| Revision as of 21:47, 18 July 2014 editTorana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users854 edits →Right Wing?: answer← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:18, 19 July 2014 edit undoVrinan (talk | contribs)482 edits →Title of article: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
| "Anal Ointment" is a classic vituperational name used that means "nazi". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | "Anal Ointment" is a classic vituperational name used that means "nazi". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == Title of article == | |||
| Evidently this has come up in the past, but it seems that this article should be entitled "National Socialism", not "Nazism". The latter is a colloquial label for the more precise political ideology of National Socialism. Misplaced Pages's "COMMONNAME" policy has been brought up in the past, to which I respond, how much more common is "Nazism" than "National Socialism" in academia? And "Nazism" is a term that, for the majority of the NSDAP's history, was used primarily by Anglophone detractors; it seems that a neutral point of view is not achieved with the current title. Additionally, National Socialism extends beyond the Third Reich; it is has been a practiced ideology in much of the world. The whole selection of Misplaced Pages articles related to National Socialism (especially "neo-Nazism") reeks of POV and bias. I say that has a person of Polish Jewish ancestry. Serious historians and political scientists know that precision and non-bias are important when discussing historical occurrences. The crimes committed in WWII should not exempt National Socialist Germany from this guideline. ] (]) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:18, 19 July 2014
| 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. |
|
| 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  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| 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. |
 | Please 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. |
 | Nazism 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| 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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them. |
 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. |
Other countries
Nazism had a powerful influence on neighboring European countries. It seems to me to be appropriate to include some reference to this such as: It was also contemporaneous or promoted in other European countries, particularly those with large ethnic German communities such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia
Right Wing?
There seems to be a massive controversy amongst academics as to whether Nazism was right or left-leaning. Perhaps a good idea not to categorise it either way in the opening paragraph. Let's let readers decide. 21:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.13.55 (talk)
- No academic sources refer to nazism as left-wing, although it is a popular view on some non-nazi right-wing websites. TFD (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is no "controversy" among academics, only among uneducated propagandists. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a fair point that there is a significant controversy. Either way, it was the "National Socialist" Party, not the "let's be really conservative party". I think this is a fair point and this should perhaps lead to a review of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.254.41 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- There is no controversy, "significant" or otherwise. If you disagree, please provide a source that supports your views. TFD (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- What there is is an editor editing both from The University of Western Australia and another IP address in Perth. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Like it was said above, there is no "controversy". There is no more "controversy" among scholars and academics than there is "controversy" among scientists as to whether the world is flat or round. And the name of the party has been discussed...over and over...on this page. Please consult the archives, as you are not the first person to notice that or something. Communist East Germany called itself the "German Democratic Republic". Was it "democratic"? NO. Was it even a "republic"? Hardly. "National-Socialism", or "Nationalsozialismus" (it's one word in German) means "Nationalist-Socialism", not like a "National" organization of "Socialists" or something. People who are not educated on a subject should not be "educating" people on that subject. YOU have no education or knowledge on the subject, but for some reason think that your "synthesis" is more important than the combined scholarship of all of the REAL experts. Why is that? What is it about experts that you find so non-credible? Here's a discussion on "The Death of Expertise", by a fairly well-respected, fairly-Conservative guy: . You really should read it, and rethink the reasons you have for trying to convince everyone that your opinion is "correct" here. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would be interested if anything has been written about why this particular point is so popular among the right-wing fringe. A lot has been written about truthers, birthers, climate change skeptics, intelligent design and tin foil hats, but I have not found anything about this. TFD (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe it has been a fairly under-the-radar fringe belief, started by Von Mises and Hayek (both economists* with no expertise in history) but not really incorporated into the mainstream Right until Glenn Beck started ranting about it in the mid-2000s. Beck acted like he had "discovered" some secret conspiracy to hide this "truth" from the public. Of course Beck, a dropout with no expertise in anything at all, apart from talking on the radio...likely really thought that he had come across some kind of hidden "knowledge"...and his enthusiasm for the conspiracy theory was somewhat infectious. "There is no one so pious as the new convert", so they say. And then the IP above became the next "convert", and the chain continued... At its base level, this is a conspiracy theory with the same kind of propaganda goal as Holocaust Denial. The purpose is "rehabilitation" of an ideology that is responsible for things that are now regarded with scorn. Just as Holocaust Denial is designed to "rehabilitate" the Nazis, these revisionists who try to claim that the Nazis were "secretly" Left-Wing are attempting to "rehabilitate" Right-Wingers. They do the same thing by trying to claim that a Left-Wing Republican like Martin Luther King, Jr. was "secretly" a Conservative, even though he actively derided Conservatives and Right-Wingers in many speeches, even going so far as to compare them to Fascists. Modern Conservatives essentially do not wish to "own" their villains. For some reason, this is primarily limited to the Right, as you don't see many mainstream Left-Wingers trying to pretend that the Soviets were "secretly" Right-Wingers (though I have seen a few fringe idiots trying to claim that about Stalin). (*Note: The reason this theory originates with economists is that they are viewing the entire ideology from an economic lens...completely avoiding the fact that nobody really thinks about the Nazis' economic policies as their main focus or anything...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is Beck. He has revived Skousen's conspiracy theories from the 50s. Mises and Hayek thought that fascists, European conservatives, and pretty much anyone who did not agree with them were socialists, but they never put fascism on the Left. Mind you, unlike their followers, they never put themselves on the right. There's a new article btw, Controversies over Italian Fascism’s political placement. TFD (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- using a single right/left classification in a political article is a failure per Political spectrum, Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. . example, would North Korea be right or left-wing? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Even if what you were saying were true, it has nothing to do with what we were discussing. TFD (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- actually that was exactly what we are discussing in this section; a massive controversy amongst academics as to whether Nazism was right or left-leaning, see above. whether or not what i said was true can be verified at the Political spectrum article, plz afg. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can keep making that claim all over Misplaced Pages and various forums, but it doesn't make it true. There is no "massive controversy amongst academics" about Nazism. Scholars and history reflect the facts, and no amount of history revisionism is going to change that. And again, that article has nothing to do with this one. Dave Dial (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- perhaps you have confused me with the editor who said that above? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nazism should not be designated as right-wing in the opening paragraph because it fits under the umbrella of collectivism, whereas individualism is more right-wing. What are the connections of Nazism and Right-wing politics? Later in the article states that "the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements" is a far-right theme. This is not a far-right theme. Br1answanson (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)br1answanson
- Repeating those claims over and over again doesn’t change the fact that they are just plain wrong. However, even if they were true, you would have to give a reliable source. Rgds Torana (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nazism should not be designated as right-wing in the opening paragraph because it fits under the umbrella of collectivism, whereas individualism is more right-wing. What are the connections of Nazism and Right-wing politics? Later in the article states that "the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements" is a far-right theme. This is not a far-right theme. Br1answanson (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)br1answanson
- perhaps you have confused me with the editor who said that above? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can keep making that claim all over Misplaced Pages and various forums, but it doesn't make it true. There is no "massive controversy amongst academics" about Nazism. Scholars and history reflect the facts, and no amount of history revisionism is going to change that. And again, that article has nothing to do with this one. Dave Dial (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- actually that was exactly what we are discussing in this section; a massive controversy amongst academics as to whether Nazism was right or left-leaning, see above. whether or not what i said was true can be verified at the Political spectrum article, plz afg. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Even if what you were saying were true, it has nothing to do with what we were discussing. TFD (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- using a single right/left classification in a political article is a failure per Political spectrum, Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs, and often include other axes. . example, would North Korea be right or left-wing? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is Beck. He has revived Skousen's conspiracy theories from the 50s. Mises and Hayek thought that fascists, European conservatives, and pretty much anyone who did not agree with them were socialists, but they never put fascism on the Left. Mind you, unlike their followers, they never put themselves on the right. There's a new article btw, Controversies over Italian Fascism’s political placement. TFD (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I believe it has been a fairly under-the-radar fringe belief, started by Von Mises and Hayek (both economists* with no expertise in history) but not really incorporated into the mainstream Right until Glenn Beck started ranting about it in the mid-2000s. Beck acted like he had "discovered" some secret conspiracy to hide this "truth" from the public. Of course Beck, a dropout with no expertise in anything at all, apart from talking on the radio...likely really thought that he had come across some kind of hidden "knowledge"...and his enthusiasm for the conspiracy theory was somewhat infectious. "There is no one so pious as the new convert", so they say. And then the IP above became the next "convert", and the chain continued... At its base level, this is a conspiracy theory with the same kind of propaganda goal as Holocaust Denial. The purpose is "rehabilitation" of an ideology that is responsible for things that are now regarded with scorn. Just as Holocaust Denial is designed to "rehabilitate" the Nazis, these revisionists who try to claim that the Nazis were "secretly" Left-Wing are attempting to "rehabilitate" Right-Wingers. They do the same thing by trying to claim that a Left-Wing Republican like Martin Luther King, Jr. was "secretly" a Conservative, even though he actively derided Conservatives and Right-Wingers in many speeches, even going so far as to compare them to Fascists. Modern Conservatives essentially do not wish to "own" their villains. For some reason, this is primarily limited to the Right, as you don't see many mainstream Left-Wingers trying to pretend that the Soviets were "secretly" Right-Wingers (though I have seen a few fringe idiots trying to claim that about Stalin). (*Note: The reason this theory originates with economists is that they are viewing the entire ideology from an economic lens...completely avoiding the fact that nobody really thinks about the Nazis' economic policies as their main focus or anything...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would be interested if anything has been written about why this particular point is so popular among the right-wing fringe. A lot has been written about truthers, birthers, climate change skeptics, intelligent design and tin foil hats, but I have not found anything about this. TFD (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Night of the Long Knives
The Fifth paragraph second sentence reads "Hitler purged the remnants of the party’s more socially and economically radical factions in the Night of the Long Knives " Shouldn't it read "less socially and economically radical"?
67.184.203.16 (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, why do you think that? TFD (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Vituperational Names
"Anal Ointment" is a classic vituperational name used that means "nazi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.206.251 (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Title of article
Evidently this has come up in the past, but it seems that this article should be entitled "National Socialism", not "Nazism". The latter is a colloquial label for the more precise political ideology of National Socialism. Misplaced Pages's "COMMONNAME" policy has been brought up in the past, to which I respond, how much more common is "Nazism" than "National Socialism" in academia? And "Nazism" is a term that, for the majority of the NSDAP's history, was used primarily by Anglophone detractors; it seems that a neutral point of view is not achieved with the current title. Additionally, National Socialism extends beyond the Third Reich; it is has been a practiced ideology in much of the world. The whole selection of Misplaced Pages articles related to National Socialism (especially "neo-Nazism") reeks of POV and bias. I say that has a person of Polish Jewish ancestry. Serious historians and political scientists know that precision and non-bias are important when discussing historical occurrences. The crimes committed in WWII should not exempt National Socialist Germany from this guideline. Vrinan (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera(2001) The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania <http>http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gsKbQgAACAAJ&dq=nagy-Talavera&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zJ2UU5OaMYal8AHY-4GACA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAQ</http>
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- High-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- C-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Germany articles
- Top-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles