Template talk:Nazism sidebar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nazism sidebar template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

Discrimination

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles

LGBTQ+ studies

This template is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Jewish history

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles

Germany

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles

Revert-warring

Hopefully we can put an end to this farce. Long ago there was discussion on this talkpage to the effect that a "logo", or emblem, would be obviously more appropriate in this role, than an SVG representation of a flag. Flags are fundamentally physical pieces of fabric: what we use on Wiki are representations of flags, not actual "flags". Emblems and logos, however, are specifically intended for use on two-dimensional media like this (e.g. [1]). -- Director (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simple emblem is obviously more appropriate. --18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Tuvixer (talk)

RfC: Swastika size in infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus for reducing the size of the swastika in the template (and this was already done). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose scaling the size of the swastika in the infobox down slightly from 120px to 100px. I believe that for a lone symbol, the image is slightly too big and draws attention away from the articles that it appears in. By scaling it down slightly (yes, it may not seem like much but it makes a huge difference), aesthetics are greatly improved. I have placed the template to the side of this discussion for visual aid: the top infobox has the swastika scaled to 100px, and the bottom is scaled to the current 120px. What are your thoughts? Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - But why are we RfCing this? It seems like you could be bold here. Did someone oppose this change? NickCT (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @NickCT: I did try to scale the image down several times, but it was reverted by DasReichenz who called it an "unnecessary change". This is why I came here. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nick Mitchell 98: - Ah Ok. Guess you're following dispute resolution then. Frankly, I'm not sure what DasReichenz's issue is here. He doesn't appear to be an active editor. If you like we could simply force the change. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither - restore previous logo - summoned by bot. Why was the previous logo (shown above) replaced with a simple swastika? I don't feel this is correct as the swastika is not a purely Nazi symbol. The previous logo was clearly Nazi and clearly Third Reich. I don't see a previous discussion about the logo on this talk page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wikimandia: The plain black swastika rotated 45 degrees (as it appears on Nazi flags) is in fact the Nazi version, so in this case, it is a Nazi symbol (original variations are the ones that I believe you are referring to). I'm not sure when the arms of the Nazi Party was replaced with a swastika (it definitely was not me), but the Nazi swastika is a better representation of Nazism as the arms of the Nazi Party restricts it to the Nazi Party only when this a template about an ideology, not a political party. Also, the Nazi swastika alone is more recognisable than the party arms. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Wikimandia and Nick Mitchell 98: - I think Mandia wants to know why we're not using the Parteiadler. Frankly, that seems like a better option to me too. NickCT (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmmmmm.... Looks like this edit switched from parteiadler to swastika. Not sure why, given that consensus for the parteiadler seemed to develop in the section above. NickCT (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I strongly support returning to the Parteiadler, as not only was this image changed without any kind of discussion, the "square" dimensions of the swastika will not allow it to be as wide as the Parteiadler without also increasing its height (as you can see from this RfD). Additionally a "plain black symbol" is merely the same symbol (especially as it's actually a character in Asian alphabets) and to people who consider the swastika a holy symbol, its rotation does not mean much. [Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IndusValleySeals.JPG these artifacts], purposely displayed at an angle at the British Museum. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I suspect that the issue may be that the Parteiadler is specifically associated with German Nazism, while this infobox covers Nazism more generally and globally. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support For what its worth - I agree with your justification for resizing it. I say go for it. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - resizing. Kierzek (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Support - resizing. For reasons already stated by the original editor. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support resize, square and diamond shapes are tricky, and the smaller one does look better. I would also support restoring the previous image (File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg) per Мандичка. This template is used at Swastika, and something about seeing it placed in a series with templates for Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism strikes me as off. That article explains that it's a widely used symbol with a long history, so using it starkly here seems... disrespectful, I guess. I don't think the current image is likely to cause confusion, exactly, but it would be more neutral to use a symbol that's specific to Nazism, which still features the swastika, as acknowledgment of those other uses. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support resizing the swastika for the reasons outlined by Nick Mitchell. Aesthetically, and out of respect for the fact that the swastika is not exclusively a Nazi symbol, I would prefer using the Parteiadler, but I'm not sure if it is too associated with the German Nazi Party rather than with Nazism as a whole, so I'm neutral with respect to restoring the original image. Graham (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support resizing - The smaller one looks better and is less shouting. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support resizing and reversion to previous image, per Grayfell and Мандичка; it's actually offensive to Buddhists and several other Asian religious groups, and the Navajo and several other Native American cultures, among others, to forcibly associate the bare swastika/fylfot symbol exclusively with naziism. Meanwhile, making the symbol extra-huge serves no reader-helpful purpose, and actually reduces the utility of the infobox. Use a smaller symbol, and one tied exclusively to naziism, like File:Parteiadler der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (1933–1945).svg. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support resizing - The smaller one looks better. Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I resized it per clear consensus on that issue above and believe this should be closed at this time. Kierzek (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Do we need a new RfC on the Hakenkreuz or Parteiadler?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus for not overruling the previous RfC and changing the symbol.– Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 07:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is disagreement as to what "symbol" should be used for the template. A couple of editors at this point in time seem to be going back and forth, to a degree, in changing what is used for display. Even the RfC of August/September (above) discussed what "symbol" should be used, besides just the size of the Hakenkreuz (Swastika). I would like to know other editors thoughts before opening yet another RfC. Consensus can be found without automatically resorting to that. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While a party in dispute as well, I don't believe any change needs to be made to this version. Aesthetically pleasing, historically significant, and currently has the consensus of the original RfC pertaining to the icon that should be used. The only reason a move was made away from it was the reckless editing by Director, which seems to be a trend among most of his work. So, I would say, no RfC needed, since him blatantly ignoring the first consensus probably indicates what he would do to another one, sans punishment. DasReichenz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off - this looks like a sock of Dannis243, who's been pushing for Nazi Party symbols in the sidebar for ages. I've reported the matter, requesting checkuser and a block if positive. Secondly, even if its not a sock, the user must STOP pushing his change through edit-warring. The simple Hakenkreuz has been up for months, and at least two users (myself included) oppose Dannis234/DasReichenz in his edit. Moreover, up until this point he has ignored the talkpage completely.

Thirdly - I'm the guy who originally introduced the Parteiadler back when. Let me make a few points in that regard:

Back then we didn't have a proper Hakenkreuz file (if I recall only Luftwaffe insignia was available), it was basically not a contender for that reason.
I myself sort of thought at the time that the image may be offensive to some people, but have since realized that the Nazi swastika is specifically #1 black, #2 rotated 90 degrees, #3 facing right (99% of the cases). Plus, many other prominent swastika symbols have additional markings, or are curved to one degree or another. That considered - no other notable swastika symbol, that I know of, could be confused with it. What we have here is very much a specifically Nazi swastika.
Further, when you get right down to it, whatever the symbol's other uses (and I am very much aware of them) - the Nazis did use it. Its their symbol. Theirs among others, but unfortunately theirs also nevertheless.
As was correctly pointed out, the Parteiadler is specifically a symbol of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The thing has the German eagle perched on it. Its not a symbol of Nazism in general, but its not even a symbol of German Nazism as a whole (there were other German Nazi parties).
Finally - the Parteiadler uses the swastika too. So if someone takes offense over it, and they don't care that its rotated, black, and facing right... they probably won't care that it has a bird over it either...

I was wrong about this. -- Director (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Swastika was around for thousands of years before the Nazi version was adopted. With that said, it was the official emblem of the NSDAP when rotated as if in perpetual motion. And as you know, the eagle holding the wreath with the swastika represented the party and Nazi Germany depending which shoulder (or way) the eagle was looking. In the end, what is important is consensus and I hope more of the editors who voiced an opinion in the recent RfC will state their's herein. Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was around for thousands of years. If Campion (2014) is to be believed, the earliest swastikas can be found in Ukraine, carved into mammoth tusks 10,000 years ago by Proto-Indo-European speakers - or "Aryans" in pre-WWII terminology. According to the (still rather popular) Indo-Aryan migration theory, Indo-European languages and symbols (Sanskrit) were brought into the Indus valley by Aryan invaders/migrants around 2000 BC. My point being that its exactly its ancient use, its supposed use by "primordial Aryans", that led to its use as an "Aryan"-supremacist symbol. These are not unrelated aspects, and the thing wasn't exactly a random choice. And yes, the German eagle there represents specifically the Party, the German Nazi Party. I don't think its a good idea, as per above. -- Director (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments thus far; if no one else states a position then the last consensus reached will stand. Silence can speak volumes. Kierzek (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may claim all you wish that I am a sock of another user, Director, but you are simply annoyed that your pointless edits that go against previous consensus are routinely thrown back in your face by someone who actually cares about representing history as it should be, whether that is by including the defining symbol of the party that created Nazism or displaying the correct color of the logo on that party's and indeed state's flag. The Swastika is too ambiguous by itself for the task of defining Nazism, and as talk page consensus was previously reached on this issue, another more appropriate logo was chosen. Stop reverting other users when your "new consensus" does not exist, only the previously standing one, which chose the Parteiadler. I'm not sure why you are so flung into a rage over simple matters of aesthetics, historical importance and obeying previous precedent. If this is how you will continue to conduct yourself, forcing your edits through, then I believe we do need another RfC. DasReichenz (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The previous consensus, as far as I can see from the RfC, is to have a smaller swastika symbol. That we've got. And as regards previous discussions, I think you'll f#4646ind I'm the "author" of the Parteiadler's use here. Without my pushing it, it wouldn't have been up there in the first place. -- Director (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You present no counterargument to my claims. With this, I will assume you admit your revert-warring is unjustified and childish in nature. Perhaps you would like me to upload my own logos and then make them the icon on this template and it's non-sidebar equivalent? I will hope such recourse will allow me to keep this template historically accurate while maintaining it's good aesthetics. You are very vocal in the community about having my identity cross-checked with Dannis, then going out and claiming I use broken English and "rage" all the same. Such accusations are unwarranted, unsubstantiated (as was mentioned in the thread you created concerning this) and immature, and I ask that you halt your further attacks or attempts to have me removed from the community, simply because you dislike my edits. Feel free to continually pressure administrators to see if Dannis and I are the same person, via cross-checking edit logs and IP address - we are not. I don't know who Dannis is, nor am I a sock of any other user, nor would I need to make a sock account to preform the edits I do. Please stop reverting this template until a new RfC unless you cannot provide reason that utterly refutes the first RfC's discussion of what symbol to use. Once again, in addition to this, please stop harassing the community in your quest to get me banned. Thank you, DasReichenz (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you do not have consensus for the Parteiadler. The recent RfC, it seems to me, came out in favor of a smaller simple swastika.

Secondly, I did present my argument in my first post here: namely that the swastika, alone, is by far and away the most recognizable symbol of Nazism as an ideology. That's an obvious point and it isn't even debateable. And further - that the Parteiadler is a symbol, not of Nazism, but specifically and explicitly of a defunct historical political organization. Even Nazis wouldn't call it a symbol of Naism.

I also posted counterarguments to your claims, to the point that the swastika used here isn't "ambiguous" at all. I thought so myself previously. That's why I originally thought of using the Parteiadler, and pushed it through. I was wrong. The fact that you did not read or reply to the aforementioned points is more indicative of your immaturity than anyone else's.

Your arguments are also just kind of weird. Symbols do not "define" things - that's not the task of the symbol here. And the German Nazi Party as a whole didn't invent Nazism: Hitler did. Or alternatively some other people did. Not the NSDAP as an organization. The swastika used is an element taken from the latest flag of Nazi Germany, and is therefore certainly "historical".

As regards whether you are a sock, if the CU turns out negative you will have my apology. However, as things stand now, I must ask you to STOP edit-warring for your version, and leave it with the smaller swastika that the latest RfC came out in favor of. Once I'm sure you and Dannis aren't the same guy (sorry, but it looks like it), I'll post an RfC. Can you be patient and stop restoring (my own) previous Parteiadler version for a few days? -- Director (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that once the "sock investigation" is finished, that should help the situation. Depending on the result, will help determine if another RfC will be necessary. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an RfC is actually called once you receive the evidence proving you incorrect (again) as to whether or not I am a sock / related to Dannis, I will spend the time writing a detailed explanation on why your points do not chalk up to a simple swastika as the template logo. For now, in the limited timespan I have to actually talk here, I will confine my objection to simply one minuscule aesthetic point for now: if you are going to keep the swastika by itself on this template in the interim, at least make it one that is the correct color (fully black) or I will do so for you. Thanks, DasReichenz (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the RfC of August/September 2015, supersedes the RfC of April/May 2014. In this case, it is DasReichenz and Dannis243 that are ignoring the relevant consensus and are the ones that are "blatantly ignoring the first consensus", not Director who is attempting to ~~fulfill his duty as an admin and~~ keep to consensus by reverting their edit wars. So until a new RfC is completed with consensus for changing back to the Parteiadler, can we please keep the status quo established by the most recent consensus with the Nazi swastika in the infobox?

Additionally, the Parteiadler that DasReichenz and Dannis243 are attempting to reinstate is a symbol used exclusively by the National Socialist German Workers' Party. However, while Nazism originated in Germany, it is not an exclusively German ideology as it was adopted by many other former political parties around the world during the interwar and WWII periods. Even the flags of the NSDAP and Nazi Germany do not have either their respective eagles on them, they are designed with a simple Nazi swastika as the only distinguishing feature. If we were to use the logic of these two users, then the template for the Fascism sidebar should use the symbol of the Italian Fascist Party instead of the simple Fasces that are currently on the template. And the argument that the swastika has been around for centuries and it cannot be used in the template is invalid as this particular design is a specifically Nazi swastika (thick black, rotated 45 degrees, "clockwise-facing", etc.). Yes, the swastika in general has been used for centuries before the Nazi period, but designs have varied over the centuries.

One final point, how is it DasReichenz that you only now have an issue with the use of the plain Nazi swastika when it has been in use on this template since 27 April 2015? Even when I originally began scaling down the size of the image, you reverted it to its larger size and had no interest in the Parteiadler until now, after you lost the RfC in my favour of scaling down the image size. I'm just curious as to your thought pattern and why this issue only matters now to "someone who actually cares about representing history as it should be" instead of before my RfC was even created.
Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Apologies, I mistakenly thought that Director was an admin when is in fact not. Correcting error in my post. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick you raise some valid points. I agree that at this point since it has turned into a "slow-motion" edit war, that the last RfC consensus should take presentence and priority. BTW, neither Director, nor I are admins. But one does not have to be to perform many tasks and functions on Wikipedia. The current Hakenkreuz should remain until consensus has changed, if it in fact does. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the matter is settled...for now; the last RfC should stand and consensus be followed accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Punk and heavy metal

The side-bar, under related topics, contains two curious entries:

Nazi punk
National Socialist black metal

I would like to remove them since they don't seem to belong in the infobox. Are there any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, anything not directly related to the German Nazi movement should be removed, but I wonder how others feel. Associating people, groups or movements with the contentious category (which is what the sidebar does) is questionable, again in my opinion. Collect (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's one up vote and no down votes, I will go ahead and remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this topic and agree with the removal. Kierzek (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal I agree, its removal is appropriate. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rockwell

I saw a previous conversation in the archives about the inclusion of Lincoln Rockwell. No consensus was gained there, so I am reopening the conversation. He was a leader of a small fringe political entity in the United States that had virtually no authority or influence. He should not be included in the sidebar. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want the Swastica removed. Everybody knows the Nazi symbols and this inclusion is superfluous. It appears to be there for fans. 87.113.6.55 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with this. I have made it considerably smaller than it once was, since the large size seemed gratuitous to me, and related to the fact that many Nazi-related people articles have very large images of their subjects in their ledes, much larges than the generally accepted 225-250px in the majority of other articles. These large images appear to be an effort to be iconic. In any case, I don't think te sidebar would suffer without the swatiska. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP: Its not there for "fans", don't be ridiculous. It is there for id. use, as images are used for the same purpose for other organization templates. I do agree there is no need for it to be "large" in presentation. But with that said, I don't have a strong feeling about keeping it at this point; I always thought the Party Eagle was better for use, even if not technically as accurate. Ping to @Director: on this. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the party eagle would be less provocative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism is associated with swastikas much more than with any other kind of symbol or image. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but there's no requirement that a sidebar have a graphic at the top, so if the swastika is the only graphic that's going to be allowed, I'd prefer nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thank you very much for your suggestion! Since there is disagreement here, then a consensus has not yet been reached. In my humble opinion, I would agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the most-recognized symbol of Nazism, the swastika, should stay in both the sidebar and the navbar. There are other discussions and RfCs on this talk page that also should be considered. Paine Ellsworth - put'r there – 05:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new RfC should be opened to resize, change, or remove the image. The current version is based on community consensus from the the RfC and discussion above (i.e. RfC: Swastika size in infobox and Do we need a new RfC on the Hakenkreuz or Parteiadler?). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BOLDly reduced the image size to 60px. There is absolutely no visual reason for it to be any larger than that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the bold change. By the statement "this *is* reduced" in your edit summary, which seems to be a reference to the closing statement of the RfC, one could equally justify changing the image size to 1px. It's unfortunate that the wording of the closure was so vague; the RfC was clearly to change the size of the image from 120px to 100px. 60px is too small. The 87px was just about right; However, as I said before, I think an RfC is the best road to seek a change. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I have seen and read this talk page, and I see no justification or consensus to set the image to 60px. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to return it to 87px, that's fine with me - but what's your justification for that? You're taking a hard line on 100px because of the RfC, yet you think 87 (which I did) is OK, but not 60. I'm telling you that 60 is visually fine, anything smaller is too small, anything much larger (like 100) is promoting, not illustrating - and I'm saying that from trying numerous sizes out. If you'd like to start another RfC, that's fine. If you don't, I will do so this afternoon when I return from work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think 87 is "visually fine", but I've never attempted to justify it. Yes, I'm taking a hard line on 100px, based on community consensus from the RfC. One could say for example, "I'm telling you that 10 is visually fine, anything smaller is too small, anything much larger (like 17) is promoting, not illustrating - and I'm saying that from trying numerous sizes out." with just as much credence, because it is a personal opinion. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except you would be laughed off the page for voicing such a ridiculous opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Swastika size in infobox (2)

WITHDRAWN

Withdrawn by Beyond My Ken, with intent to restart. See Threaded discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposals:

A. The swastika at the top of the sidebar should be reduced to 60px.
B. The swatiska should stay at 87px, which it has been at since December 25, 2016.
C. The swatiska should be returned to 100px, which was the result of the earlier RfC.
D. Remove the swastika entirely.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

A: Reduce to 60px - The purpose of the swastika at the top of the sidebar is illustrative. It should not be so large as to appear to be promoting Nazism or neo-Nazism, but not so small that it looks ridiculous. (See the sidebar on theimmediate right, in which the swastika is at 60px. Under it is the swastika at 87px. 120px and 100px can be seen in the RfC above.) The reduction in the last RfC from 120px to 100px was a good start, but it was not enough, and we've actually been living with it at 87px since ~~June 31, 2015~~ December 25, 2016, when I reduced it to that. When another editor put the swastika side-by-side with "Nazism", that was visually unbalanced and not very attractive stylistically, so I reverted the change, but I was struck by the fact that the swastika at 60px, which that editor had reduced it to, looked very good: not too big, and not so small as to be silly. So I played around for a while with numerous sizes, and I determined -- at least to my own satisfaction -- that 60px was a very good size for it to be. Anything much smaller looked wrong, and larger than 87px looked promotional to me - and now that I've seen it at 60, even 87 looks large. Thus I suggest that we leave the swastika at 60px. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with removing the swastika entirely, if that is the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: We have not been living with it since June 31, 2015: Your change to the size on July 31, 2015 lasted less than a week and was not re-implemented until December 25, 2016. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, and my apologies. I'll make the correction - but please do not change the wording of an RfC started by another editor. Note "An editor has requested comments..." in the box above.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D (remove swastika). Failing that, A: reduce the size to 60px, vs 87px. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B - My first preference is 87px. After that, I'd prefer any size option presented or replacing the swastika with the flag of the German third reich (as proposed below) to removing an image from that position entirely (C > A > Flag). In the event of no consensus, the status quo ante to the last consensus based version is a restoration to 100px.

— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 01:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B - seems to strike the right visual balance with the title, similar size to the symbol in the Template:Communism_sidebar. --Nug (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A: reducing the size to 60px is satisfactory. It still identifies the subject without any distraction. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A for reason given by Kierzek, large enough to be identifiable, not so large as to distract or dominate. This is one of the most chillingly recognisable symbols in the world and does not need to 'shout' its presence. Pincrete (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D - remove swastika: the flag displaying the exact same symbol is just below: undue weight IMHO. If this does not pass, A: reduce the size to 60px. Absolutely ridiculous to have anything larger when all text is "hidden". Maineartists (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D ~~or none of the above~~ - I could be mistaken, but it technically shouldn't be a fixed size at all. Sizes will always look different on different monitors/browsers/user-settings, which is a good thing, but fixed-pixel sizes override that. MOS:IMGSIZE and WP:IMAGESIZE explain. This advice is very widely ignored, but the MOS gives a compelling case against a fixed size. Having an RFC for a specific pixel width is creating a future hassle for anyone who wants to 'fix' it by switching to a scaling factor. We could figure out a percentage instead, but seeing the comparison, I think it's more distracting than necessary. I don't strongly object to a small image for navigation (similar to A), but figuring all that out seems pointless if we're just going to remove it anyway. Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: The template uses File: syntax for the image, so it already supports scaling the size via |upright= (verifiable using Preview). Except for registered users who have changed their user size preference: 60px = |upright=0.27, 87px = |upright=0.4, 100px = |upright=0.45. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's convenient. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, if the consensus is 60px, I have no problem it with being instituted as upright-0.27, or if it's 87px as 0.4 etc. etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My experimentation was faulty. To make |upright=factor work, you have to add |frameless, otherwise it ignores |upright=factor and displays the image at its native size, 471px. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A - It doesn't need to be any larger than necessary for the half-blind to discern its shape fairly clearly. But I support scaling as |upright=0.27 per WP:IMGSIZE. (Or you could round down to an even |upright=0.25, either way—the difference is an insignificant 4.4 pixels for the vast majority of users.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A - Although a 60px full flag would be better. Bertdrunk (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: a flag (which is shown directly below the infobox on the page itself).Maineartists (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D (remove). What the reason for a double distraction (Hakenkreuz + upright)? Carlotm (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two or more images with similar elements in the same template is not uncommon: The communism sidebar contains the hammer and sickle and a red star with a hammer and sickle (the example above) and the liberalism sidebar contains two of the same yellow flag. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 13:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

I'd go farther and say None of the above (no swastika) may be preferable. Could this option be added to the RfC? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now presented the full range of options. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison of the three image sizes from small to large (i.e. 60px, 87px, and 100px) side by side:

— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a demonstration of how it would look using the flag, above and below. I haven't thought much about it yet but the flag looks best at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the caption at Nazism#Etymology, that's the flag of Nazi Germany aka the Third Reich, contrasted to that of the Nazi Party. The latter -

- seems more appropriate. Less important, it's an aesthetic improvement as it centers the circle on the flag. At this point I could support it if it were on the table, subject to educated arguments against it. A dash of color helps, again a matter of aesthetics. I could go up a notch on size, to

. But it isn't on the table. What think you BMK? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be OK with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: If you concur that the Nazi Party flag is more appropriate, I will add options E:

and F:

and change my !vote to F. Then we probably should ping all participants. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Things are getting so confused, that I would rather that this RfC be closed, and a new one be opened with the options you mention, with all participating editors pinged or notified on their talk pages. I think that would result in an RfC that would be much easier for someone to judge consensus on when being closed. (I certainly wouldn't know how to close this one at the moment.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I agree, cleanliness is next to Jimboliness. You're free to withdraw this and restart as you see fit. Let me know if I can help with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me see if I can think this through a bit more thoroughly so we don't end up in the same place again. For one thing, with the multiplicity of sidebar representations that would be needed, I think they should be moved to another page. In the meantime, if you want to start a new RfC, you can take this as my permission to close this as withdrawn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RfC: Swastika size in infobox (2, take 2)

Consensus is to use the image specified in option E in the infobox.Winged Blades^Godric 16:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposals:

A. The swastika at the top of the sidebar should be reduced to upright=0.27 (60px)
B. The swastika should stay at upright=0.40 (87px), which it has been at since December 25, 2016
C. The swastika should be returned to upright=0.45 (100px), which was the result of the earlier RfC
D. Remove the swastika, and do not replace it with another graphic
E. Replace the swastika with the Nazi flag at upright=0.27 (60px)
F. Replace the swastika with the Nazi flag at upright=0.40 (87px)
G. Replace the swastika with the Nazi flag at upright=0.45 (100px)

Here is a comparison in isolation of the 6 graphic choices:

You can also see what they look like in a sidebar at Template talk:Nazism sidebar/Sidebar choices.

I will be contacting all editors who previously participated.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have now notified all editors who took part in the previous aborted RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (2, take 2)

E (flag at 60) Second choice: D (no graphic); Third choice: A (swastika at 60) - Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that after some consideration, I've changed my preference from "Flag at 87" to "Flag at 60". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E Although I think it would be better to decide for the swastika or the flag first. Bertdrunk (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E The last infobox demo above uses E and it is visually the best. Second preference D because the plain swastikas are too ugly, and the larger sizes are unduly confrontational. Regarding confrontational, it's not that I'm concerned about upsetting a delicate reader, it is just that an infobox is not the place for a large in-your-face decoration. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E However, the flag of the "Nazi Party" not Nazi Germany / the Third Reich; re: discussion / difference being placement of the Swastika within the flag (see above). Maineartists (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the displayed flag to that of the NSDAP per the discussion below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the five image choices presented above are fine with me, so I'm effectively at an Oppose D. I do not find any of the arguments presented so far to remove the image convincing. If the flag is selected, I much prefer the centered Flag of the Nazi Party per the reasons presented by Mandruss in the prior RfC. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The flag displayed is now the NSDAP flag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E, (edit conflict), but using the NSDAP flag and not the national flag. Second choice: A. Third choice: D. Kierzek (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A, or E, but if E, centred (NSDAP flag?), it's simply an identifier and I don't think the background colour either adds or detracts from identification (unlike 'red flag' for Socialism), neither does it add or detract much 'visually' IMO, but as others seem to like the added colour, fine. Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flag changed per discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D -- no image. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E - This is primarily aesthetics to me, but there is nothing wrong with looking good. To my mind, some graphic is visually better than no graphic, and this is the best of the graphic options. As I've said earlier, a dash of color (besides the ubiquitous blue) improves the aesthetics, further narrowing the choices to E-F-G. I favored F in comments in the earlier RfC, but I am changing my mind after comparing the mockups. E properly subordinates the graphic to the heading "Nazism". Use |frameless|upright=0.27 please, per WP:IMGSIZE. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose D, prefer E, the NSDAP flag is preferable, why hide a symbol that as been historically associated with Nazism for nearly a century. --Nug (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
D, no symbol (see below). Carlotm (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E the swastika on its own has other older uses, using the NSDAP flag makes it clearer as the source of Nazism, and the sizing is right compared to the heading. Oppose D - this is not de WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
B, oppose D, E, F and G: I reiterate one of the points made in the original discussion that I took part in back in 2015, the swastika as depicted in this instance (clockwise thick black lines, 45 degree tilt) is a symbol of Nazism as a whole. The use of the NSDAP flag or the flag of the Third Reich immediately restricts us to German Nazism. Yes, the German form is the most commonly known, but it was not the only form as shown in the list of historical movements and parties abroad of Germany. See my comment below for more clarification. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C Honour the previous RfC. What's changed? The swastika in this form is a recognised symbol of Nazism. This is an article about Nazism. Why try to water it down? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say anyone is trying to "water it down", but rather to find a balance between presenting what you rightfully call the recognized symbol of Nazism, and the response that many people have to a symbol they find deeply offensive for personal, philosophical, historical and moral reasons. Also, in defense of those who !voted for removal, the word itself, "Nazism" is quite clear and unambiguous, so whether there needs to be a symbol at all could be considered simply a matter of design, and not necessarily of content. If so, the question becomes does such a consideration - visual design - worth the offense ceated by the symbol? I think you can argue both sides of that question, but that it's not nearly as straight-forward and clear-cut as you present. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia we are building and it is going to have some things people (including myself) find offensive; but, that does not mean said things should not be included in some way, all things considered; otherwise, it becomes a slippery slope of inclusion and exclusion and we are to present things in WP:NPOV, whether we personally like something or not. Kierzek (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but we can certainly present the offensive symbol in as non-offensive a way as possible, and still have it perform its function. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Kierzek (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C per Pete above. Further we are about Truth, not feelings. The size should be identical to other symbols' sizes. NPOV requires that we do not discriminate against something because it is offensive.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NPOV says absolutely nothing to that effect; and we are not about "Truth" (especially with a capital "T"), we are about verifiability - which has absolutely nothing to do with this, since there's no more or less "truth" in a big swastika compared to a small swastika. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion (2, take 2)

@Beyond My Ken: Nice job on the restart. Please re-read my comment at 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC) in the just-closed RfC. Do you disagree that the Party flag is a better choice than the Reich flag? IMO the latter needn't be on the table (and who needs 3 more options anyway?). ―Mandruss ☎ 05:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't see any difference between the NSDAP flag and the Reich flag, and I just assumed that everyone was offering up the smae flag as the flag option. I absolutely missed your comment on the party flag centering the symbol on the flag -- sorry about that. Is that simply an artifact of our image, or was that actually the case?

In any event, here's what I suggest we do: proceed with this RfC as it's currently set up, and then if the Reich flag is the preferred option, we can discuss (hopefully without needing an RfC) which of the two flags is the better option. How does that seem to you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, intellectually, the party flag makes more sense considering the subject of the sidebar.Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Is that simply an artifact of our image, or was that actually the case? I know nothing, but the caption at Nazism#Etymology reads: "Flag of the Nazi Party, similar but not identical to the national flag of Nazi Germany (1933–45)." As I can see no difference besides the centering, I assumed that the centering was the difference referred to in the caption, implying that it is not accidental. BTW, intellectually, the party flag makes more sense considering the subject of the sidebar. I agree, that's why I suggested using it instead of the Reich flag. Do you think a significant number of editors will care about that minor distinction, so we shouldn't make the change now? But I'm easy. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Well, I don't think that would be a problem, but I've been horribly wrong before, which is one reason I'd rather take this conservatively and go step by step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Ok. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The centering was the difference and I agree the NSDAP flag should be used over the national flag. Kierzek (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a think, and given the obvious preference for the centered NSDAP flag, I'm making the change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed symbols seem to be inappropriate, the last three in particular. This hybrid infobox, a mixture of ideological and historiographical exposition, should not overlap into Nazi party matter and symbols, for the latter has its own infobox with party flag and all. Consider also its context, when Nazism infobox follows right away its Nazi party sibling, with the resulting plethora of symbols so much loved, I presume, only by a nostalgic, a-critical minority for whose predisposition we should not care much (WP:FRINGE). Moreover the infobox depicts among the main people related to Nazism Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who was already dead in 1927. The infobox lists also other extreme right parties, which had their own symbols. All in all, my advice is to abandon the current absent-minded discussion and to choose to avoid any symbol for there isn't one representing the infobox content wholly and properly. Carlotm (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing Nazism, which is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, with Neo-Nazism, which consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive the far-right-wing tenets of Nazism. Given that the German Nazi Party created Nazism, it is wholly appropriate to use the Flag of the Nazi Party in relation to Nazism. --Nug (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a similar argument against the symbols used in many, if not all, of the ideology sidebars. Therefore, it is not a reason to remove the image from this one individually, but rather something that should be addressed by a larger proposal at the proper venue if desired.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carlotm, the current swastika shown in the infobox is a symbol of Nazism as a whole, the NSDAP and Third Reich flags only relate to German Nazism, which was not the only form of the ideology as shown in the list of historical parties and movements outside of Germany.

Also, the current size of the swastika is consistent with other ideological emblems in sidebars (Communism, Fascism, etc.). – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The physical size is only a small part of the issue. Glancing at the current {{Nazism sidebar}} (option B) and comparing it with {{Communism sidebar}} shows that the icon in the former is very much more prominent. The large and heavy swastika is too in-your-face purely in a typographical sense and without reference to its cultural background. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain

Editor Robinson98354‎ removed Houston Stewart Chamberlain from the list of "People" in the template, on the grounds that he wasn't a Nazi. I think an argument could be made that the list of "People" is not necessarily a list of Nazis, but a list of people associated with or important to the Nazi movement. Still, I do take Robinson98354‎'s point, so I did not restore Chamberlain to the "People" list.

Chamberlain was, however, a strong influence on the Nazi ideology, so I added him to the "Ideology" list, an edit which Robinson98354‎ reverted with the same comment, that Chamberlain was not a Nazi. In this case, though, I think he is dead wrong. Since Chamberlain was a significant influence on the Nazi ideology, his inclusion on the "Ideology" list is completely justified, and should not be removed.

Here's what a number of sources have to say about Chamberlain's influence on the Nazis and the connection between them:

Kershaw Hubris:

"[Concerning] race theory ... Hitler drew heavily for his ideas from well-known antisemitic tracts such as those of Houston Stewart Chamberlain" (p.151)

"[A]t the end of September 1923, Hitler had met Wagner's son-in-law, the now aged racist writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who subsequently wrote Hitler an effusive letter, saying that he had 'transformed the condition of his soul at one fell swoop', and 'that Germany should have brought forth a Hitler in the time of his greatest need' was proof of its continuing vitality as a nation." (p.660 n.166)

Shire The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

"[I]t was on the Third Reich, which did not arrive until six years after his death but whose coming he foresaw, that [Chamberlain's] influence was the greatest. His racial theories and his burning sense of the destiny of the Germans and Germany were taken over by the Nazis, who acclaimed him as one of their prophets. During the Hitler regime books, pamphlets and articles poured from the presses extolling the "spiritual founder" of National Socialist Germany. Rosenberg, as one of Hitler's mentors, often tried to impart his enthusiam for the English philosopher to the Fuehrer. It is likely that Hitler first learned of Chamberlain's writings before he left Vienna, for they were popular among the Pan-German and anti-Semitic groups whose literature he devoured so avidly in those early days. Probably too he read some of Chamberlain's chauvinistic articles during the war. In Mein Kampf he expresses regret that Chamberlain's observations were not more heeded during the Second Reich." (pp.108-109)

"Chamberlain became a member of the budding Nazi Party [!] and so far as his health would permit began to write for its obscure publications. ... This remarkable Englishman's seventieth birthday, on September 5, 1925, was celebrated with five columns of encomiums in the Nazi Voelkischer Beobachter, which hailed his Foundations as the 'gospel of the Nazi movement' ..." (p.109)

Reuth Goebbels

"After meeting Chamberlain in Bayreuth, twenty-six-year-old Goebbels wrote euphorically in his diary that Chamberlain was the 'pathbreaker,' 'the preparer of the way,' the 'father of our spirit.' (p.53)

I could check more sources, but this should be more than sufficient to show that Chamberlain belongs in the "Ideology list, and perhaps should even be restored to the "People" list, as he was, it turns out, a member of the party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: this make sense. As an aside, the editor in question was (most likely) a sock for a banned user. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Yes, I considered that possibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The stupid emblem change

Lets use this, and make it really small too. Just so we're sure everybody knows we're against Nazism. Nazism. is. bad. :D

The recent change to the image was stupid. I reverted it because its stupid :). It objectively looks bad, and it objectively makes no sense.

The image is ridiculously small. You realize different people use different resolutions, right?
That's the flag of the National Socialist GERMAN Workers' Party. There's other Nazis, both historically and right now.
Its (a representation of) a flag, not an emblem, so in terms of basic semiotics its usage as such is wrong.

Arguments against the previous image are stupid. That's not any old swastika - that's a NAZI swastika. Black, facing left, rotated 90 degrees (spinning). In the English-speaking world it is THE widely-recognized symbol of Nazism, on its own without any accouterments. That's all that matters with regard to its propriety.

Please folks... leave this messed-up issue alone. Don't virtue-signal by making the image stupidly small, or demonstrate pan-cultural ubersensitivity by talking how the swastika has different meanings... The Nazis used it (and not just in their flag!) - its representative of their ideology as well as other things. -- Director (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody swastika for the bloody Nazis, standard 100px width. Don't over-analyze, don't write essays, don't cast votes. It. is. ridiculous.

(I feel really bad for starting this all those years back...) -- Director (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. The change represents the consensus opinion of a number of editors as determined by an RfC. That's how Wikipedia works. Please do not change it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of image is blatantly idiotic. That's an objective fact, not opinion. And don't patronize me, I know how Wikipedia works - its not by voting. There can be no valid argumentation for a tiny little German flag (used 1933-35) to represent Nazism as an ideology. Might as well use a tiny Soviet Union flag as the symbol of Communism. Does anyone here know anything about basic semiotics? -- Director (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should we keep the small flag as the template image?

Withdrawn by OP. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposing we restore the previous consensus symbol (the 90 or 100px swastika). Or a framed swastika symbol:

I call them Option 26a and Option 37-9. I don't like the current tiny icon:

Firstly, its a flag representation. In terms of simple semiotics, we should use an emblem in this context if possible.
Secondly, its ridiculously small. I myself can just barely make it out on my work computer. (Maybe I'm getting old, but even if so lets not be ageist on our project ;))
Thirdly, that was the flag of Germany between 1933-35. It represents a country first and foremost.
Ignoring that, its also a flag of the German Nazi Party. There's plenty other Nazi fistmagnets, both historically and right now.

I started messing around with the image here in ages past, and I'm really sorry for that. I think we should just stop and leave it be. I don't understand what arguments prompted folks to just slap the German flag onto there, but I can't express how weird I find the current state of affairs. Thanks for your time, and again, apologies for opening this up... but this little tiny flag thing just looks terrible to me, as well as objectively inappropriate. -- Director (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey, May 2017

Oppose - Leave the icon as per the results of the previous RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its.. not an "icon". Its the ex-German flag. -- Director (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take the first step into WP:BLUDGEONing by answering every "Oppose" vote; you know exactly what I mean by the use of "icon": the image at the top of the template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a native English speaker, I apologize. -- Director (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The current icon is the most accurate. Are we supposed to pretend that Naziism didn't start under the Third Reich? Come on now. Rockypedia (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, no it didn't.. its vice versa :). *bludgeoning intensifies*

I see your point, though, but I think you're missing mine: it did start in Germany, but then so did Communism. My point is that we should use a more universal symbol than a very specific historical flag. Also that we shouldn't use a flag as such either. Also that its too small... Sigh.. -- Director (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support a size increase and either image. The current image is quite a bit smaller than images used in other Category:Political ideology templates sidebars, and I've yet to read a compelling reason why it should be. The swastika is the main symbol of Nazism, and the one on the flag is simply too small a portion of the image. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A large and well-attended RfC has recently closed and it is a disruptive waste of community time to attempt a re-run, particularly one starting with "I don't like the current tiny icon". Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose -- an RfC on this topic just closed; suggest revisiting in about 6 months if there are still concerns at that time. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it! I come back in a month or so, riding along, when suddenly - [2].

Come to think of it.. could it have been deliberate? Or at least an oversight? Shouldn't participants in the previous consensus have been notified? I mean.. I'm the guy that introduced the previous icon. In principle, this is no way to build a lasting consensus. -- Director (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to notify participants of past RfCs -- and you have no special status because you first brought up the subject of changing the icon -- but you were not deliberately excluded, so please AGF about that. 15 editors managed to find their way to the latest RfC, as opposed to 10 in the first RfC. If you were editing, and had the template on your watchlist, you should have checked in to see what the activity was all about. Please don't make this personal: I initiated the last RfC, and I don't have any animosity toward you, I assure you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will not fool me, I have reported you for failure to notify. To the police (for attempted fraud). Consider yourself my personal enemy - and watch it - I do have Special Status. -- Director (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "personal", man! :) And I didn't mean to imply its "required" (technically nothing is). But, as I said, it is kind of a useful (and courteous) thing to do if you want to build a lasting consensus. You get input from users you know are interested.. Dunno. And this icon just stinks. I mean really, really stinks. -- Director (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look at the previous RfC a little more closely, and then extrapolate what the close would have been had you been specially notified and !voted in it. Looking at the !votes, I don't think yours would have made a difference at all, because it really wasn't all that tight. Sorry, but them's the facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - given the reasons were stated and discussed in two recent RFCs; we went through this matter, yet again. It is too soon to re-visit the matter where a consensus was reached. Kierzek (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- is the reference to option "37–9" at the top of the RfC supposed to mean the Bible verse:

Psalms 37:9 "For those who are evil will be destroyed, but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land"?

K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think anybody would get that, bravo!! I was mainly making light of the alphabet of options in the preceding RfC, but that seemed fitting given the subject. Not religious myself (wouldn't want to give the wrong impression), but there was a rather nasty period during the war... -- Director (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be advisable to avoid Bible verses; this reminded me of a past ANI discussion: Possible hard-right propaganda on a user page, which resulted in a user's permanent ban. I'd be more careful and less suggestive; pairing a swastika with the verse about "evil" being "destroyed" struck me as rather off. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an atheist. I vote Social Democrat. Obviously the "evil" are the goddamn Nazis! Fucksake.. what is wrong with people on this talkpage?? Things getting "personal", reported for "legal threats", now this. People, its a stupid image! -- Director (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ever consider that maybe the problem is "Not a native English speaker", i.e. in your understanding and feeling of the idioms of English, and not in the people who are responding to your messages? Humor is hard in any medium, and even harder in a text-only medium with no other cues to help out. Add to that a perhaps incomplete feel for the idiom, and you've got a recipe for misunderstanding. My suggestion is that you forgo humor, satire, irony, and being cute, and just say what you mean in blunt direct sentences which are difficult to misunderstand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I'm hilarious, you just don't get it.

My English is actually better than that of most native speakers (it pretty much has to be given my job and where I live). I'm rated C2 (or 8+/CPE). My understanding of English idioms is damn-near complete. I regularly read and discuss scientific literature in English, in fact I rarely ever read anything that's not in English (given the obscurity of my native tongue). I spent rather long periods in the US.. My only problem is I was educated in British English, but culturally inundated with American English, so on the fly my spelling kind of switches between the two. I have a distinct American accent; I've been told I sound like a "New Englander", whatever that means exactly (hopefully not Bostonian).

I was kinda being underhanded above. My response was meant to highlight the reasoning for the RfC ("its a flag!"), more than actually correct you in your terminology. I obviously think the point still stands, but my correction as such was unfounded. So I walked back from it using the "no speaky" excuse. Sorry. That's the kind of mental conditioning 10 years of Wikipedia "discussion" gives you.'

Apparently it also may bring you to subtly threaten sanctions in every other post.. and assume people are praising Nazis with Bible quotes. I didn't really reference any damn Bible quote! What's the first "Option" supposed to be? Verse "26a" xD? Never read the thing! Americans and their Bible obsession.. I blame Protestantism. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per prior RfC outcome, only 2 months old.
Re arguments that the current size is too small (not that that needs to be rehashed here), the current size properly subordinates what is essentially a decorative graphic element to the box title. If this principle is violated elsewhere, I suggest proposals for change there, not here. If those proposals fail, that's ok with me per WP:OSE. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, the issue is obviously deemed too early to bring up again. I hope to revisit the matter at a later date. I think we're being too formal about a silly template illustration, and that the current state of affairs is just plainly.. not good, from a representational and functional perspective. But I do respect consensus - like I said at the start, sorry for bringing this up so soon. -- Director (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Microscopic image

At the topic of the talk can we have a TLDR account of why there is a microscopic image as the icon, for those of us who cannot be bothered to wade through pages and pages of back and forward? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was the WP:consensus result of the RfC about what the icon should be, and how big it should be. Wikipedia runs by consensus, so that was the decision. Someone recently tried to re-open the subject, and soon withdrew their suggestion because most editors felt it was too soon to re-examine the question. If you want to re-open it, that's your privilege, but the result is almost certain to be the same, that it's too soon to have another RfC. If you change the size of the image again on your own, you will be editing against consensus, which is more than likely to get you sanctioned by an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current controlling RfC is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classic "design by committee", possibly with a bit of virtue signalling into the mix. If he were alive today, H-dog would point to this template as a prime argument for his Führerprinzip :D. -- Director (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Director: You need to stop making "jokes" that are not only not funny, but are vaguely insulting of other editors. You've gotten in trouble because of your attitude before, I would think you would not want to do so again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest letting this dead horse rot for a while and to stop beating it until some time has passed and then Director you can raise the issue again, if need be. It is too soon for another RfC at this time and consensus was reached. Kierzek (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: Of course, I agree.. even more for the fact that this is a template used on numerous articles. That's why I withdrew the RfC, after all. I was voicing my agreement with Claíomh Solais's sentiment.

@Beyond My Ken: If you have a problem with my conduct, I'm sure you know the proper venue. This is not it (not even for "warnings"). If you choose to interpret my light-hearted comment as an "insult", condescending "reprimands" from on high - accompanied by politely-worded threats - may not be the most productive way to respond... I am very well familiar with project policy, and don't believe I require your assistance in conducting myself in accordance with it. -- Director (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No threat (from "on high"?, I'm a rank-and-file editor, just like you), just advice which you're free to ignore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're "rank-and-file", it makes the "advice" appear to me all the more presumptive (given the metaphorical "height" from which you dispense counsel).. not that it matters much either way, since were you an admin you'd ofc be WP:INVOLVED.

I advise you in turn to keep future such warnings and/or advice confined to my talkpage, or to take any perceived violations of project policy straight to the appropriate noticeboard. This is not the place to discuss user conduct, yours or mine. -- Director (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century

I've removed The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century from the Racial Ideology section. There is no reason for the book to be included in the Nazism sidebar at all. The book was an influence to Nazi ideology but so were many others, there is nothing gained by adding this book to the sidebar.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removal. Having influenced Nazi ideology is a sufficient reason for its inclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many other books influenced Nazi ideology. What about Arthur de Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races or Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race? Why is Chamberlain's book any different?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added those books. Why are you advocating for a book which is widely acknowledged as being racist and antisemitic? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The Nazism sidebar only displays the book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Why is this book an exception to all of the other works that influenced Nazi ideology? The same as in the 'Ideology' section only Houston Stewart Chamberlain is listed. Why? None of these should be listed in the Nazism sidebar, they are all mentioned in List of Nazi ideologues article, which is why I attempted to remove it. What is your argument for only that author and book to be included in the Nazism sidebar?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, I have added the other books to the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now. The thing is though, why are any of the books added to the sidebar? The books are not specifically Nazi, they just simply influenced Nazism. It's the same as some of the works of Nietzsche influenced Nazism but it would be ridiculous to add that into the sidebar given Nietzsche's views of antisemitism, nationalism and racism. The other links in the 'Racial ideology' section mention the books. Why the need for separate links?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are there for exactly that reason, that they greatly influenced the Nazi's racist ideology. There's no reason to remove them. Again, why are you apparently championing Houston Stewart Chamberlain? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of books influenced Nazi ideology. Why are those three (previously just the one) being singled out? It makes no sense. Hell, even some left-wing books influenced Nazi thought. I don't understand why you're personally attacking me by claiming that I'm "championing" Chamberlain when all I've simply done is questioned why him and his work are in the Nazism sidebar. WP:NPA.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cite those dozens of books, and perhaps we'll add some of them. In the meantime, your singling out of HSC is concerning, especially when combined with some of your edits to other articles. These are not times to be seen to be in any way on the wrong side of this issue, and your editing in this area began at about the same time as Charlottesville -- so you draw the potential conclusions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only person who gets the final say in the matter. You still haven't given any valid reason as to why any books should be mentioned in the Nazism sidebar. The books themselves are not part of the 'Racial ideology', they just influenced it. If we were to go down the route of including all the influences of Nazism in the 'Racial ideology' section then it would be endless, hence the List of Nazi ideologues article. I have singled out Chamberlain because his work was the one then listed and then when I've mentioned two other important influences you have included them when I've created this section with the idea of removing all books from the Nazism sidebar, it adds absolutely no value to the sidebar unless of course you were to add a 'Literature' section like the Stalinism sidebar. When you are coming out with "These are not times to be seen to be in any way on the wrong side of this issue, and your editing in this area began at about the same time as Charlottesville -- so you draw the potential conclusions" - what are you trying to imply exactly? This almost certainly consists of a personal attack. How about you actually elaborate on what you are accusing me of? Perhaps you should read the WP:NPA while you are at it as well.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since you and I are at an impasse -- and frankly your claim that Chamberlain's book shouldn't be included is extremely ahistorical -- unless other editors weight in, the article stays in the status quo ante. Until you have a consensus to make the changes you suggest, please do not change the template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a 'Literature' section and included all the books as well as The Myth of the Twentieth Century into the sidebar as well since Rosenberg's works were highly influential. I was arguing that the book should not be in the 'Racial ideology' section and then leave out all the other important works that influenced Nazi ideology. I 'singled out' Chamberlain because at the time it was only his work that was included in the sidebar. I'd also like you to clarify what you were accusing me of as I've not once personally attacked you but twice you have hinted that I'm something and I'd like you to tell me what you meant by those accusations.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your changes, since you did not get a consensus for them. Please do not make any changes to the template without getting a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus? But it was okay for you to add two books without asking anyone else? It's only you who seems to have a problem with it. It makes much more logical and rational sense to include a 'Literature' section if books are going to be used in the sidebar. Look at other sidebars such as the Template:Marxism–Leninism sidebar. I feel you're purposely going out of your way to be provocative towards me. Firstly you have accused me of something you won't even clarify and now you're just being awkward for being awkward sake. Why would anyone revert an edit which quite clearly puts things in the right place? Books belong in a 'Literature' section.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you've reverted again. What is it about my edit that you have a problem with exactly?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BRD article specifically states "No one is ever required to follow this process, but it can sometimes be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks." What do you object so much about my edit? It's an improvement and puts things in the right place.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a consensus for your suggested edits. Editing without a consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE and can lead to being blocked from editing. If you now disagree with my addition to the template of the two books you suggested, then there is no consensus for them either, and you're free to remove them as being made without a consensus. However, your other edits are non-consensual, and cannot be added to the template until they have been discussed and agreed upon. There is no agreement on them at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you still won't clarify what your personal attacks meant earlier on and quite obviously you are not going to give me an answer. Moving on, since you're the one who has reverted my edit, what do you personally have against it exactly? Surely, don't you agree that it makes much more sense to add a 'Literature' section and include the prominent works that influenced Nazi ideology rather than just have the odd book title included in the 'Racial ideology' section?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a consensus for your suggested edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one that decided to remove my edit. I am asking you specifically, what do you have against my edit? You can't just go around reverting people's edits without a jolly good reason. A consensus cannot be reached if you won't even justify your revert without the simply "get a consensus". I'm attempting to get one here - what do you object about my edit exactly?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Germany Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Judaism Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Politics Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you ought to read the WP:BRD that you linked me to on my talk page. 1) It's not a necessary rule to follow, only a guideline. 2) The BRD article stattes "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen." So, what was your reason for reverting my edit? There seems to be no apparent justification on your behalf. It's quite obvious you're just being awkward for awkward sake. Get off your high horse.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial edit was removed because you attempted to remove Houston Stewart Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, a book which had a profound effect on the Nazi's racist ideology, from the "Racial Ideology" section on grounds that make no historical sense whatsoever. When you asked why it, and not two other books were there, I added your suggested two other books to the section. Your reorganization of the books into a "Literature" section removes them from the section about the area where they had their effect -- on the racial ideology of the Nazis -- to a place which downplays their virulent antisemitic message: "Literature" could mean anything. As such, and because you did not have a consensus to make the edit, it was reverted. It will continue to be reverted until there is a full discussion between all concerned editors - a few hours is not a sufficient time for that discussion to have developed -- and a consensus has been reached as to what to do. If you continue to attempt to insert this material without a consensus, you will be violating the Wikipedia policy on disruptive editing by editing without a consensus to do so.

This will be my last statement to you. I will gladly participate again when other editors become involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something which had an affect on an ideology doesn't necessarily make it a part of the ideology so its discussable. Quoted from your talk page, "I'd say rather that your attempt to remove a book which was a major contributor to Nazi racist ideology from the Nazism sidebar speaks volumes about you." is a breach of WP:AOBF (assuming others of bad faith). It's like your attempting to paint this picture that the user is a Nazi which is extremely insulting personal attack toward their character and assumed good faith as a Wikipedia contributor. [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 02:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by QubixQdotta, a suspected sockpuppet who admits to having edited before using other accounts, [3], [4], [5], but will not come clean about what those accounts were (although one is painfully obvious) was made in retaliation for my throwing him off my talk page. See: User talk:Beyond My Ken#Re: Nazi Lowriders He's never edited here before, but has made numerous edits to Alt-right, where he argued that the Nazis were on the far-left wing and not the far-right wing. [6] As he is a doubly-biased editor, his comment should not be counted in regard to consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was just trying to add to the discussion as I saw do, and you've derailed this whole thing which is actually very hypocritical considering you tried to block my earlier comment and stated "Retaliatory comment not germane to this discussion". As for the SPI (which is a useless speculationof how I'm a random Japanimation wiki user in disguise as a gang historian made by people who hate me/have too much free time)...ahem, it's a completely irrelevant discussion for this board. To call me "a doubly-biased editor" is also astronomically hypocritical considering you target anything doesn't agree with you and blatantly state they are in bad faith. [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 04:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's in your mind, I can only judge from your editing behavior. I throw you off my page, and you immediately end up here, in the middle of a dispute between myself and another editor which has nothing whatsoever to do with you, and you want me to draw the conclusion that it's a tremendous coincidence? Not gonna happen. I'm a nice guy, but I'm not an idiot, I know retaliation when I see it, and this is it. (You should really read WP:HARASSMENT some day.) You can comment all you want here, and I will continue to point out that the only reason you're here is to get back at me, so that your comments will carry next to no weight, which is only right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The storm of edits is not called for. As BMK has pointed out, WP:BRD is a long-standing procedure that should be followed. There is no rush—if the proposed changes are so wonderful that they are worth edit warring over, they will eventually be incorporated. Please stop and allow a couple of days for other editors to discuss the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coming from the request for input at the Politics WP page, I don't think the books should be included on the sidebar – they may have influenced Hitler but they were not directly connected to Nazism. Number 5 7 12:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnuniq, BRD should be followed. Sein und Zeit you may see it as just a guideline, which does not have to be followed, but I can tell you if you don't follow it, you will be blocked at some point. As for the point of discussion, besides "Mein Kampf" and possibly, "The Myth of the Twentieth Century", I believe the books should be removed and instead a link to List of books about Nazi Germany should be considered for placement under the "List" section. Otherwise, it is a subjective list that is included. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beyond My Ken, a book that has a "profound" influence on the ideology does not make it part of that specific ideology. Like I've said, many other books influenced Nazi ideology and others were 'part of' Nazism quite literally e.g Mein Kampf and The Myth of the Twentieth Century but but even they were not part of the 'Racial ideology', they were simply literature that influenced the racial ideology - there is a difference. I initially removed the book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century from the sidebar which prompted User:Beyond My Ken to accuse me of defending Chamberlain and then made a couple of personal attacks in which he would not clarify what he meant (judge for yourself - they are further up). I removed the book because as it seems a couple of other users have agreed - books should not be listed in the Nazism sidebar because although they might have influenced Nazi ideology, they were not explicitly aspects of the Nazi 'Racial ideology' sentiments. @User:Kierzek - I have no problem following the BRD guideline (although I fail to see how someone should be blocked for not following something that is not mandatory since no rules would be broken), which is why I did not engage in an edit war and started this discussion. I simply added the 'Literature' section because I thought that it would be the more logical thing to do if books were going to be used in the sidebar. So there we have it, we either have what I initially suggested anyway which is 1) Removing all books from the sidebar 2) Keeping books in the sidebar with a much more rational idea of a 'Literature' section and include books that influenced Nazi ideology. I strongly favour the former, I don't think any books should be in the sidebar (hence my initial removal of Chamberlain's book) and have pointed out several times that such influences belong in the List of Nazi ideologues article, not the Nazism sidebar.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kierzek, the article List of books about Nazi Germany does not have any books that influenced Nazi ideology since that article is about books that discuss Nazi Germany (policies, ideas, crimes, etc), the correct article would be List of Nazi ideologues which lists the various things that influenced Nazism. I don't even think Mein Kampf and The Myth of the Twentieth Century should be included in the sidebar because nowhere without a 'Literature' section would any books fit. Plus, even though those two books were by prominent Nazis, they were not the black and white version of Nazism and even the two books themselves have different views e.g Hitler objected completely to Rosenberg's paganism. I think it would be best if all books were removed from the sidebar and some link to the List of Nazi ideologues be mentioned somewhere, possibly.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of navbars is to make it easy for people see/browse articles relevant to the topic of the navbar. Tons of people want to understand the roots of Nazism, and of course books that are at the roots are relevant. The only argument I could see as valid for not including it, would be if it didn't discuss Nazism. But it does, and not just a passing mention. So of course it belongs. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog, I first removed the book because I said it didn't belong in the 'Racial ideology' because any book was just an influence to a certain ideology but Nazi ideologies were ideas like Lebensraum or the master race, not a book itself. For example Mein Kampf is not an ideology but explains Hitler's various different ideologies. There is a key difference between something being an influence to an ideology and an actual ideology itself. So since User:Beyond My Ken reverted my removal I then added a 'Literature' section and included five books: An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, Mein Kampf, Racial Science of the German People, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, The Passing of the Great Race and The Myth of the Twentieth Century. Guess what? That was also reverted. So this seems to be a catch 22. On the one hand, I removed a book because I don't think a book can be classified as a 'racial ideology' (books can influence racial ideologies though, of course) and now people are saying keep books in the sidebar yet when I made an attempt to create a separate section titled 'Literature' in the sidebar which would then give the viewers to be able to see which books influenced Nazism it was removed and yet now it's being said that books must stay in the sidebar because they influenced the roots of Nazism. The five books I listed I would say were arguably the most influential when it comes to what Nazi ideology stood for but the addition of books in the sidebar could prove to be problematic because it's simply subjective on what books should be considered part of Nazi ideology, or at least influenced it enough to be considered a vital element of it. Unfortunately, the Nazis also selectively used certain people's works so that is also another way that adding books could cause problems. Even books like Mein Kampf were not exactly the set in stone of Nazism. Hitler himself was later even critical of it. The same as Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century which Hitler is reported to have never even read. Even the Nazis were selective of Gobineau's work An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races because Gobineau was not antisemitic. The idea of having books in the sidebar isn't exactly something I would disagree with but having books in the 'Racial ideology' section is ridiculous because books are not ideologies themselves but rather influences which is why I suggest having a 'Literature' section if books are to stay in the sidebar, I would say the Template:Marxism–Leninism sidebar is a good model to go off when it comes to having books added to a sidebar.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning appears to be something like "a book is not an ideology"... which is obvious to the point of being silly. Books express an ideology and can inform and support ideologies. That is what this one did/does, with respect to Nazi ideology. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An 'ideology' is defined as "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." - which is exactly what I've already said. Nazism was the ideology with many other ideologies such as Lebensraum, master race, etc, as part of it, but to call a book on its own as an 'ideology' itself is ridiculous and wrong according to the very definition of the word. Mein Kampf is not an ideology but instead expresses Hitler's various different ideologies such as Lebensraum, antisemitism, etc. The difference between expressing an ideology and being an actual ideology shouldn't be that difficult to understand. I don't disagree that The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century was influential to Nazi ideology but surely if literature is to stay included in the sidebar then a 'Literature' section is more appropriate rather than having it in the 'Racial ideology' section? What I also find striking is that User:Beyond My Ken reverted my edit when I added the 'Literature' section and added five books (previously mentioned) because according to him I didn't reach a consensus, yet he added An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races and The Passing of the Great Race without asking anyone and those were also the ones I added. Simply having books in the 'Racial ideology' is wrong because they were/are not racial ideologies themselves but influenced Nazi racial ideologies such as those already listed in the sidebar. The issue isn't having books included in the sidebar but the correct section which is why I propose adding a 'Literature' section. I really can't see why there should be any sort of quarrel over such a suggestion. If anything, it will improve the sidebar. User talk:Jytdog, how do you feel about the creation of a 'Literature' section and adding the five books I've mentioned previously in the sidebar?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is who, here?

This thread is no longer focused on improving the template or generally productive. Reports on sockpuppetry or other conduct can go to the appropriate venues. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Sein und Zeit has just been CU confirmed and blocked. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Sein und Zeit: If you look up the page, you will find the thread #Houston Stewart Chamberlain, which was provoked by the attempt of User:Robinson98354 to remove Houston Stewart Chamberlain from the list of "People" in the sidebar. Now, here you are, attemtping to remove Houston Stewart Chamberlain's best known work, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Centuryfrom the "Racial ideology" section, or to move it into an innocuous-sounding "Literature" section.

Sein und Zeit, is this just a coincidence? Are you in any way connected with Robinson98354?

I ask because another editor expressed the opinion in that earlier thread that Robinson98354 was a sock of a banned editor, and because Roninson98354 was later found to be a sock of User:English Patriot Man (who has had many socks) [7], and Robinson98354 stopped editing in May 2017, just a month before you began editing in June 2017. Further, when you look at your edits and compare them to Robinson98354 and English Patriot Man, the overlap is very significant, [8] as it is if you put in any of English Patriot Man's many socks, such as User:Hashi0707. [9]

So, Sein und Zeit, would you like to comment on this here, or would you prefer to comment on the SPI I will be filing right after I ask an admin who is familiar with English Patriot Man to look over your edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beyond My Ken, you are very quick to accuse people of being sock puppets. Why don't you ever actually comment on the things you revert or have a problem with? It's always personal attacks with you. But no I'm not connected with either Robinson98354 or English Patriot Man, moderators can feel free to check my IP, I have nothing to hide. I've also explained to you time and time again that I initially suggested the removal of Chamberlain because at that time it was only his work which was included in the 'Racial ideology' section of the sidebar. I have now said quite a few times that I do not object to the inclusion of Chamberlain and his work in the sidebar but when including literature there should be a separate section due to the fact that not all of the selected works that influenced Nazi racial ideology were completely in line with Nazi racial thinking e.g even Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century classified Slavs into the Aryan race, I'm sure many Nazi thinkers would not have agreed with that assertion since many were just simply pan-Germanic and only considered the Germanic/Nordic people as worth any racial value, Himmler comes to mind. The same as Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races condemned antisemitism and described the Jews in several passages in a positive light, again, not exactly in line with Nazi racial ideology.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that I am "very quick to accuse people of being sock puppets" if you've only been editing here for about 6 weeks? Even if it were true, that would have nothing to do with the question -- and evidence -- that you are a sock. You realize that if you are, and your master is English Patriot Man, everything you've written here (and everywhere else on Wikipedia) can (and will) be deleted, as you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any form, at any time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I hope you are also aware that changing your IP is not sufficient to be protected from being blocked as a sock, if the behavioral evidence is sufficiently compelling. The fact is that your editing is heavily involved with Nazi racial policy, which is the same subject which EPN and his socks edit in, almost exclusively. If the admin I approached isn't able to make the connection, I will file the SPI, with more evidence then the mere outline I've posted here, and we'll see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because in case you have forgotten, you accused User:QubixQdotta of being a sock puppet yesterday. So you've now not only accused me of being a Nazi (you personally attacked me a couple of times and have refused to clarify what you mean but like User:QubixQdotta pointed out, I'm not stupid and I know exactly what you were implying) and now to top it all off you're accusing me of being a sock puppet. For someone who has been on here for 12 years, I would have thought you would have known that talk pages are to be used to resolve disputes, not personally attack and accuse people. You're not even reading what I've been saying about Chamberlain and why I removed his work. I don't need to repeat myself again, I've already explained my position on this ongoing debate, I don't only need your approval.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, you really don't know what you're talking about. The SPI on QubixQdotta was filed on 22 August, and not by me. [10] -- and, again, QubixQdotta has nothing to do with you, although you did attempt to use them as cover for yourself before I booted you off my talk page as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, more threats from you. I edit a lot of different pages. Maybe you should stop stalking my contributions and instead focus on resolving this dispute and actually answer my points and problems I have with having books in the 'Racial ideology' section. You haven't refuted a single point I've made but instead have now gone from personal attacks to flat out accusing me of being a sock puppet. It's very tedious and petulant.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't engage substantively with socks, who are tedious and disruptive and not supposed to be editing here. I do engage with editors of all views who are not pariahs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words into my mouth and attempt to try and trip me up by you getting your wires crossed, I never once referred to an SPI but what you have said on this talk page. You accused him of being a sock puppet on this talk page (03:41, 30 August 2017). You should spend less time using talk pages as a way to insult people and accuse them of things and instead solve disputes.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accuse people of things who are deserving of accusation -- and you still don't have a clue what you're talking about concerning your new buddy Qubix Qdotta, who has admitted to being a sockpuppet; we simply don't know who the master is. If it comes to that, it's conceivable that I've made a mistake about who's pulling your strings, but there's no mistaking that you are a sock. The evidence above is only the tip of the iceberg, the rest will be on the SPI if I need to file it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who has said "BTW, this is a discussion about the question asked at the RfC, not about ancillary matters. Any additional off-topic discussion will be deleted." (13:02, 31 August 2017) to create a title on the Nazism sidebar talk page titled "Who is who, here?" and accuse me of being a sock puppet is nothing short of ironic. Do what you have got to do, you quite clearly have you made your mind up what I am. I know I'm not a sock puppet and I edit fairly and I engage in reasonable and rational discussions on talk pages and do not engage in WP:DE. Now if we could actually get back on topic that would be greatly appreciated.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed from this discussion comments by User:Qubix Qdotta which violated WP:OUTING, publishing private information about me which I wish to remain private. For those curious about the comments, the situation which QQ described is thoroughly dealt with at User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory, which describes the entire circumstance, without the private information. I have informed QQ, on their talk page and in edit summaries, that if they attempt to out me again, I will bring the issue to the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

RfC about including books in the "Racial ideology" section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Regarding the general question of whether the sidebar should contain books that were influential, I believe there is no clear consensus to support a blanket removal of all books from the sidebar. Based on editors comments, the particulars of suggested additions or removals should remain open for discussion as there is also no consensus on a criteria for including books. Noting further that several editors have rightly raised concerns that any books that are included should be verfiably discussed in WP:RS as having influenced Nazi racial ideology. My recommendation would be to have specific discussion about additions and removals along these lines, without prejudice to future RfCs or dispute resolution regarding specific additions/removals.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the "Racial ideology" section of the sidebar contain in its list books which were influential in shaping the Nazi's racial ideology, such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century, Arthur de Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race, and other books which consensus may find appropriate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books RfC: Survey

(Note: !Votes and short explications only, threaded discussion and extended statements will be relocated)

Yes - The books listed were tremendously influential in shaping Nazi racial ideology, and their inclusion in the "Racial ideology" section helps to give readers who follow the links a better background on where that ideology – which did not spring de novo from Hitler's mind – came from, and why it had an appeal to some parts of the German population. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No - The inclusion of the books is not the problem, the problem is placing them in the same category as 'Racial ideology'. Although without any doubt the books influenced Nazi racial ideology, they should not be placed in the same section because they weren't explicitly Nazi racial books and weren't completely coherent with Nazi racial ideology. The Nazis were selective in the works they used to influence their ideology. (continued below) -- Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef block for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes its fine - the articles about each of these books make it clear that they are appropriate for the racial ideology section of the navbox. They could just as well be in a "books" subsection but this is fine too. Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No As per my comments above. @Kierzek: who commented above may also want to add their !vote here (I've no idea why a separate RfC has been started when comments had already been requested in the section above). Number 5 7 07:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only as to "Mein Kampf". Otherwise, as I stated above, a link under the "list" section to List of books about Nazi Germany is more appropriate. Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No - The books don't appear to be explicity Nazi in ideology so I would say they should remain off the infobox. Perhaps they should be included in another template about a related subject they all have in common. [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 23:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but only if the books are specifically cited as being Nazi ideology. Toreightyone (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial (Summoned by bot) per Kierzek's suggestion, limit inclusion to small number of indisputably 'Nazi' texts, such as MK, but link to 'list' for those which may have influenced. Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Books RfC: Threaded discussion

User:Beyond My Ken, I have said it quite clearly that I approve of those books being included in the sidebar, as well as Mein Kampf and The Myth of the Twentieth Century but in a separate section titled 'Literature'.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an innocuous section where they won't be tarred with a connection with Nazi racist ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to mark the distinction between something that influences an ideology and the ideology itself. Literature is literature, books are not ideologies themselves. Not all of the books themselves were exclusively even Nazi anyway e.g An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races is currently included in the 'Racial ideology' section yet the book condemns antisemitism and describes the Jews in positive terms, hardly something that is completely coherent with all of Nazi racial ideology. The Nazis were selective in the works that influenced their ideology overall hence why it's important to distinguish between the two.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog, how can they be appropriately fitted in the 'Racial ideology' section when one of the book openly condemns Jews and speaks about them in a positive light? I'd hardly say that was the same way the Nazis thought.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, how could Nazis have existed at all? How could heidigger have been a nazi/nazi sympathizer? There is no accounting for irrationality or self-contradiction, or people taking one bite out of an apple and leaving the rest. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(continued from above) 1) The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century did influence Nazi racial thought but some parts of it many Nazis would have disagreed with e.g Chamberlain included Slavs into the "Aryan race" and he says in the book "Though it were proved that there was never an Aryan race in the past, yet we desire that in the future there may be one. This is the decisive standpoint for men of action." I highly doubt Himmler would have agreed. 2) Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races condemns antisemitism and praises the Jews on several occasions, again, I highly doubt any prominent Nazis would have agreed. 3) Grant's The Passing of the Great Race was just one of many books that influenced Nazi racial theory of Nordic supremacy. And again, the Nazis weren't coherent with their Nordic supremacy thinking. This is why it's important to distinguish between which books influenced Nazi racial ideology with a separate section and the actual racial ideologies themselves e.g master race, Lebensraum, etc in the 'Racial ideology' section. Nazi racial ideology was not consistent and was largely contradictory so to somehow place books which openly condemn certain aspects of Nazi racial ideology makes no sense.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I started the RfC to help bring some clarity to the discussion, and to guarantee that there was sufficient time for the editors who regularly participate here to express their views, without undue pressure for a quick evaluation of "consensus". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beyond My Ken, you quickly added An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races or The Passing of the Great Race when all I did was mention them on this talk page. You didn't reach a consensus. One rule for you and one rule for everyone else it seems.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the same rule for everyone. When you mentioned them as being missing, I agreed, and we had -- at that moment -- a consensus to add them. I've already told you (above) that if you now disagree with that action, and think they shouldn't have been added, then you should remove them, but you have ignored that in favor of repeating the same claim over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is a discussion about the question asked at the RfC, not about ancillary matters. Any additional off-topic discussion will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog, are you actually going to answer my question or just ignore it by responding with questions? It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask. A book is included in the 'Racial ideology' section of the Nazism sidebar when the book itself praises Jews which is at the complete opposite spectrum of what Nazism preached. And again, you have also clarified exactly why I advocate the addition of a separate section titled 'Literature' because although certain books were used by the Nazis to somehow make their racial ideology seem more legitimate, many of the works they used actually were against other racial ideologies their preached. Just because the Nazis decided to use certain books that propagated their ideals does not make those books themselves part of Nazi racial ideology. A Nazi racial ideology was for example Blood and Soil not Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. The inclusion of works in the 'Racial ideology' section because certain parts of the book were favoured by the Nazis is not a WP:NPOV assertion as it is without any doubt WP:UNDUE. --Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed the books because I've already quite clearly established that I don't think the books should be removed. On the contrary, I think they should be included in a more appropriate section titled 'Literature' since essentially that is what they are, not racially ideologies per se.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Too large to be helpful

The scale of this is too large to help navigation Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox. Moxy- 17:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it has become bloated and needs to be scaled back with edits for concision. Kierzek (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]