Misplaced Pages

Talk:Nazism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:08, 19 November 2012 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,500 edits →Price and wage controls← Previous edit Revision as of 15:12, 19 November 2012 edit undoBryonmorrigan (talk | contribs)1,652 edits →revised proposalNext edit →
Line 147: Line 147:


:Agree with Snowded. ] (]) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC) :Agree with Snowded. ] (]) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
:Oh look! CONSENSUS! --] ] 15:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


== Misleading citations == == Misleading citations ==

Revision as of 15:12, 19 November 2012

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nazism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Nazism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Nazism at the Reference desk.

Template:Controversial (history)

If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them.
Former featured article candidateNazism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 11, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. 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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJewish history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconGermany Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.


Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], (3x) ], (3x) ], ], ], ], ]

For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem


Major Omissions in the Influence Section

The influences section is devoted to the racial mysticism of people like Rosenberg that was intended for the masses and not enough is given to the scientific foundations for their actual programs. Hitler and other top-ranking Nazis made a distinction between what knowledge was suitable for the masses and what was suitable for the elite. If you read the Table Talks, Hitler is constantly praising science and reason over religion and faith. And their eugenics program, for example, was based on what was considered cutting-edge science at the time. There was no obscurantism involved.

Key names that should be mentioned are Georges Vacher de Lapouge and especially Hans F. K. Günther, the former influencing the latter.

Also, are people seriously erasing any reference to Nietzsche? Look, I like the guy and his writings, but claiming he exerted no influence on the Nazis whatsoever is like denying any connection between Rousseau and the French Revolution. Yes, I've read the scholarship. I know Nietzsche opposed German nationalism and anti-Semitism. But there was much more to Nazi ideology than nationalism (which was really more of a springboard for establishing a supranational race-based aristocracy...) and anti-Semitism. Once you look past that, there is a lot of overlap between Nietzsche's views and the Nazi's. Their common hatred of egalitarianism, democracy, liberalism, socialism, and the legacy of the French Revolution. Their admiration for heroism and Great Men as well as their hatred for the utilitarian "comfortable life" of the last man. Nietzsche also flirts with eugenics here and there, though the Nazis didn't need him for that. And, again, if you read the Table Talks, Hitler refers to Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche as Germany's three greatest minds and describes Christianity as a Jewish "slave revolt" intended to undermine the Roman Empire. Where have I heard that before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.165.105 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles must be based on secondary sources, such as the conclusions of scholars rather than our own research, reading through what Hitler said, or in this case what he is claimed to have said. TFD (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Rationing and shortages

I would like to includes a few words about such in the economics section, without objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem I thought was with the way it was presented; that it did not give an explanation and correlation as to the statement. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a different edit that only mentions rationing and shortages, do you have any objection to such? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Different how? Without seeing it, I (nor anyone else) can give an informed opinion. Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Please propose the edit here and allow other editors time to examine your proposal. I'm sure if other editors see your proposal as an improvement to the article, you could gain consensus. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
different as this edit is exactly half of the other. Shortages of food and clothing were addressed by rationing. feel free to word it however you like. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(out) Could you provide a source and, since this article is about Nazi ideology, could you explain whether this was consistent with, against or tangential to their ideology. TFD (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Nazi Organisation of Women By Jill Stephenson, page 198-200. Consistent, part of the "National Socialist approach to living", work that into the edit however you like, or leave it out, i care not. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not have a copy of the book, but a search of its contents on Google books shows that none of the words "shortage", "food", "clothing" and "rationing" are found in the book. Also, you need to explain why a thirty year old book on Nazi women is the best source on can find for nazism and economic policy. BTW were you aware that the allies (UK and US) also had rationing during the war? TFD (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
so you acknowledge that rationing existed "(UK and US) also", yet dont like the source, even though you have not read it? all of those words appear and on the very pages i gave you, if you would like the specific paragraph and line, i will be happy to supply those as well. What is the best source one can find on nazism and economic policy, i would be happy to cite that book instead. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I cannot acknowledge anything because I do not know. Again, why are you using this source? TFD (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
were you aware that the allies (UK and US) also had rationing, TDF. i would be happy to use the source you think would be best for nazi econ. which source is that? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Please cite the exact text in this book, which you wish to cite in order to verify your edit. That shouldn't be hard to do. RolandR (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
page 199 Rationing foodstuffs and clothing in 1939 revealed the failure of the 1936 four year plan to achieve autarky. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems bizarre to mention the failure of a plan that is not even mentioned in the article. Also, this appears to be an opinion rather than a fact. Since the plan was to achieve autarky by 1940, it seems odd to say that it failed in 1939, especially when its objectives were achieved between 1941 and 1944. An how is rationing a failure of autarky? Can you provide any sources that discuss the writer's opinion and explain the degree of acceptance they have? TFD (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
bizarre indeed since i did not mention it, merely responding to request for the exact text from those who have not read the book and are unable to do so. see above for the specific text of the edit i am proposing, feel free to alter it. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Your suggested edit is "Shortages of food and clothing were addressed by rationing." Since the article is about ideology, you need to explain how this relates to nazi ideology, otherwise it is just a snippet of trivia. Why not mention that knackwurst became more popular in relation to bratwurst during the Nazi years? TFD (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
"National Socialist approach to living", page 199, specifically calls for the sharing of resources for the benefit of country, central to the National Socialist ideology. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not in the article, and what does rationing have to do with sharing of resources for the benefit of country? TFD (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
it is, page 199. have you read it? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
No, and the point is it the text insertion needs to be clear in how it relates to the article and whether it is expressing a fact or an opinion. You have to explain it to the reader, not to me. Since the Nazis were not known for altruism, it appears to be an opinion and you need to establish the degree of acceptance it has. TFD (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Rationing foodstuffs and clothing in 1939 is a fact, if there is a different way you would like to word it, plz do. if you have an issue with the source, plz identify that here. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, you need to explain why it is relevant to the article. TFD (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
relevant as any shortage and rationing would be relevant to an economics section. shortage is the very bane of economy. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Since this article is about Nazi ideology, could you explain whether this was consistent with, against or tangential to their ideology. TFD (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
consistent, see above, i answered/you ask this question already. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Britain and some other countries had rationing around that time too; it was not unique to Nazi Germany. It was a response to the situation they were facing at the time, not a policy based on ideology.Spylab (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Spylab. Darkstar, I've read through the whole exchange for the first time. I can't see how you have answered the question.----Snowded 02:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Darkstar1st, can you provide a source that says it was consistent with their views? TFD (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Spylab, Snowed, the source very clearly states is was part of National Socialist approach to living. The equal distribution of goods for the benefit of the nation, see above. I am making no claims this ideology was unique, simply it was part of the economic ideology. TDF, i have, specifically their view of National Socialist approach to living, which is very clear in the context of the book, specifically the chapter, and easily identified in the 3 pages i have listed. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

2nd source

Heinemann Advanced History: Hitler and the Nazi State By Martin Collier, Martin Collier Philip Pedley page 144

  • ...Nazi leadership intended to avoid a repetition of scarcities in basic foodstuffs and clothing which caused so much unrest during WWI
  • The rationing system introduced in late 1939 was generally considered fair and sufficient... Darkstar1st (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure I could find similar statements of rationing in the UK. You need something which ties it to the ideology and you don't appear to be even attempting that despite requests. To be honest you seem to be in one of the OR/Syth patterns you seem to like. Nazi's rationed, rationing is about equal distribution, socialists are about equal distribution, socialists are nazis - or some variation. Its tiresome ----Snowded 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
perhaps if you would read the sources instead me retyping here, you could form a better opinion, example, on the exact same page.
Been here too many times before with you Darkstar; onus on you to provide evidence, prior history means onus is higher ----Snowded 12:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
what exactly would qualify to include such text? maybe if you gave me a hypothetical sentence form an imaginary source, i could provide the passage for you if you are unable to access the sources i listed. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Read up on the 5 pillars, its all there.----Snowded 13:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
yes, however i am having trouble understanding exactly what you need? If using propaganda to manipulate the population to meet the goals, expectations is not ideology, i am afraid i do not know what would be. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I am confused as to whether you really think that "rationing" related to shortages and war...is actually the same as "rationing" as an ideology intended to spread resources to create "equal sharing", akin to Socialist/Communist ideology? Because if you are...then that's just plain stupid. Chris Christie did not impose gasoline "rationing" on New Jersey as part of a Socialist/Communist agenda. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
2nd time: Rationing was not due to ideology; it was a policy due to shortages. Time to move on.Spylab (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This, in proper context, would relate to the Nazi Germany economy, but not ideology. Kierzek (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

source 3

Rationing was most certainly part of the ideology as Jews received separate cards and less rations. Working men received larger rations than women and elderly. Jews in Nazi Berlin: From Kristallnacht to Liberation, edited by Beate Meyer, Hermann Simon, Chana Schütz page 92 Darkstar1st (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That establishes that antisemitism was part of the ideology, not that rationing was. RolandR (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
workers received more than those who could not work, men more than women, young more than old. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
IOW the same as everywhere else in the world. TFD (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
i do not understand your objection to the source or edit? plz clarify your comment. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You are trying to use the concept of "rationing" as a way to paint Nazism as Socialist/Communist/Left-Wing. You are misrepresenting sources in order to advance this agenda. It's now pretty clear to everyone here that we can see through your "ruse." I have to wonder if this was brought up by Glenn Beck recently or something, as that's where these silly conspiracy theories usually seem to originate. Maybe your next edit can "connect" Nazism to "FEMA Camps" or chemtrails? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
plz wp:agf and since you have not read any of the sources, it would be impossible to know how i have represented them. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to elicit whether you truly believed the nonsense you're spewing, and you ignored it. "WP:AGF" only applies when there is a chance that the person isn't really advocating something absurd...but it's now clear that you are indeed advocating that absurd position. Therefore, it's clear that you have no "good faith" in creating these edits (...unless you truly believe that Chris Christie is promoting Nazi policies! LOL). Furthermore, the sentences that you yourself have quoted from the sources show that your intention is to misrepresent them. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
which sentence? misrepresented how? chris who? have you read any of the sources, which one? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
For example, you quote simply the fact that "rationing" existed in Nazi Germany as an "example" of the idea that it was somehow connected to Nazism as an ideology. (Ex. "...Nazi leadership intended to avoid a repetition of scarcities in basic foodstuffs and clothing which caused so much unrest during WWI"; "The rationing system introduced in late 1939 was generally considered fair and sufficient...") And I have pointed out that Conservative Republican governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has recently adopted "rationing" plans to deal with the fallout from "Superstorm Sandy". Does that mean that "rationing" is part of the Conservative, Republican ideology? Or is it simply that Christie is a "Nazi"? You cannot promote your edits without choosing one of those absurd propositions, or your logic fails. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
correct(excluding new jersey nazis, i have no idea what you are talking about here), a Political Ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work rationing was how the Nazi's dealt with shortages, politcal because different ethnos, age groups, social class, and sex, received different rations. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The US and UK also had rationing during the war. The US government oversaw rationing in Iraq. In what way does this make nazism different from other ideologies? And what website did you get this idea from? TFD (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
the US/UK did not ration based on race. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Which again establishes that the Nazis applied rationing in a racist manner, not that rationing is per se part of Nazi ideology. RolandR (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
as well as by age, sex, social/party status, and ability to work. how it was applied is irrelevant, that is was applied to meet the goals of the party(ideology) is germane Darkstar1st (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I think rationing was applied because that is what all governments did at the time. That the Nazis were racist in virtually all laws and policies is already explained. The US btw denied rations to interned Japanese Americans and otherwise also has had many racist laws. TFD (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
not race, age, sex, social/party status, and ability to work. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(out) I think we all agree that the nazis believed in and practiced discrimination. Since that point has already been made in the article, there is no need to add it. TFD (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nazi ideology influenced how rationing was carried out, but Nazi ideology was not the reason behind rationing. Attempting to somehow prove that rationing itself was a component of Nazi ideology will only keep leading to dead ends.Spylab (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

source 4 The Nationalization and ideology of rationing

The German people were to come before all other peoples for food, Nazi memo, German nationals were to receive 100% meat rations, Czechs 86%, French 51%, Serbs 36%, Slovenes 29%, Jews 0% The Daughter of the Reich: The Incredible Life of Louise Fox By Louise Fox, Cindy Dowling, Cindy Dowling, page 73 Darkstar1st (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To which the response is exactly the same as many others made above. You've established that the Nazi's discriminated against other people and that applied to rationing as it did to many other things. This is an ideological crusade on your part, stretching evidence and wasting other editors time. Its not the first time and I really think you need to back off before the patience of the community wears thin and you end up subject to a topic ban or similar. ----Snowded 23:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
since you now acknowledge the sources are reliable, and that rationing was part of the nazi ideology, plz clarify your specific objection. and you may want to strike thru your wp:threat Darkstar1st (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is acknowledging that rationing was "part of the nazi ideology". You have either not read, or not understood, the comments above. Nor is anybody threatening you. You have simply been warned ─ and I second that warning ─ that you are trying the patience of other editors here. Unless and until you can bring a reliable source to establish that rationing was required by Nazi ideology, rather than by the exigencies of the economic situation, then you cannot make the edit that you seem bent on. RolandR (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
have you read the source above? 0% meat for Jews and 29% for Slovenes is not an economic exigency, it is an ideology. Political ideologies have two dimensions: How society should be organized. The most appropriate way to achieve this goal. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
YES, we all agree that Nazi Germany was a racist society, and applied rationing in a discriminatory manner, guided by Nazi ideology. Now find a source that establishes that rationing itself, not the way that it was imposed, was part of Nazi ideology. Or else stop wasting our time. RolandR (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
the way it was imposed was the ideology. (see webster's or stanford's def of political ideology) Darkstar1st (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That is a meaningless comment. I repeat, unless you can bring a source to show that rationing was part of Nazi ideology, stop wasting our time. RolandR (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
what is your definition of ideology? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Time wasting Darkstar1st, you are in a minority of one on this and you are either refusing to, or are incapable of understanding the points which are being put to you. If you don't stop then I think the only option left is to seek a topic ban. ----Snowded 06:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Price and wage controls

proposed addition: Nazi's attempted to manage the economy with wage and price controls. The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938 By R. J. Over page 49 Darkstar1st (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase Lewis Black: "Hitler had a mustache. Mother Theresa had a mustache. Mother Theresa is Hitler!" You're selling...but nobody's buying. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 06:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If the source is WP:RS then it is not up to us to say "you're selling but nobody's buying" - it is up to us to accurately represent what reliable sources say, and not to take a position ourselves. Collect (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That a source is RS is not the issue, but rather the interpretation...and nobody's buying his absurd interpretation of sources to mean things that the authors did not intend to convey, and which no reasonable person "gets" from reading the statements he's using. This is nothing more than "quote mining," and not even a very good job of it, at that. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 18:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
And by now this has become tediously tendentious, and classic IDHT behaviour. Some 5000 words over the past three days, with one editor battling against at least seven others who are telling him the same thing. This has to stop. RolandR (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Bryon/Roland, have you read the source? ...the most important of these additional controls were over prices and wages and foreign trade. is is the very 1st line of page 49 Darkstar1st (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The source clearly mentions price and wage controls in the same context as my proposal, maybe Bryon could explain how that is an absurd interpretation? If not, and there be no other objections, i will add the text soon. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
At least six editors above have objected to this edit, and not one has supported your view. So adding this text will be quite clearly editing against consensus, and is impermissible. RolandR (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
There's really no point in explaining things to people who are either incapable of understanding, or unwilling to make the attempt at understanding those explanations. As noted by RolandR, every other editor posting responses to your silly "interpretations"(Read: OPINIONS) of resources has pointed out your (likely deliberate) errors. You refuse to listen to reason, and you seem to think that, when every other editor disagrees with you...you can just wait a few days and say, "Well, since nobody else is arguing with me anymore...I guess I'll just add the text..." That's going to do nothing except get you banned AGAIN. You've already been banned for your deliberate disruption of this page...so go right ahead, Sport: Commit Wikipedial suicide AGAIN. I'll get the popcorn. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

revised proposal

we are in agreement the source is reliable, however two editors have expressed concerns i have mis-interpreted the text from the source: ...the most important of these additional controls were over prices and wages and foreign trade. I ask these two now to help me correctly cite the source, perhaps they would be willing to supply the text. If not, maybe the following would address their concerns, revised proposal: Nazi's implemented controls over prices and wages . Darkstar1st (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Per multiple comments above, you are wasting people's time. Please stop. ----Snowded 15:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Snowded. TFD (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh look! CONSENSUS! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Misleading citations

Darkstar1st has just added three references to the article. These are only partially complete, noting author, title and page but not publisher, date, or edition, making it extremely difficult to verify them. However, the second page referred to, page 141 241 of Francis Nicosia's Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, is available on Google Books preview. The page has no content whatsoever which could serve to verify the statement "Farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed", to which it was added as a reference. I have therefore removed this misleading reference, and replaced the citation needed tag. Since this is not the first instance of Darkstar1st adding a source which does not confirm the material it is alleged to verify, I am very sceptical of the validity of the other sources added, and indeed of all such citations added by this editor. Could anyone who has access to the works in question (Germany, 1871-1945: A Concise History By Raffael Scheck, and The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe's Twentieth Century by Sheri Berman, or indeed to any other works cited by Darkstar1st, please check to see if they do indeed confirm the content they are alleged to support. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

that is because the page i referenced is 241, plz self revert. University of California Press, 2003 Darkstar1st (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Page 241 does not seem to support your claims. Dolescum (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
last paragraph, Agricultural retraining for Jews should follow previous practice in operations with Jewish owners as well as in limited numbers in non-Jewish operations perhaps you feel not all of the edit was addressed by this one citation, if so, simply move it up, and i will provide a dif cite for the remainder. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
As the text goes on to make clear ("In other words, Jewish-owned farms were to be used for agricultural retraining programs, and only where none was available were the programs permitted to operate on farms owned by aryans") , this is about exclusion of Jews from the mainstream economy. It has nothing at all to do with farm ownership, or discretion over operations and residual income, which is what you adduced it in support of. It seems that, once again, you are citing random works in the hope that other editors will be unable to prove that you are misleading us. This is, at best, tendentious editing, and I urge you to cease this and start to use references appropriately. RolandR (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
discretion over operations, and from the source, agricultural retraining programs...as well as...non-Jewish operations Darkstar1st (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone else understyand what the previous comment means; or is it, as I suspect, just more obfuscation? RolandR (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
it means the owner was no longer in control of his operation and was forced to follow the party's wishes Darkstar1st (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
No it doesn't. That is a totally ridiculous and unwarranted reading of the text, which states that the Nazis proposed retraining Jews in agriculture, in order to deport them to Palestine, and that this retraining was if possible to be carried out on Jewish-owned farms. It is totally irrelevant to the paragraph in which you cite it. Either you are aware of this, and are deliberately trolling, or you are unable to read and understand plain text, in which case you are not competent to be an editor at all. In either case, please stop wasting everybody's time. RolandR (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
why the training took place is irrelevant to the cite, which merely states the farms(Jew and non-Jew) were no longer in the operational control of the owner Darkstar1st (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't say that, and even if it did (which, I repeat, it does not), that would have no relevance whatsoever to your use of it in the article. The book does not support your edit. RolandR (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
are you suggesting the farm owners could have simply opt-ed out of the free retraining to be conducted on their land? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea, and nor have you. If this overextended extrapolation of a text is the only evidence you can offer that "Farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed", then the entire sentence should be removed from the article. If the sentence is true, find a source that says so. RolandR (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Scheck page 167 In the short run, the regime wanted to protect the German farmer from speculation and therefore passed a law that forbade the selling of family farms. is pretty clear. Can't confirm the others, but Scheck is not far off. Collect (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Scheck p167 is cited to verify the sentence "To tie farmers to their land, selling agricultural land was prohibited". What you quote refers just to family farms, not to agricultural land in general, and it makes no mention of "tying" farmers to their land. This seems like OR to me. RolandR (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Sheri Berman's work supports the existence of the marketing boards. Dolescum (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nazi control of farm income

proposed additional citation to address tag in economics section, Hitler's Economy: Nazi Work Creation Programs, 1933-1936, Dan P. Silverman page 43 published 1998 ISBN 978-0674740716 Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That page? Dolescum (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
yes, Nazi ag price policy increase prices by 30%..., there is too much to retype here, but i will be happy to address specific concerns. the isbn # will hyperlink to the book as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is relevant, to tell you the truth. MAFF in the UK did something very similar after the outbreak of war. Are you saying MAFF implemented their policies for ideological reasons? Dolescum (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
define ideology? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Why are you attempting to evade my question? Dolescum (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
yes, Political ideologies have two dimensions: Goals: how society should work Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
How does this relate to the article? And why are you using a book about "work creation programs" for an article about farm income? TFD (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
TDF, perhaps you have a better source for farm income either supporting, or rejecting the edit, plz share. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again these things may have a relevance and be better suited for other articles, such as, Nazi Germany as to economic and racial polices applied therein; but not a nexus to ideology. Kierzek (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

not my edit, rather attempting to provide a source to address a source needed citation which has been dormant since may, on an edit which has been part of this article for years. to control an economy is the very definition of a political ideology. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
So...it's part of the U.S. Republican Party's ideology in 2001 to temporarily shut down airports, create intensive security measures at airports, and raise the price of oil? These "justifications" are becoming Comedy Gold. Keep on truckin', as this is hilarious. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Darkstar, it is similar to other entries in the article which try to show ideology through governing or other decisions; it a slippery slope which we discussed earlier, for example, as to the religion section. Ideology can influence such decisions but too much can be read into them, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
if political ideology is not present in governing, then where? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hong Kong is a striking example where explaining government economic policy would give a misleading impression of the governing (communist) ideology. TFD (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the tern "Nazi"

The recent edit on the origin of the term, asserting that it comes from a derogatory German term for peasant, strikes me as dubious. The source is a newspaper article. German Misplaced Pages does not suggest that origin. And there are numerous examples of Nazi usages of the term (e.g., Goebbels' pamphlet "Der Nazi-Sozi"). Anyone in favor of keeping it? Bytwerk (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not. I have heard that claim before, but the source is not RS. Now it is true that the term "Nazi" has been used more by English sources over the years. Kierzek (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The source is an article in The Telegraph about a book that explains the origins of various expressions. But that book is not academic, has no references and the author clearly states that when sources disagree, he picks the one he finds most credible. One of the sources is Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, it is an article in a respected newspaper explaining the findings in a book published by Penguin and those types of sources are always accepted at RSN. TFD (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Categories: