who are not aristocrats are vulgar. But it more often means offensive, such as the term "Teabagger," which is a vulgar term for a Tea Party supporter. TFD (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

no, it has nothing to do with aristocracy, instead the construction of the term "Nazi" which is either derogatory, or a malformation of National Socialism Darkstar1st (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have never heard the term "Tea Party supporter", but I have often come across the term "Teabagger" on online publications. They are the people blamed for the decline of the United States. Then again, I am not American and my reading has been on the various problems faced in the United States and why the country is in a state of prolonged crisis.

Anyway, National Socialist is rendered "Nationalsozialist" in German and "Nazi" was initially chosen as a short form of the term. Similarly, the term "Social Democrat" is rendered "Sozialdemokrat" and the short form is "Sozi". See the following source on the term: https://books.google.gr/books?id=rSDSBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=Sozi+social+democrat&source=bl&ots=cYCfjMm_u_&sig=mQ4SpVNIEGgXE3H5W9zvMl3pZyw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKyP_z68jRAhVLHxoKHZDdAzsQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=Sozi%20social%20democrat&f=false Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Teabagging" is a slang term for a sexual act that was picked up by critics of the Tea Party movement after a supporter said he would "teabag the Whitehouse." The term "teabagger" is therefore vulgar, unlike the term Nazi, which would preclude it from becoming the article title, although it is a re-direct. Germans use other contractions, such as Stasi and Gestapo, which have been adopted as article titles. TFD (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

TDF the definition of Vulgar is not limited to derogatory. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's right. As the link says, it can also refer to "common" or "ordinary people," i.e., people who are not aristocrats or at least not nobility. When a word has several meanings, competent and conscientious editors are able to determine in context which one is relevant. In this case, it means lewd, crude and socially unacceptable. TFD (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Again... this keeps coming up over and over again - and people are right. Seriously, this title isn't in accordance with WP:NAME. WP:POVNAME specifically exempts colloquialisms from WP:COMMONNAME. We should just move this thing to National Socialism and be done with it. "Nazism" is just an obvious colloquial, vulgar expression.

But of course, I remember... we can't have the word "socialism" up there because pompous American lefties will think it gives ammunition to US right-wing lunatics who consider Hitler a socialist or whatever, sorry... UGGHH. Its always politics on this damn project... -- Director (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a colloquialism but the term primarily used in academic sources. And you have the motivation wrong. The "the nazis were socialists" meme is orthodoxy among the fringe right. The reality is that more people recognize the term nazi and it is not the function of this article to correct them. That's what the echo chamber is for. TFD (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. This is another minor issue that has been done to death in the past, with statistics from Google Books etc to show how common and mainstream the term Nazi is in academic writing (as opposed to commie etc, which is a totally false parallel). It may once have been pejorative or slang, but guess what, words and how they are used change. In so far as it is pejorative now, that has more to do, one would have thought, with the substantive thing it refers to rather than the term itself. And even if we accept the anachronistic and/or misapplied argument that it is not a neutral term, what POVNAME actually says, as I am sure has been pointed out to everyone here now before, is that "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words". This has nothing to do with politics or hiding things. People seem to be missing the fact that the very first words of the article, spectacularly unconcealed and right there in bold, are "National Socialism". Can we close this one (again) now? N-HH talk/edits 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:POVNAME is to discourage use of colloquialisms IF THEY'RE THE TERM PRIMARILY USED BY ACADEMIC SOURCES (notshouting). If a term is not "primarily used by academic sources" - why would you even bring it up as the COMMONNAME?? And being "used by academic sources" doesn't magically make a word any less of a colloquialism, as in a term that originated in vulgar conversation.

Bah, whatever... In 15-odd years on the project, I've learned not to try and push policy on any topic that touches American politics.. -- Director (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

1) No, that is not the "whole point" of povname; 2) the term Nazism *is* probably the primary one used in academic sources; 3) actually, yes, such use does very much stop something being a colloquialism; and 4) as noted, the basic logic here has nothing to do with American politics. But as you say, whatever. Perhaps there are other lessons to be learned here, which hopefully won't take 15 years to sink in (although, as the archives suggest, you have been going round in circles on this point for about five at least). N-HH talk/edits 13:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

1) Pedantry. 2) So what? That's the point of exceptions to COMMONNAME. 3) WP:OR No, it doesn't. You could probably find a couple thousand "academic sources" for every colloquialism in the English language nowadays. And in any case that's not an indicator of anything in and of itself. What you need is a source that actually says its no longer a colloquialism (its origin as such being indisputable). -- Director (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, give up. See above comment about going round in circles. N-HH talk/edits 13:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going to give up, but now that you asked me - I ain't gonna.

If you claim the term Nazism is no longer a colloquialism, present sources that at least vaguely corroborate that position. Concluding that usage by sources in and of itself supports you in that is spurious, and basically original research.

Those criteria could be applied to most (if not all) colloquialisms in the English language - and are basically a ready excuse to disregard the relevant policy recommendation whenever convenient. -- Director (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, listen to yourself. You're just arguing for the sake of it now, and that's a ridiculous request, as you surely know. Concluding the obvious on a talk page is not "original research". When academic and other sources use the term "Nazism", they are not discussing it as a term, they are using it to denote the thing being discussed. Why not look up "colloquialism" in a dictionary? And, to address one of your other daft points, if you really think my pointing out that you literally have the aim of a policy back to front (which you still appear to do) is "pedantry", I'd invest your energy in thinking a bit harder about that than carrying on here. Since I'm almost as guilty as you of dragging this out this time, I'll drop out now. Have fun, and don't take a lack of response as signifying agreement with whatever you come up with next. N-HH talk/edits 13:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A colloquialism "is a word, phrase, or other form used in informal language." Once terms become accepted in formal language, as evidenced by use in academic writing and broadsheet newspapers, they are no longer colloquialisms. Many people complain when previously colloquial terms enter formal language, but that is how language develops and why English today is very different from Anglo-Saxon or even Middle English. The proper forum for stopping what one may see as the degradation of the language of Shakespeare is to write a letter to the editor of The Telegraph. TFD (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I know what a colloquialism is, and how language develops - what I don't know is who died and made you Fuhrer of how and when it does. We have here a word that is indisputably a colloquialism - at least in origin - and if you claim it is no longer such, I personally regard it reasonable to require some kind of sources pointing to that conclusion (in some way at least). Its not like you couldn't build a small moon from the publications on this topic and the terminology thereof.

You claim its WP:BLUE that its no longer a colloquialism from its usage in sources. My answer to that is: then there's no colloquialisms! Name me a "colloquialism", and I will find you scholarly publications containing it. And further as I said: the fact that its commonly used in sources goes toward THE WHOLE POINT of why I cite WP:POVNAME: exceptions to COMMONNAME - are exceptions to the COMMONNAME.

Look, this is a really stupid title, and people will keep bringing it up until the end of time. For months in the past the article did not even contain the full name of the ideology because of the "socialism" bit. Fucksake its not socialism! Lets just move it and be done with it! -- Director (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Ignore him and he'll go away"? :) -- Director (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with those who believe that slang versions of the term “Nazi” are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. British etymologist Mark Forsyth has explained the origin of “Nazi”:

"Nazi – an insult in use long before the rise of Adolf Hitler's party. It was a derogatory term for a backwards peasant – being a shortened version of Ignatius, a common name in Bavaria, the area from which the Nazis emerged. Opponents seized on this and shortened the party's title Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, to the dismissive ‘Nazi’."

An explanation of the origin of “Nazi” belongs in the entry. Nicmart (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It is included currently, here. As for appropriateness of its use for the title, if you're also raising that point again, as noted, slang or pejorative terms often become standard. Language evolves. N-HH talk/edits 08:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

The lead - as well as other far-right groups

German groups or not only German? Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not only German, otherwise it would say German. As noted above, fringe groups all over the world claim to be National Socialists. It's not clear what change, if any, you're suggesting for the page either. N-HH talk/edits 09:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the page Nazism was German. Now some fringe groups declare to be National Socialist and they are regarded to be neo-Nazi. Am I right?Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the page does not say Nazism was exclusively German, but that it originated in Germany. And the section I pointed to you above lists both contemporaneous groups that existed alongside the NSDAP and modern or more recent neo-Nazi groups that say they're following the same ideals [sic]. I'm still struggling to see the point of this query per se, let alone in relation to any proposed changes to the page, so will probably leave it there. N-HH talk/edits 10:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead says, "German Nazi Party and Nazi Germany, as well as other far-right groups." So "not only German." TFD (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Nazism

as history and ALL DOCUMENTS AND SOURSES SHOW , NAZISM IS A LEFT SOCIALIST MOVMENT THAT GOT SRONGER THANKS TO LENIN. YOU HAVE TO FIX IT , BECAUSE YOU ARE POSTING FAKE INFORMATION WHEN SAID NAZISM IS FAR-RIGHT. NOT THAT I CARE , CAUSE EVERYBODY WITH A BIT OF BRAINS WOULD NEVER USE WIKI AS A SOURCE , CAUSE IS A JOKE AND FULL OF MASSIVE MISTAKES. JUST A HINT...FIX IT AND YOU GUYS LOOK LESS STUPID. REGARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.51.231 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you stop shouting and maybe read a book (or several). Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 05:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

So rude. Be nice and get to facts. Please6keep personal opions reframed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onealronn (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The article itself says that Hitler took what he was as the best of both the left and right, favoring neither, and criticizing both. That's pretty damn contradictory to the numerous parts of the article that say nazism is far right instead of authoritarian centralist. Get your shit together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.179.86 ( (talk) 31 March 2017)

Reality is contradictory, but in this case it's reconciled by the difference between political-economy, where the Nazi were centrists; and political orientation, in terms of antipathy to leftist ideas (here the Nazis were extreme-right). El_C 20:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition of course, political movements are categorised by real-world academic consensus, which generally places Nazism and other types of fascism on the right, not occasional (and rarely consistent in Hitler's case) statements about apparent self-identification. Most political ideas represent a synthesis to some extent of previous ideas and you can always say "this aspect of X is a bit like that aspect of Y". It doesn't make them the same kind of thing. Equally, factions in the same overall political area will often be rivals and criticise each other. And as for self-identification, however much he criticised the traditional right, Hitler always lined himself up alongside them when he needed allies or help: from Ludendorff in 1923 to Hugenberg in 1933. N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nazism is socialism is leftist. This is a no-brainer. -Michael Leahy Disciple4lif (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to make your point twice. I have replied to it below. Also, please don't be so hard on yourself. You don't have to introduce yourself as a "no-brainer". Instead, please just think of yourself as somebody who just has a lot to learn. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

Despite the current leftist agenda to rewrite history and make the claim that Nazism is a far-right political ideology, it is not. Nazism and the Nazi Party were a Far-left political ideology encompassing Socialism, totalitarianism and fascism. As clearly stated in Britannica's online Encyclopedia, Socialism and Communism are both left political ideologies. This can be verified at the following URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/left. The political right and Conservatism encompass smaller government, invoking fewer regulations and laws, more private enterprise as opposed to public ownership and publicly governed organizations with the hope of reduced corruption, waste and personal responsibility. Nazism was, in every way, leftist in ideology. Nazism, in no way, encouraged or promoted fewer regulations, independent liberties or additional freedoms for its people. This blatantly biased and incorrect article is an example of the very nature of leftist ideologies forcing misinformation and bias in an effort to further tyranny and promote propaganda that is simply untrue. Allen4GG (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Allen Martin Allen4GG (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Nazism is left wing, not right wing.

Nazism is short for National Socialism. Socialism is leftist.

There was nothing about the Nazi party that was right wing.

This must be changed

Disciple4lif (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This is demonstrably incorrect. This has been explained 1000 times before. If you have not seen this then you can either check out the archive of discussion here or you can just look up the reference material that the article uses. Please do not demand that we "must" make incorrect changes to appease your lack of understanding. Even if you were correct your tone would be inappropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, but this issue has already been discussed in length and not likely to change on Wikipedia any time soon. For what it's worth though, National Socialism is, in my view (as well as for other American conservatives/classical liberals), a primarily "left-wing" ideology when concerning American definitions of right-wing versus left-wing politics. In Europe, however, definitions may vary. From an American perspective, Nazism has a mixture of far-right (implementation of nationalist agendas, anti-internationalism, etc.), and far-left (Socialism, anti-capitalism, some form of collectivism, one-party statism, government-controlled economy, etc.) politics. The article itself makes mention of such syncretism. -Ano-User (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The article does try to be as clear about this as it can but, as you demonstrate, understanding these distinctions requires you to be able to hold different ideas about the meanings of things in your head at once and then compare them. Sadly, it seems that many people find this very hard and unpleasant to do. The problem is not that there is a difference in nuance between American and European ideas of left and right, although, of course, there is, and it certainly can cause confusion. The current problem is that some people on the American aggressive right want to simply define "left" as "bad" and "right" as "good". When done intentionally that is a cynical and sinister attempt to undermine the integrity of language itself. Like Orwellian Newspeak it seeks to diminish and pervert the language to the point where it becomes impossible to express a view contrary to the one promoted by those seeking to control the language and thus saves them from having to engage with ideas that challenge them. I doubt that most of the people who turn up here making these points are in on the sinister and cynical end of this but I do think that most of them have been confused by those who are. If they check out the reference material we use then maybe they can see that we are following mainstream terminology and academic consensus. Of course, there are some on the American right want to redefine "mainstream" (and maybe also "academic" and "consensus") to simply mean "bad". For anybody who has drunk that much of the Kool Aid it is almost impossible for them to understand anything that they read here or in the reference material even if they try to read it. If they drunk it without knowing then I pity them. It will be very hard for them to think, speak or write clearly about almost any complex subject. They will be as lost as a blind man who only speaks Welsh stranded half-way on a busy traffic crossing in central Tokyo. They may be surrounded by people who want to help but the language gap means that making anything understood is all but impossible. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710100514/http://www3.baylor.edu/American_Jewish/everythingthatusedtobehere/resources/PowerPoints/Christian%20Anti-Semitism%20%28part%202%29.ppt to http://www3.baylor.edu/American_Jewish/everythingthatusedtobehere/resources/PowerPoints/Christian%20Anti-Semitism%20%28part%202%29.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003233617/http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/antisemitism/post_ww1.cfm to http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/antisemitism/post_ww1.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Spelling

This article seems to have acquired a mixture of different varieties of English, so it seems like a good idea to standardize it. Words like "labour" seem to have been in there for a long time, which speaks for British English. On the other hand there are quite a lot of izations. I would therefore suggest adding the template {{Use British English Oxford spelling}} and standardizing the spelling accordingly (mainly: use of British spelling, such as colour, favour, and labour but with -ize and -ization). --Boson (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A new article about "National Socialism"

The German Wikipedia has two articles relating to this article, one about Nationalsozialismus (Nazism) and a separate one about Nationaler Sozialismus (National Socialism). Do you think it's worth creating a separate article to distinguish the two different concepts? Just a thought.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Or at least creating a section within this article to show how the term was used historically before being used by the Nazis.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not edited on here for a long time (2015), but in looking at it again just now, it could use (ce) editing for concision. As for your suggestion, it already has an "Origins" section. A sub-article could be done, but is not necessarily needed. I leave it to others to comment further on this query of yours. Kierzek (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

We already have National Socialism (disambiguation). It is synthesis to write articles about unconnected concepts when reliable sources have not done so. It's quite a stretch to group the liberal National-Social Association with the Nazis, as the German article does. Social does not mean socialist, just as anti-social and anti-socialist do not have the same meaning. TFD (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Questions regarding sources

• Is George G. Watson a fringe source? ..or just a minority one? Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is George Reisman a fringe source? ..or just, perhaps, a minority one? Anmccaff (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well, what about Alfred E. Neuman, Jubilation T. Cornpone, Buster Poindexter and Otis B. Driftwood? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is Tim Stanley arguing with what he sees as a fringe position...here, or one that he sees as wrong? Anmccaff (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• So, you're saying that since an historian chooses to debunk the myth that the Nazis were socialists, that makes the myth a "minority viewpoint" and not a fringe one? How does that work? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize your world is a very...special place, by the look of it, but do physicists really spend lots of time explaining the world might be round there? That looks a good deal like someone arguing against a position he sees as wrong, but worthy of being taken seriously. It is, to paraphrase TSE, argument enough to be damned.

More importantly, Is George G. Watson a fringe source? ..or just a minority one? and Is George Reisman a fringe source? ..or just, perhaps, a minority one? Anmccaff (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not the theory which needs to be taken seriously, it's the danger which comes from people accepting it as fact that is the problem, and the reason that responsible academics and other debunk even patent nonsense, such as you espouse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Excessive bolding; wikipedia's version of green ink. DO you really think that ""makes a bad argument <huge> BETTER?</huge> (Hmmm, <huge> don't cut it. Damn.)

Meanwhile, at the sources, which Wiki is supposed to base itself on, do you think these fringe, or do you just want to play typesetter? Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The operational psychology of the "logic" here is transparent: to many on the right, we (the right) are good, while the left is evil. Nazism was evil, therefore... Nazism must be left-wing! QED. Then they go looking for the "evidence" and come up with stuff like: Communists said nice things about Hitler and Nazism during a short period of time when they were "friends", and that shows that the Nazis were left-wing, just like the Communists. [3] (Because people of different political viewpoints are incapable of saying anything nice about each other. Only people who are politically aligned can do that). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No, ...unless you are claiming that about the sources mentioned above. Are you, or is this just more green ink? Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Watson's book Lost Literature of Socialism is definitely fringe. It did not have an academic publisher and was ignored by academics, although it was reviewed in a journal on literature. Watson himself was an expert on Victorian literature not modern politics. And he makes startling claims, such as that forgotten socialist texts of the the 19th century inspired Stalinist purges and that socialism was actually a form of conservatism, hence right-wing. People by the way are not fringe, writings are. Newton's writings on physics for example were mainstream but hs writings on alchemy were fringe. His laws of gravity are still taught in schools while his theories about alchemy are ignored. TFD (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And yet, as I mentioned above, the same ideas were published and commented on in History Today, with more cavils and caveats in response than outright disagreement, IMS. Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why History Today would publish an article by Watson, but it does not establish him as a leading expert on Nazism whose views are significant. All kinds of views on Nazism have been published somewhere, but alone that does not provide sufficient weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting here that History Today is a magazine, not a journal. It's not peer reviewed or anything. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, roughly the equivalent of American Heritage or Smithsonian. Not reviewed before publication, but widely read, and good about following up to criticism. That's a reliable source, if a popularized one. Anmccaff (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliability and weight are two separate policies. That an opinion was published in a reliable source does not guarantee its inclusion. You need to show it has recognition. Fringe theories are only mentioned if they are significant, for example the theory that John Kennedy was murdered as a result of a conspiracy has attracted wide attention and should be mentioned. The people who promote these theories believe that every U.S. president since Coolidge, with the possible exceptions of Reagan and Trump, was a socialist. But we don't throw into the George W. Bush article that Libertarians thought he was a socialist. TFD (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

2601:703:4004:5CA0:40A1:B711:83ED:1085 (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of "Nazism" being a product of the right-wing, here is the investigation de-bunking that claim:Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History

<redact enormous copyvio>

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

He wants you to change part of the definition of Nazism from the the incorrect "product of the right wing" to the correct "product of the left wing," and has provided evidence to back up his request. 130.52.192.4 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fringe opinionated BS that isn't supported by majority of academia and reliable sources is not "evidence" and neither is Nazism a "product of the left wing". NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please keep your comments on the talk page respectful in nature, NoMoreHeroes. Mad'ouk (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We should not descend into insulting eachother however this ongoing attempt to falsify the content of the article has to stop. We will not censor basic facts that anybody can read in any history book about the Nazis. We will not insert BS in the article or remove relevant facts. Some people who suggest this may be genuinely very, very confused. They may have been tricked into doing somebody else's dirty work for them. This is why it is important not to be personally insulting but (you know what?) NoMoreHeroes wasn't. They didn't insult anybody. Calling BS, BS is OK in my books. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's the question though, who makes these history books you speak of? What we need to ask ourselves is do these people have political leanings and should these be addressed? I notice one sentence in the article states, "The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics." This is a very vague statement yet somehow it needs to cite a 3-in-1 source with pages and pages of information. Why is this not elaborated on? Who are these scholars? Who do they align with? I'm going to get all three of these books and see for myself, but for those who cited them I would like to hear what it is in those 70 some pages that could be reduced down to such a simplistic sentence. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 02:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like the facts then dig up some dirt on the people presenting them? That seems a little, um, desperate?

The point about this consensus, which you seem to be missing, is that it exists across the political spectrum. Most sane people on the right accept that Nazism is an example of the right gone terribly wrong, not of the left or of something else entirely. Outside of the USA you will not hear any mainstream right-wing politician, right-wing journalist or right-wing historian question this. There are fringe opinions, and we acknowledge that in the article, but you don't get to change the global consensus just on a personal whim, any more than the few left-wingers who wanted to describe Stalin as right-wing got to. I don't understand why people are so keen to want to censor these facts. It is not a slight on normal, mainstream, right-wing people to call the Nazis right-wing any more than the fact that I have a moustache makes me in any relevant way akin to Hitler. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You're calling me desperate for wanting to know where my sources come from when they have been vaguely cited? Especially in the wake of tons of Wikipedia corruption coming from bribed editors (mainly in politics)? You should be helping me keep these articles neutral. Let's keep it neutral and try to be unbiased in discussion here, because I honestly don't care which political side the source comes - what I care about is that people know where its coming from. People deserve to know where their information is coming from.

I honestly never knew that Nazism was considered "far-right" to "the majority of academics" because I always used my logic about the political spectrum to determine what was far-left and far-right. There was no way I would've thought that a regime with such massive government could be considered far-right because that's not what far-right means. I honestly thought the article was vandalized because it shocked me. And here we have such a bold statement as "the majority of academics" and yet I still don't know who these academics are? I have no problem with the sources but these articles should elaborate on them. These article should have the best interest of the readers in mind, and not to tell them what to believe but to aid them in making their own educated opinions especially in the controversial area of politics. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 23:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Using your own logic for article content is prohibited in Wikipedia as per "No original research". It's questionable anyway since the Right is defined by its opposition to the Left, who were Nazism's main opponents and the reason other right-wing groups - conservatives, Christian Democrats and liberals - gave them dictatorial power. There's an article in the Guardian, "Socialism, fascist-style: hostility to capitalism plus extreme racism", which shows that U.S. far right share some views common on the Left. TFD (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Qubix, the problem is that yes, there is an academic consensus that Nazism is a far-right ideology, whether we like it or not. Anybody can make their own analysis and label Nazis as far-leftists (communists fit this category better), but until this trend is found in reputable academic research and not fringe opinion articles and editors' original research, it shouldn't change how the ideology is described in Wikipedia. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm open minded to anything. But this article feels very open-ended to me. I see sources that are simply pages and pages of information from a book (which has no digital view, and no quotes from the book were made), and they're being used to cite information of low complexity. How are people even supposed to know whats in the book and how do we know it even pertains to the content in the article? I could've cited the same source but just made everything up. That's why I want to find these works my self. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 23:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A good public library should have at least some of these books. I know that not everybody has easy access to a public library and that not all public libraries are well stocked but I think that this is at least worth a try if you have a library near you. Please understand that we can't go scanning in pages and posting them here as that would breach the authors' copyrights. Also, please bear in mind that, as you are seeking to overturn long established content which is in line with the basic facts that we were taught in high school history lessons, the onus is very much on you to prove your case not to demand that we prove that we are not falsifying the references. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that's really all too crazy to question things people told you to believe? And to further research the knowledge for yourself in order to find out whether you believe it or not? Yes, I will go get these books and I will elaborate more on what these academics are saying. I'm actually curious because everyone has different angles on the political spectrum, because there isn't just one way of looking at it. From what I see here, the most used political spectrum by these academics seems to be based on social politics, which doesn't explain the government politics of said groups. Social conservatism in nazism is evident, but that's something that spans across the political spectrum so it seems a little odd. Nationalism and social conservatism is not something specific to just the right. So how about I delve a little deeper into some research and discover the different views on this.

Also I do have to say that you're very wrong about thinking that I want to "overturn information" for my own agenda. If scholars say something about something then it is a fact they said it. But here in politics we have lots of different views and arguments between these academics that I believe need elaboration. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 22:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

How we elaborate on various views depends on weight: we don't spend a lot of time on fringe views. While it may be crazy to believe things just because experts do, it is policy that their views are reflected in articles, not ours. That's what an encyclopedia is. TFD (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TFD I appreciate the wise words. I understand that about Wikipedia as well. What I was trying to say, was that their views weren't expressed enough. I came out of this article and learned literally nothing about why "the majority of academics" consider Nazism to be far-right. Like I said, it needs to be elaborated on because people come here to be educated on topics - not take a one liner at face value. And btw I thought your article was extremely interesting on the matter and an example of the kind of elaboration I'm talking about. Politics and the political spectrum are much more in depth than people make it seem. My own personal rule is: If you have to ask "Why?" at the end of an educational statement then you didn't learn anything. [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 03:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article Communism why a majority of academics consider them to be left-wing. There is a fringe theory that it was right-wing because it was statist. (Socialism actually combined ideas from traditional conservatism and classical liberalism.) It's worth noting that political parties in European parliaments choose among themselves where to sit and that is where the terms come from. Fascists sit on the right and Communists sit on the left. TFD (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

False narrative.

Nazism is short for National Socialist Movement How can Nazism be called "right-wing" when it is based on socialism which is a decidedly left-wing.

Also if you look at the actions of the Nazi Party, they acted in more of a leftist manner, mob-rule along with a totalitarian leader. What planet are you from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.100.97.30 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that all those scientists might be right and you might be wrong? Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 20:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How can North Korea be a totalitarian communist state when it has "Democratic" and "republic" in its name? Oh, and it's certainly not biased of you to associate "mob-rule" and totalitarianism with left-wing politics. But here's the crux of the matter: reliable sources and political scientists generally regard the Nazi ideology as far-right. We can't change something that is not supported by reputable sources and researchers. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions presented in articles must reflect expert opinion, rather than what individual editors have concluded. Speaking of planets, I probably could not explain why I think man actually landed on the Moon, but I am not going to change that article until it is explained to me. TFD (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Moon is not a planet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And you don't have a sense of irony. TFD (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I learned long ago that communists were left wing and fascists were right wing. Communist philosophy aligned more with liberal doctrine, whereby everyone should be treated the same, and government was heavily involved. Nazism is closer to conservative doctrine - current conservative party platforms that aim to create fear and distrust of immigrants and foreigners speak for themselves.

To counter the claim above that tries to take the party name too literally, I'll throw in some Voltaire:

Ce corps qui s'appelait et qui s'appelle encore le saint empire romain n'était en aucune manière ni saint, ni romain, ni empire.

This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, sure you can argue that their name had nothing to do with their policies, but then that must be proven by reference to the policies. If you just read the policies described in this article, quite a few of them are straightforward socialist policies - promises of free stuff to 'disadvantaged' or 'important' groups, redistributism. The anti-capitalists rethoric is straight-up Marxism, Hitler and his palls disagreed about the geographic scale, the internationalists wanted a worldwide revolution, the Nazi's a national/'volkisch' one. At the very least socialism should described as one of the influences of the Nazi's. There are scholars who acknowledge this influence, so the argumentum ad verecundiam won't work here. Austrian economics have argued this point for instance, such as George Reisman. Another one is George Watson. Note that claiming that socialism influenced the Nazi's does not mean that all their horrible actions can be or were derived from socialism. - Dg21dg21, 11:12, 24 August 2017 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg21dg21 (talk • contribs)

The "Austrian" viewpoint is considered fairly fringe. Not fringe in the pejorative sense of super-wacky but fringe in the sense that their view is not shared very widely outside of their small but enthusiastic group of supporters; Not so fringe that we should ignore it completely but certainly not mainstream enough to undermine the academic consensus or to justify giving their view a lot of coverage here. We already mention that there are other views and we are certainly not trying to hide this. Suggestions for minor improvements in the way we explain this can be made but I don't think any suggestion that seeks to massively expand coverage of this rather minor viewpoint can be justified. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Since when are Marxist Socialists considered Right Wing...There should be no reference to a "wing" and if there is, A Socialist Workers Party is clearly left wing Zeropest (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused, who are you responding to? Per the article: In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism." What Socialist Workers Party are you talking about? The Socialist Workers' Party of Germany was a left-wing party in Germany that fought against the Nazis during the war. Grayfell (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Are we seriously arguing that the Nazi's must be left wing because they had "socialist" in their name? I suppose the Lilith Fair was organized to celebrate a Hebrew demon and that a rivet gun is a ballistic weapon. This is akin to arguing that the Democratic party in the US advocates for a nationwide vote on every government decision. Just like "Democrat", "Socialism" has more than one meaning, including the use in the NSDAP, where it meant "in the interests of society and the people" or something to that effect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• On a side note, most scholars consider the Nazis to be right-wing, not left-wing, but this is a bit of a false dichotomy. This simplistic, 1-demonsional viewpoint portrays Nazis and Communists as polar opposites when in fact they are both authoritarian ideologies. If you use the Nolan Chart, it's obvious that communism and Nazism are closer together than some might think. Unfortunately, the Nolan Chart hasn't caught on beyond libertarian circles and can't be used in the article. Like I said, this is just a side note. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting side note. And -dare I say?- common knowledge among those who pay attention to these sorts of things. Politics is a multi-dimensional spectrum, and while Communism and Naziism aren't on opposite corners, they are about as far apart as ideologies can get (the only bigger gulf I can think of is between absolute anarchists and absolute authoritarians). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's a widely shared view that both the far-left and far-right are authoritarian in nature, even though their end goals differ in certain ways. I don't think it's one-dimensional at all. Authoritarianism is simply a common element of both Nazism and communism. And Nazis were staunch opponents of communism, so there was obviously an adversarial relationship there. Scholars offer a distinction between them in a political spectrum, but not necessarily in action and attitude. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that the French say "Les extrêmes se touchent." ("The extremes touch") Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

IP, George Watson actually argued that socialism was right wing because it was statist. But he was an expert in Victorian literature and did not publish his political views in academic journals. TFD (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This entire article has left wing bias. It should be scrapped and redone. 148.177.1.215 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" (Colbert). Cheers ✦ _hugarheimur 13:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

Change: "Far-right groups" to "Far-left groups". Nazism was a socialist theory. To use the term far-right is only a tool of the left wing to insult and slander conservatives and to change history and thus the future. RufusBlue (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. General Ization ^Talk 03:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, please don't, since such sources do not exist. I'm deleting this as non-sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2017

Nazis were far-left, not far-right. Erick1971 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Read Nazism#Position within the political spectrum and the citations contained in that section. General Ization ^Talk 04:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Erick1971, Nazis were far-right and are primarily known for their anti-communism. Do basic research before posting nonsensical commentary on the far-left. Dimadick (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Strasserism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would it be worth it to mention in the ideology section that the ideology took a huge step toward the right because of the falling out between the Nazi party and the Strassers(Original founders of the party)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) The Strassers were not the "original founders of the party." The original party, the German Workers' Party (DAP), was founded by Anton Drexler. Hitler joined it in 1919, took it over in 1920 and renamed it the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

(2) The party was never left wing, it was always a right-wing party. The Strasser faction was more oriented toward some aspect of socialism than the party as a whole, but was never on the political left. It would be highly incorrect to say that the Nazis took a "huge step toward the right" when Hitler co-opted the Strasser faction.

So, no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly generally seen that way since WWII, especially in the West, but the tie-in between the Nasties and the left were real enough, and rather embarrassing sometimes to both. Stuffing pre-Night of the Long Knives hitlerism into the same pigeonhole as, say George Lincoln Rockwell is comforting, but not accurate. Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Beyond My Ken

Asked and answered two different ways; that does not justify archiving the question as you did. Anmccaff (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh sure, your profoundly ahistorical response was very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was politically left. Yeah, I was totally off with the founders part idk what I was thinking. But would the Strasser faction be of significant enough note to mention? Me personally, I think the different ideologies of Socialism and Fascism are fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC) You're understating the infulence of the faction because sometime in the 20s the party shifted from anti bourgeios and anti capitalist to anti semitism and anti marxism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboy000 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see this as an understatement at all. It was always fiercely anti-Semitic and anti-communist. This is already explained in the article. Specifically, the section on the political spectrum, where the term "Beefsteak Nazis" is mentioned. The term highlights that even from the beginning, the attempted combination of Nazism and socialism was seen as peculiar, contradictory, and hypocritical. If you have a particular reliable source in mind that could be used to expand or clarify something, let's see it. Otherwise, this isn't really the place to share personal fascinations. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Lueger was undoubtedly antisemitic, and equally undoubtedly a socialist, even in some marxian senses. The two are perfectly reconcilable, look at the various anticosmipolitan campaigns. Anmccaff (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Trotsky certainly saw much of the social policy of hitlerism and stalinsism both as essentially a form of bourgeois socialism. A good part of the problem with this question is that "socialism" is being used equivocally, both as a segment of the political spectrum, and as an umbrella term for supporters of certain social policy. The rural, aristocratic Whites of Finland, for example, were emphatically no sort of Marxist, but they supported social reforms whose practical effects were far beyond the Soviets's.

To take a less vexed example, the Milwaukee Progressives and the Sewer Socialists shared policy, but a La Follette republican was not in any sense marxist. Anmccaff (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Nazis were on the left" question has been discussed to death here, and it's just not going to fly no matter how many more times it's brought up -- and this is WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussion. The trope is generally spread by those on the right trying to get the Nazi monkey off their back and put it on the Commies. So, I'm archiving this discussion again, as asked and answered many, many, many times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's been asked and answered many times, and the article doesn't give the subject the coverage it deserves -a sentence or two - then it hasn't been answered very well before. Anmccaff (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a good outline of Strasser's "socialism" in a chapter called "The 'Socialist' Years, 1925-8."[4] basically it was a muddled conglomeration of nostalgia for pre-industrial Germany, support for the middle class, including small businessmen and opposition to Jewish, American and British business. It had little resemblance to what is generally known as socialism and not actually left-wing. It's similar to modern right wing rhetoric on the globalists, crony capitalists, banksters, elitists and military-industrial complex. TFD (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Something need not be "left wing" in a modern sense to be "left wing" in another context. This is taking a purely linear marxian and beating the external reality to fit on it. Strasser's opposition to "big capital" was real enough, as was his appeal to the same strata that gave us the beefsteakers. . A sentence of two addressing it is called for, probably with another one with caveats on its modern misuse. Anmccaff (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions regarding sources

• Is George G. Watson a fringe source? ..or just a minority one? Anmccaff (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is George Reisman a fringe source? ..or just, perhaps, a minority one? Anmccaff (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Well, what about Alfred E. Neuman, Jubilation T. Cornpone, Buster Poindexter and Otis B. Driftwood? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is Tim Stanley arguing with what he sees as a fringe position...here, or one that he sees as wrong? Anmccaff (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• So, you're saying that since an historian chooses to debunk the myth that the Nazis were socialists, that makes the myth a "minority viewpoint" and not a fringe one? How does that work? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize your world is a very...special place, by the look of it, but do physicists really spend lots of time explaining the world might be round there? That looks a good deal like someone arguing against a position he sees as wrong, but worthy of being taken seriously. It is, to paraphrase TSE, argument enough to be damned.

More importantly, Is George G. Watson a fringe source? ..or just a minority one? and Is George Reisman a fringe source? ..or just, perhaps, a minority one? Anmccaff (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not the theory which needs to be taken seriously, it's the danger which comes from people accepting it as fact that is the problem, and the reason that responsible academics and other debunk even patent nonsense, such as you espouse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Excessive bolding; wikipedia's version of green ink. DO you really think that ""makes a bad argument <huge> BETTER?</huge> (Hmmm, <huge> don't cut it. Damn.)

Meanwhile, at the sources, which Wiki is supposed to base itself on, do you think these fringe, or do you just want to play typesetter? Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The operational psychology of the "logic" here is transparent: to many on the right, we (the right) are good, while the left is evil. Nazism was evil, therefore... Nazism must be left-wing! QED. Then they go looking for the "evidence" and come up with stuff like: Communists said nice things about Hitler and Nazism during a short period of time when they were "friends", and that shows that the Nazis were left-wing, just like the Communists. [5] (Because people of different political viewpoints are incapable of saying anything nice about each other. Only people who are politically aligned can do that). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

No, ...unless you are claiming that about the sources mentioned above. Are you, or is this just more green ink? Anmccaff (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Watson's book Lost Literature of Socialism is definitely fringe. It did not have an academic publisher and was ignored by academics, although it was reviewed in a journal on literature. Watson himself was an expert on Victorian literature not modern politics. And he makes startling claims, such as that forgotten socialist texts of the the 19th century inspired Stalinist purges and that socialism was actually a form of conservatism, hence right-wing. People by the way are not fringe, writings are. Newton's writings on physics for example were mainstream but hs writings on alchemy were fringe. His laws of gravity are still taught in schools while his theories about alchemy are ignored. TFD (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And yet, as I mentioned above, the same ideas were published and commented on in History Today, with more cavils and caveats in response than outright disagreement, IMS. Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why History Today would publish an article by Watson, but it does not establish him as a leading expert on Nazism whose views are significant. All kinds of views on Nazism have been published somewhere, but alone that does not provide sufficient weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Worth noting here that History Today is a magazine, not a journal. It's not peer reviewed or anything. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, roughly the equivalent of American Heritage or Smithsonian. Not reviewed before publication, but widely read, and good about following up to criticism. That's a reliable source, if a popularized one. Anmccaff (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliability and weight are two separate policies. That an opinion was published in a reliable source does not guarantee its inclusion. You need to show it has recognition. Fringe theories are only mentioned if they are significant, for example the theory that John Kennedy was murdered as a result of a conspiracy has attracted wide attention and should be mentioned. The people who promote these theories believe that every U.S. president since Coolidge, with the possible exceptions of Reagan and Trump, was a socialist. But we don't throw into the George W. Bush article that Libertarians thought he was a socialist. TFD (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable, sure. But an exceedingly poor choice of source to use here, when there are countless academic sources on the same subject, the vast majority of which reject the interpretation you're advocating. It's UNDUE. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain what "interpretation" you think I'm "advocating?" The article itself accurately reflects the real left influence of Strasserism and the radical take on nazism of the SA; what it does not do is explain or even delineate their demise in the group, except indirectly. That needs fixing.

Mentioning this source was in response to a question above, here, in talk, regarding whether something was a minority view or a fringe one. I'd submit that anything about a flash-point subject that can be published in the sort of thing that straddles scholarship and mass readership without causing a firestorm is not fringe. Period. Full stop. If it's in an older Smithsonian, and the issue three down from it isn't clogged with letters attacking, rebutting, adding nuance after nuance, etc, then it may not be central scholarship, but it isn't something that can be lumped with flat-earthism, and the author can not be compared to Alfred E. Neuman, Jubilation T. Cornpone, Buster Poindexter [or] Otis B. Driftwood. Anmccaff (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Watson doesn't mention Strasserism. TFD (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No, he actually takes it a step further, suggesting that some of central Nazism was anti-Bolshevik, but not anti-Marxist, essentially. That isn't a point for the "purely rightist" side at all. Anmccaff (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the view is fringe. Watson was not an expert in political science, but Victorian literature and his views are not mentioned at all by Nazi experts. Furthermore, he is out of step with the other Nazism=socialism clan, because he saw socialism as right-wing, a conservative reaction to the French revolution, as opposed to for example to Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who saw both Nazism and socialism as the heirs of the French Revolution. Even if we were to report these views, we would have to go beyond the slogan approach ("The Nazis were socialists!") and explain why these people believed that. Unfortunately since no serious writers commented on them, that would be hard to do. TFD (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Fest certainly saw Hitler's position in a more nuanced way than you apparently do here, and he's solidly in what I'll call 85%ile scholarship. And the OP spoke of a turn to the right, not placement squarely on the rightist side. The Left Opposition certainly saw Stalin taking Russia toward the right, but that doesn't mean they saw him as a new incarnation of Czar Alexander.

Really, the majority of the stuff above is demolishing ideas not mentioned, and points not raised. The article correct reports some completely left-wing underpinnings of nazism, and mentions some policies and goals supported by that, in the lead, and then, pretty much drops the subject. It shouldn't, and there is no reason for this page to be discussing anything other than that (aside from knee-jerk edwarring to support the status quo). Anmccaff (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to Joachim Fest, who was a controversial writer who has had no recogintion among fascism scholars. Can you tell me if he thought Hitler supported or rejected the French Revolution? TFD (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahh now Fest is fringe, too? All turtles, all the way down. Anmccaff (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

According to his Wikipedia article he was controversial, Deborah Lipstadt accused him of ignoring the Holocaust, while he actually defended Ernst Nolte. You are probably hearing these names for the first time. You should be familiar with sources before recommending changes. TFD (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No, no, and no. Controversial does not equal "fringe". One does not need an "actually" near "defended Nolte"; Nolte at al represented a whole school in a rather prominent academic squabble; you can argue (and will, and have, obviously) that they were wrong, but not that they were fringe. The odds are quite good Ive read or skimmed any particular source in the article up to '93, give or take, and seen a couple of them since as well. So, are you claiming that "controversial" equals "fringe" or not? Anmccaff (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

fest described the Nazi party as one of the most extreme negative reactions to the prevailing left-wing politics popular in germany and europe at the time, and describes hitler's political views as being shaped by a conservative, nationalistic movement following wwi. 185.217.69.138 (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion thread should be wrapped up. The question was whether Watson or Reisman were fringe sources, yet did not mention their works or what edits they were supposed to support. Both of course have published academic books and articles which are reliable and popular books and articles that are not. Then we segued to discussions about Fest and Strasser and whether Nazism (or Strasserism) were left-wing. I would say in general though that editors should begin by identiying the best sources. For example, with fascism that would mean beginning with the Kallis' Fascism Reader that has articles by most of the major Fascism scholars. The wrong approach is to determine what needs to be in the article based on what one read on a conspiracy theory website then look for whatever sources that might pass rs which support its positions. TFD (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Popular works are not generally unreliable, and are not always of lower weight. If you want to attack this one, Watson, then find some secondary commentary on it. The approach of attacking it by flinging older sources at it can not work, since the points he raises weren't part of the dialog before.

Given that this erupted over someone claiming that the KotLK represented a turn to the right, which led to the thread being repeatedly closed, it should not be necessary to explain the context to the intelligent reader.

The OP's question was perfectly consistent with strasserism as the left wing of the nazis.

Kallis? I'd suggest starting with Payne, at least for this part of the subject.

Ending your paragraph with an ad hominem sprayed wide, like a retreating skunk, isn't best practice. There's no evidence the OP came in here high on fresh-snorted Brietbart, and the only "conspiracy" oriented websites or newsgroups I've ever hung around in were all on the debunking side, so who, exactly, are you addressing that toward? Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You missed what I said about The Fascism Reader: it "has articles by most of the major Fascism scholars." That obviously includes Payne, who contributed two articles. But I would start with the intro that explains the views of the different scholars and the extent to which they have influenced the topic, which enables us to establish weight. There is no mention of Watson in any serious book on Fascism. It could be the IP came across a copy in a boot sale. I first heard about him from other Wikipedia editors, and when I googled his theories on socialism was taken to lots of fringe websites. Where did you first come across his writing? TFD (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Missed? No, not at all; I think it'd be better to start at Payne, for this very narrow topic. Or maybe at Sternhell, if you have a 50lb grain of salt handy. Most serious books on fascism were printed before Watson's pieces, so I'd certainly expect that it doesn't have many secondary cites on the wiki bibliography at all, and it was, as already discussed, on the popularized side, but that isn't the same as seeing it as something that can be lumped with flat-earthism, [with] the author ...compared to Alfred E. Neuman, Jubilation T. Cornpone, Buster Poindexter [or] Otis B. Driftwood.

Where'd I first come across his writings? That's forty years ago, I'd bet, hellifino. "Rackrent", if I were guessing. The stuff about Hitler? Usenet or H-net or such, I'm guessing, followed up by some library, probably damn near [fifteen-]twenty years ago. Seen more as a think-piece than as something that would re-arrange historiography, IMS. Anmccaff (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

There is also a chapter by Sternhell in the book. As I said, it "has articles by most of the major Fascism scholars." It was published btw 5 years after Watson's book. You have presented Payne and Sternhell as the first writers you would consult, but they don't mention Watson. So if everyone followed that advice, we would never even hear about him. As I said, I only heard about him because he is a favorite source for editors enthusiastic about the fascism=socialism meme. No one mentioned flat earth theory btw, it's more comparable to birtherism, climate change denial and intelligent design, appealing to similar audiences. TFD (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

...But that's pretty much what "fringe" means. Flat earth, water-memory, hollow-earth, colloidal silver, &cet. It's a bowdlerization or mincing of "lunatic fringe." It shouldn't be used unless the writer (metaphorically) has pencils up his nose, and says "wibble" a lot.

Well, no. If everyone followed my advice, someone wandering in here with a question would get answered, or at least pointed at a FAQ, and when a source that is respectable, but widely seen as wrong, was brought in, it would be described as such, not as the work of Alfred E. Neuman, Jubilation T. Cornpone, Buster Poindexter [or] Otis B. Driftwood. Anmccaff (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." It includes "alternative theoretical formulations" that have been published in academic papers but have yet to gain significant following. And the reason for this guideline is to help editors follow the policy of weight. Views that have attracted little or no attention in mainstream sources should be given little if any attention. Articles should never give greater attention to opinions than do mainstream textbooks. If you disagree then you should get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

...and from the same, giving examples (we small-braned people like examples) of prominent fringe theories , deserving, despite their fringitude, articles, we see Creation science and Intelligent design, Holocaust denial, Moon landing conspiracy theories, and Paul is dead....which is to say stuff that is (lunatic) fringe in ordinary speech. Bigfoot is in there, too. So, while it handwaves at finer nuance, the practical effects are elsewise. Anmccaff (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

The opening sentence claims the National Socialists were a "far-right" group. This is inaccurate and politically biased; in fact the Nazi party was no more similar to today's right-wing than it is to today's left wing. No association to either modern political wing need be drawn, particularly in the opening sentence.

Instead the "right-wing" classification should simply be removed, and the opening sentence should instead read:

National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsi.ɪzəm, ˈnæt-/),[1] is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany and similar groups. Mherzl (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mherzl:  Not done. We've seen waves and waves of edits and edit requests like this lately, where people try to remove the word "far-right" from articles whose subjects are or were obviously far-right. Why is that? CityOfSilver 20:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I imagine it's connected to the emboldening of the alt-right by having an American president waffle on the moral relativism between them and their opponents. All of a sudden they have a little more social cachet then they did, and do not feel as disenfranchised -- especially since they played a part in getting that President elected. The uptick in pro-neo-Nazi editing can be seen all across relevent articles on Wikipedia, and more editors need to put them on their watchlists to guard against their becoming non-neutral. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the people making this request are all pro-neo-Nazi. I think most are non-Nazi right-wingers who want to disassociate the right from any connection with anything bad, particularly if they see a (false and ridiculous) hope of shovelling all the bad things in history onto the left. Some are confused, quite possibly having been deliberately confused by others acting in bad faith, while some others probably are knowingly engaging in an attempt to pervert history and language to what they perceive as their political ends. I'd rather not accuse anybody of being pro-neo-Nazi without strong evidence in each individual case. I'd like to think that most of them are not and that there might even be some hope of educating a few of them into seeing that they have been deceived by whoever has sent them here.

I completely agree about the need to have as many sensible and experienced people as possible put the main Nazism and Fascism related articles on their watchlists. Beyond this, it would be helpful if anybody can get to the bottom of who is sending them all here with their pretty much identical requests each time?

Finally, I feel that we should have a common FAQ covering all these articles, and linked or transcluded in all their Talk pages, so that anybody naively but honestly wondering something like "Why did these guys call themselves socialists if they were not?" can quickly and easily find out what that is about if they are willing to read and learn. The more water we provide at all appropriate locations the more legitimate our displeasure can be with those horses that still refuse to drink. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your point about the right wingers wishing to disassociate themselves from the alt-right is a good one, but it arises from the same circumstances: the increased visibility (and perhaps viability) of the alt-right in general and neo-Nazism is particular, so right-wingers see more need to make the case that Nazism was, and neo-Nazism is, not right wing. Still, the point is good that not all making those requests are necessarily neo-Nazis or crypto-Fascists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There does seem to have been an uptick in edits such as the above of late and there is a FAQ section under Nazi Party that can be used as a guide herein for this talk page. Kierzek (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nazism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060321151237/http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-29-46.htm to http://elsinore.cis.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-29-46.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to ban extremist political symbols from templates

There is a discussion at the Village Pump that may be relevant to this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

End matter

I used a level two heading for the Further reading section instead of the old psedudoheading bold markup that placed it hierarchically under References. Heading hierarchy should distinguish that Further reading entries are not references.

I also changed the redirecting portal link Portal:Nazi Germany to a direct link to the portal at Portal:Nazism since the reader probably wants to know that there is a portal matching exactly the topic of this article, instead of thinking there is one just for a related term.

Beyond My Ken reverted the edit ("better before"). Since we disagree, let's discuss. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The portal change is no problem. WP:FURTHER is an editing guideline and is not mandatory. There is no earthly reason for the TOC to be cluttered up with multiple reference sections, and "Further reading" is a type of reference -- not one used in the creation of the article, but we are referring the reader to those sources. Having all of those things under one "References" section is cleaner and neater and avoids TOC clutter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've restored your portal change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The portal change to Nazism, I agree with for this article. As for markup, it is a matter of personal preference and local consensus for the article page. Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)