Talk:List of Nazi ideologues/Archive 2

Major revision
Please refrain from major revisions without some other indication that you still remain sane.84.203.77.29 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Move
The last cut and paste move lost the entire edit history. This is clearly a list, and a bad list. Why is Ezra Pound listed as a Nazi philosopher? Pound was a passionate supporter of Mussolini, not Hitler. The previous edit had Marc Chagall listed, and other degenerate artists. Lists requires --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the article to "List of people associated with Fascism", since the list includes people like "Karl Marx" and "Sigmund Freud" who the fascists saw as an enemy not a comrade. Now the title reflects the inclusions more closely. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the 3rd or 4th renaming, I think under the circumstances we should leave the name alone for a while and give it the name under which so many people voted to keep it, a little democracy is apt for this page! 84.203.2.215 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a democracy. All articles must comply with the Manual of Style, and other Wikipedia conventions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a democracy! News to me, what is for you then?  A fascist regime?  Of course it is a democracy, how do you think the conventions came into being and how do you think they change!  The convention for Afd procedure is that the name should not be changed if it was agreed to keep that name and not delete it or move it.  The afd outcome could have been a move, a rename, but it did not.  In any case we have had so many name changes now that it is obvious it is a problem and so should revert to that name agreed in a vote, since even the people who keep changing the name keep on trying out new ones and lack reasoning being the name change since they rarely discuss it.  84.203.2.215 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read: What Wikipedia is not. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Settling Time
Please read over the AFd comments that various editors made, they are valuable input on the general direction for this article and please assume that those who commented had read the article in good faith (as is clearly evidenced in their remarks). I'll leave space below on what can be gleaned therefrom and so can update and add to the numbered list below. It might also be an idea for those who lost the Afd or were not involved in the initial article to step back a little to see where this goes, their input here is of course very welcome for me at least. I'm leaving out quotes from those who wanted to delete the article and those who are already involved in editing (ie, CofMidnight, Shoess). From these comments and my own feeling I think it is best to leave the name for the time being and see how the article develops. If enough content appears to fill it out then we should not reject it. This is, by the way, a huge area and there are many various and paths through philosophic, religious and artistic thinkers that lead back through history on this. Giving names allows for a concrete examination rather than a digressive and subjective explanation of its philosophic history. Note I use here philosophy in its broadest sense, ie, as thinking that includes no definable barriers, so the inclusion of suppressed artists is only from the point of view of their philosophical dimension.
 * 1) "needs fleshing out from a list though." (comment from Totnesmartin)
 * 2) "I think it has potential", "an encyclopaedic topic, though, to be sure." (comment from Celarnor)
 * 3) "rewrite (and change the name to Nazi philosophers"(comment from csloat)
 * 1) "rewrite (and change the name to Nazi philosophers"(comment from csloat)
 * 84.203.2.215 (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The AFD is whether the "article topic" has merit, not the specific article contents. Article content is discussed on the article page. Those arguments are from a closed AFD discussion and are no longer relevant to the article as it stands now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A more apt title would have been, "list of Nazi philosphers, artists and writers suppressed by the Nazis, including a poet who admired Mussolini, and a book carried by Himmler. I have moved the article to "List of people associated with Fascism" to reflect the eclectic content beyond Nazism and beyond philosophers. I am still not sure why a book is included. Hitler had a large library, should we include his books here? There is a book out called Hitler's private library. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The afd approved the article topic given, and which was, "Nazi Philosophers," it deemed it worthy as a title and the commentators also talked about the content in helpful ways. This is obvious from the Afd comments and also from the fact that the "topic" as you referred to it, was only apparent to them from the name and the contents, there were comments on how to improve it and I don't see why you should think to have any more qualification to change it, in fact as to the substantial content regarding reference material Shoess provided almost all of it, I think we should defer to Shoess on the matter since he seems to have most expertise here. We may have to wait for the end of the holiday period for Shoess returns, so in the meantime it may be best not to change too much since with just the two of us it would just keep on reverting.   If the present title went to Afd it'd probably fail.
 * Wikipedia only defers to multiple, independent, reliable sources, not to individual editors.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two problems with the new title,
 * Your are making up a "guilt by association" list something others also complained about early in the articles creation. You are not distinguishing material associations from those that were merely distorted ones, Nietzsche cannot be listed along with Heidegger and Carl Schmitt.  This is an exploration not a black list.  You have also dropped Leo Strauss, an associate of Schmitt and someone who even as a Jew and after leaving Germany still maintained his belief in authoritarianism.  He also has an interesting relevance to today's world.  The "Nazi Philosophers" title doesn't explain if it is about those used by Nazism or associated with it directly, it also includes the suppressed ones more easily.  Perhaps a title of "Philosophers and Nazism" might work better.
 * We deliberately avoided the use of the word fascism, in earliar discussions fascism came up as a title option but the problem is that fascism as a word misses two things that are crucial in maintaining the philosophical integrity of the article, it had different forms in Italy and Spain with respect to the holocaust. Secondly, the word has become so broad in meaning that today it means authoritarianism of any kind.


 * Either fascism stays as a title, or the people, and the book that has nothing to do with Nazism have to go. Marc Chagall wasn't a "Nazi philosopher". Ezra Pound was not a "Nazi Philosopher". Yet both are "people associated with Fascism". This is the only title that reflects the eclectic jumble of people previously listed as "Nazi Philosopher". Each name would need a source that says that this person is a "Nazi philosophers". By including fascist sympathizers and artists repressed by fascism, it is not an article on "Nazi philosophers". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As to your other questions: Himmler's use of the Bhagavad Gita is relevant, someone wrote that book but we cannot put their name here. The use of this for ideological reasons is relevant since that is what the article is about, admittedly this kind of ideology is not the official one but when we eventually get the full story of those behind nazi paganism, the "new christianity", its (euro)barbarism and the Aryan/Indian connection it is fruitful to see how someone could apparently manage to resolve their feelings of guilt in murdering 6 million people by reading a religious text.  As to Hitler's library, though he was not well read like most Nazi leaders (and why neither Hitler nor Goebbels, dumb as they were regarding international intellectual respect, don't appear in the article), let's not include his entire library.  Any author from his library may be useful if we can track that author's ideological expression materially (eg, as in its being referenced in definite Nazi publications -- as in Hauer and Chamberlain or the substantiated quote on Himmler's use of the Gita).
 * Himmler carrying the Bhagavad Gita does not make it "Nazi Philosophy" anymore than another book that may have been in Hitler's Library, like the cowboy books he was fond of. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is a little rash of you to compare cowboy books with the Gita, since there is much philosophy in the Gita especially relevant is its notion of detachment. However, it is recognised as a work of philosophical importance and we know Himmler read it on an ongoing basis and at least requires follow-up as to how much Aryan/Indian philosophy links Nazi ideology and this non-Christian philosophical stream.  Hitler's library on the other hand is merely a collection, we don't even know if he read the books there, he was not very well read.  However, if as I said before you have more information about books in that library as to their material use by individuals or in ideology please let us know and thanks at least for giving us a reference to it that may become useful, pulp fiction aside.  84.203.2.215 (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having responded to each of your points I would appreciate if you would also enter into dialogue on these matters and answer to the points I have raised.
 * 84.203.2.215 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 84.203.2.215 (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source for the article
I have also removed those that have used Wikipedia as the source to determine that they were a "Nazi philosopher". Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If it were, I would edit the Marc Chagall article and add in that he was a "Nazi philosopher" since he appears in a list of Nazi philosophers in Wikipedia right here. Wikipedia uses primary and secondary sources, and rarely tertiary sources, and never itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, add a request for a reference (ie, as in, Nietzsche) after the names instead of removing theme. Then if after some time they remain unreferenced you can remove them, that is the convention here at wiki, and besides we already went through this with ChildofMidnight and he agreed to have some patience as we are working to give references.84.203.2.215 (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsourced and incorrect information can, and should be removed right away. If you have a source you can add the source and reinsert a name later. Bad and unsourced information can't wait for someone to fix it, if an editor thinks it is wrong, it is their duty to remove it. If an editor want's to see what a source is, but thinks it may be correct, they can add the "fact" tag. Maybe someone will, and maybe someone will not fix it, but bad has to go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case please let us know which names you removed and why you "think" they have no source, not many people have added names here and those that have obviously know something about this topic since they either had the bright idea to start this article and furnish all the names or they found most of the references. Names have not been added gratuitously.  Please have a little patience as this article is only getting started.  84.203.2.215 (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The burden is on the person restoring or adding data, not on the person deleting it. If you want to add someone find a source with a quote that calls them a "Nazi philosopher" or some other synonym. Remember "degenerate artists" don't belong on a list of Nazi philosophers, because they have nothing to do with Nazi philosophy. It is already covered in degenerate art. The time to add a name is when you have a reliable source, not add and pray someone will find a source in the future. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As to burdens upon people Richard, I'd say that our main task here now is to get a good article off the ground. Be polite and just add the  tag like most of us do when we find something that someone has not yet been able to feret out a page number for but know as good, and in good faith.  As to suppressed philosophers and art, I think you are feigning ignorance on its relevance herer at this stage or else you move too fast and don't read since its been said here twice or three times: the philosophy or art, theology suppressed by Nazism was based on some idea they had, in fact an ideology, what we call Nazi ideology, the suppressed offer possibly even more clues as to its source (and that is not just a Freudian idea!)  84.203.1.184 (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi philosophers
ok, lets compromise and keep the title and remove non philosophers and those that weren't associated with the Nazis, if they are just party members they appear in the "see also" link on Nazi party members. Lets stick to only those that were Nazis or philosopher's who's ideas were used by the Nazis, and only those that were philosophers or those who espoused some idea that was incorporated. Not have people persecuted by the Nazis that were artists and not have people that were supporters of fascism in general like Ezra Pound. If people want to read about "degenerate art" they can click on the see also link. People included must strictly match the title. Ideally there should be a source with a quote that says that this person's ideas were incorporated into Nazi ideology and not fascism in general. It is original research to add someone to the list unless a reliable source calls them a "Nazi Philosopher" or some synonym. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
This article has had two cut and paste moves over the past week, and each time the edit history was destroyed. As it stands now it is incorrectly capitalized. It was damaged when an editor moved it from "List of Nazi Philosophers" and once again damaged when it was moved from "List of people associated with Fascism". The article is a long list with minimal explanation of why each person is on the list and does not qualify as a prosified article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding Issues
Let me begin by wishing all a Happy New Year and what better way to start the New Year off than with a good old fashion passionate dialogue. As I see by the above discussions, there are several issues that we are in need of gathering consensus on. The first, which I view as the most important, is the correct/appropriate Title, as the list or article will develop off the Label of the piece. As there have been multiple views, my suggestion would be moving it back to its original title “Nazi Philosophers” for several reasons.

The first is that the AFD actually gathered consensus concerning the labeling. With its overwhelming Keep opinion, my thoughts are that the title was considered appropriate for the article, even with several names on the list, that some individuals would not consider Nazis.

Which leads me to my second point, who is considered a Nazi? As you can see by several discussions, concerning the label Nazi, the term is actual just an extension of fascism and has been defined as such by a vast majority of academics. In that, term is just extension of fascism, doesn’t it make sense to include individuals though not labeled as Nazis, but are considered fascist to be included on the list and by extension the individuals who laid the foundation for totalitarian nationalism. An example would be Nietzsche. I noticed in one of the above comments that it was stated “…Nietzsche cannot be listed with the likes of Heidegger”. However, I would argue the relationship of the two is the exact reasoning for the inclusion of Nietzsche.


 * The listing of Nietzsche along with Heidegger in the article is fine, the point being made was that you cannot list them equally side by side since one we have material connections to Nazi party 1920-1945 and the other was long dead and even had vehemently anti-Nazi ideas. This is just the need for good subheadings. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The third reason for the use of the term Nazi in the title is that realistically it is the most recognized term for fascism. In other words, killing two birds with one stone. I always  viewed Wikipedia as a source for the average individual to look to as a starting place to research a topic or gain additional information on a subject they find interesting. In that vain, especially in today’s culture I believe a person is more likely to look for a list of Nazis versus a search term for a list of fascists. In that the terms are interchangeable, my opinion leans more towards Nazi.

Finally, regarding the use of the term "Philosopher" in the title. I realize in recent years that the term Philosopher has evolved to be thought of exclusively as those individuals dealing primarily with the philosophy of mind, epistemology, and metaphysics. However, this is only a recent development, and is still heavily debated within academia. My thoughts were that the use of the term “Philosopher” would be considered in the more traditional vain, looking to the Renaissance era or even back to Plato. In that sense, Philosophers would include individuals be they teachers of the mind – politics – scientist - artists – poets or any individual who had a major influence on society in the genre of Galileo.

Now, to the area of the proper referencing of the names on the list, I am in 100% agreement that all names on the list should be independently referenced. However, that does not mean that a name cannot be added to the list without a reference at the time it is added. If all subjects contained within Wikipedia required proper referencing and in-line cites before posting, I can guarantee you that Wikipedia’s current content of articles would be cut in half, if that were the case. I believe a time-period of two to three weeks is a fair and reasonable timeframe for the subject to be researched and the proper references found and added. This can be easily accomplished by placing a dated tag next to any individual who still needs the proper sourcing. After, the agreed upon period, if that individual is not properly referenced they are removed.

Lastly, consensus versus democracy versus being bold. A comment was made that Wikipedia is not a democracy! That is absolutely right! It is not democracy, in the sense that it does not hold to the philosophy that one editor gets one vote and the majority of votes is the winner. Rather, Wikipedia holds to the policy of informed consensus. In reviewing the on-going discussions, I believe all parties are extremely informed individuals and have come to a consensus. In that a consensus has been reached, it should stand. By making changes after and against consensus is not being bold, it is going against policy. Just my thoughts and once again Happy New Year. ShoesssS Talk 18:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus doesn't trump Wikipedia rules of verifiability. Five people agreeing that 2 + 2 = 5 does not make it correct. Its best to find a reference that says that the ideas of Marc Chagall and Ezra Pound were used by the Nazis, rather then just arguing here for them to be kept on the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need a little humility here Richard, this is a new article and wiki does provide the keyword with the opportunity to add a date to it so that one can know how long it has been unreferenced.  The stricter verifiability is especially a legal measure on wiki so as living people or corporations cannot bring suit, I don't see how someone is going to be hurt by listing Schopenhauer, 200 years dead, when I and others I might hope that large tracts of his work was used by Rosenberg. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascist v. Nazi. They are not exact synonyms, and one cannot be used for the other anymore than say "Democrat" can be substituted for "Democracy". This is an encyclopedia, exact definitions are the name of the game. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - You are right and wrong. In fact Nazi could be classified as an acronym derived from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.  Many, and I would go so far to most of acedemics consisder Nazism as faschism.  But than again, I am not in the world  of acedemia.  I have to work for a living (Only joking):-). ShoesssS Talk 18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It also contains the word "sozialistische", but that doesn't mean that they were in favor of "socialism". It is a fine example of Orwellian Doublespeak. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add some kind of stipulation that might allow us to firm up what we mean here. Let us use the term Nazi as referring primarily to those meembers of the NSDAP party in Germany between 1920-1945.  If it is the case that such members promoted Nazism by the use of a philosopher or thinker and we have material evidence for this then this is usable here


 * Referencing data not a rule? Actually that is a prime rule of Wikipedia. The fact tag can be added if someone wants to see what the source was, for information that seems correct. Incorrect information must be removed right away. The burden is on the person posting the information to make sure they can convince a challenging editor that the information is correct. Perhaps if you used a fraction of your energy to properly source the list, instead of reversing changes and arguing for stasis here, the article would be better. That is what I am doing. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - We are not discussing incorrect information, we are talking about differences of opinion on who should be included on the list. If an individual can make a reasonable argument and can reference the added subject to fascism, they should be included.  About properly referencing the list, I believe you would have found that a vast majority of the list was referenced by me.  However, your constant renaming of the list, which I have not participated in, has lost that history.  Do not throw stones when living in a glass house. :-). ShoesssS Talk 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My renaming followed Wikipedia procedures and rules and preserved the edit history. Look at the current edit history and you can see who moved it by cut and paste. I have agreed to keep "Nazi philosophers" and trim out people not relevant to the Nazi ideology such as those associated with Italian Fascism, and artists persecuted by the Nazis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - However, Italian Fascism goes hand and hand with Nazism, which everyone agrees with. How do you not tie the two together? ShoesssS Talk 19:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They are related but not identical. I opted to move the article to a title including fascism, the broader category. That was reversed back to Nazi, so the more narrow topic is the choice. The topics: Communism and communism and communalism are related but not identical. Mussolini was not a Nazi, and his fascist philosophy did not include concepts of a master race, eugenics and ethnic cleansing. If you think they are synonyms add a merge tag to the two articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are related and that is enough to allow inclusion, with statements or appropriate subheadings to make clear what that relation was. Just as we include references
 * They are related and that is enough to allow inclusion, with statements or appropriate subheadings to make clear what that relation was. Just as we include references

to 19th century scientists and philosophers that are relevant but make clear that they were not themselves Nazis. Hence the initially subheadings divided the page into those who were members and those who were not but were merely used by them for propaganda or ideology. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

These are not new issues. While the AfD discussion was a clear "keep" based on the topic being notable, several editors noted the need for tight inclusion criteria and the maintenance of a well sourced article. The name has to reflect the article's content and the article content has to reflect the name. The sources also need to be consistent with the assertion implied by including someone in a "Nazi philosopher" article. It's not appropriate to have artists listed in a Nazi philosophers article. Marc Chagall (crossed out because he was no longer in article, although also clearly not a nazi) Francis Galton was neither a nazi or a philosopher. I understand your interest in this subject area and I'm sympathetic to the desire for broad inclusion. But the guidelines and standards have to be followed. The time is now to resolve this. I tried "Nazi philosophers and ideologues" as a title. Richard tried another title that was more inclusive. What about "contributors to nazi philosophy"? Explanations cannot resolve the problems that have been discussed now for some time. A solution needs to be found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the name has been changed back to "nazi" lets cut out the non Nazi people that are associated with Italian fascism. I removed Ezra Pound, and the artists that were persecuted. They were associated with fascism, but are not Nazi philosophers. My understanding is the list is now people who had ideas that were incorporated into the Nazi philosophy, and they didn't need to be Nazi party members, or contemporaries of the Nazi regime. I think Galton would be correct under this interpretation since eugenics was his idea, and that idea was a cornerstone of the Nazi philosophy. Do you think I am interpreting this correctly? The name has to change for the article to a lower "p" in philosopher. As it stands now as "Nazi Philosopher", in the title case you would have to be "Philosopher working for the Nazis". Its like the diference between Communism and communism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am adding a sentence or two to each name where I can find a connection to Nazi Philosophy, and a reference that makes the association. Many of the references used in the article don't provide and actual quote, and only point me to a book or an offline article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am finding that the references I can find don't actually support the use of "Nazi Philosopher". I am keeping the names where the Wikipedia article on that person tends to support inclusion, but I am deleting the references that only list the person as a Nazi party member or as a Nazi allied politician in Belgium or Austria. Their writings, ideas, or speeches have to have been incorporated into Nazi philosophy. Being a part of the Nazi machinery isn't a reason to include. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A good example is Wagner, where I provide an actual quote that supports inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can not count anyone who was not specifically a nazi himiself, or as a minimum, himself published works specifically approving of the Nazis, as a "Nazi philosopher". That's not what the plain english means. If you want to do an article or list on those whose works were subsequently used to a greater or lesser extent by the Nazis, or by the actual Nazi philosophers, or whose works were considered in some ay a forerunner to their ideas, you need a much more general title. Wagner was not a Nazi; whether he would have been if he had lived during the period is another matter--it's speculative, but possible. I doubt very much that Friedrich Nietzsche would. It's like calling Hegel a Communist. As for Galton, eugenics is not the same as Nazism. You'll need a much more general term. DGG (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes this is again the title issue, some read it strictly as a phrase "Nazi philosopher" with Nazi as an adjective modifying the noun. I can again only suggest that titles are not always 1-to-1 to their content, latitude is required but again perhaps the title "Nazism and Philosophers" would work better for you. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My interpretation based on the lede is that it includes people who's ideas were incorporated into Nazi philosophy, not officially designated "Nazi Philosophers" hired in Germany in the Nazi era. If that were so the list would be very small. I think the confusion comes from the capitalized "p" in the tile. The concepts that became Nazi philosophy originated elsewhere in the Eugenics movement, Social Darwinism, and the anti-semitic writings of others. These coalesced into what we now know of as "Nazi philosophy". I think that is what the creator of the article is trying to capture. I don't think you would need to be a capitalist-businessman to be a philosopher of "Capitalist philosophy" or be a Christian to have contributed to "Christian philosophy". By that definition Jesus couldn't be a Christian philosopher since christian identity separate from Judaism didn't occur till long after his death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources should dictate the content. I think part of the article has been built from a fair amount of original research and there has been some defensiveness since this article was put to AfD. We need to decide what the article is going to be about (we can also make a separate article if other subjects not included are and notable and of interest) and title it appropriately. Then content should be added (or removed) based on reliable sources.  A philosopher is a philosopher, so unless there are sources talking about artists or others as philosophers, I don't see how they can be included. Same with the term nazi. Someone is, or isn't based on reliable sources. That's why I've recommended finding a broader title for what has become a much broader list article than "Nazi philosophers". ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My interpretation based on the lede is that it includes people who's ideas were incorporated into Nazi philosophy, not officially designated "Nazi Philosophers" hired in Germany in the Nazi era. If that were so the list would be very small. I think the confusion comes from the capitalized "p" in the tile. The concepts that became Nazi philosophy originated elsewhere in the Eugenics movement, Social Darwinism, and the anti-semitic writings of others. These coalesced into what we now know of as "Nazi philosophy". I think that is what the creator of the article is trying to capture. I don't think you would need to be a capitalist-businessman to be a philosopher of "Capitalist philosophy" or be a Christian to have contributed to "Christian philosophy". By that definition Jesus couldn't be a Christian philosopher since christian identity separate from Judaism didn't occur till long after his death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources should dictate the content. I think part of the article has been built from a fair amount of original research and there has been some defensiveness since this article was put to AfD. We need to decide what the article is going to be about (we can also make a separate article if other subjects not included are and notable and of interest) and title it appropriately. Then content should be added (or removed) based on reliable sources.  A philosopher is a philosopher, so unless there are sources talking about artists or others as philosophers, I don't see how they can be included. Same with the term nazi. Someone is, or isn't based on reliable sources. That's why I've recommended finding a broader title for what has become a much broader list article than "Nazi philosophers". ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible article titles

 * Nazi philosophers (to include only reliably sourced nazi philosophers)
 * Nazi philosophers and ideologues (broadens it out a bit)
 * Contributors to Nazi ideology (might work?) and Contributors to fascist ideology (two articles)
 * Nazi ideologues (simple, reasonably broad)
 * I prefer this one. "Nazi philosophers" anywhere in the tile confuses people into thinking they are professional philosophers accredited by the Nazi party. See DGG's comments above, where he thought just that, and I thought that when I first clicked the link in the AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think this one is the most accurate and descriptive of the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

-- I've added some of the names we've discussed. Let's add and comment on them. We can cross out the ones that don't work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) What articles are there already on some of these topics? Are we reinventing the wheel? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nazi ideology (More of an article title than a list title, the persons in this article can be discussed in the article.)
 * OK, I preach consensus, it is now time to bow to consensus. I would like to include individuals that not only furthered the thinking of that time, but who also laid the foundation to Fascism, be it called Nazism – Italian Fascism or National Totalitarianism.  Those individuals should include influential Philosophers – Intellectuals – Artists (be it written word – spoken – architecture) – Economics – Sciences – Law – Politicians - etc.  My concern is that if we generalize the list to a title to something like Influential Totalitarianism Individuals we have search criteria that makes the list useless, as who is going to search under that term.  If we narrow the list to just Nazis, as Richard pointed out, it is an extremely small list and only centers on a specific region when in actuality the whole world was involved.  Either way it goes, I’ll start sourcing, again  tomorrow:-) .  ShoesssS Talk 21:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to include fascist philosophy you have to rethink the title again. Since two others insist on Nazi only, and have moved the article at least twice, I thing just Nazi ideologues be included. A separate article for Italian fascism can be created. I still see no room for Marc Chagall and Sigmund Freud on the list. If you are going to add a reference, use the quote function, so all can see what is quoted in a book or article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no insistence on the title being "Nazi Philosophers" but it was moved back primarily for the reason that there was just a successful Afd and suddenly two editors on here each day picked a new name for it and moved it without discussion. This you might think would back me into supporting the title "Nazi Philosophers" but no, I'm not wedded to it, if consensus feels that this might exclude a broader based article then I'd go with it.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.1.184 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the references. In fact I have been in agreement with you on this from the beginning.  I'll use quotes when the complete book is not available on line.  If it is available, I believe it is better to link to the book and let the individual review all that is said rather than a specific quote taken, which can be used out of context.  ShoesssS Talk 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the references. In fact I have been in agreement with you on this from the beginning.  I'll use quotes when the complete book is not available on line.  If it is available, I believe it is better to link to the book and let the individual review all that is said rather than a specific quote taken, which can be used out of context.  ShoesssS Talk 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody wants to given a homework assignement to read an entire book or an entire article just to see if a reference is correct. If the source is online, link to the exact page, and quote the exact passage that links the person to Nazi philosophy or Nazi ideology. My instinct is to delete a reference that can't find a sentence or two to justify its existence. Its very easy to say "Its in the Bible, go read it and it will prove I am right and you are wrong." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We can add reasonable redirects and set up links from other articles once we settle on a reasonable title. Hos is this subject titled by scholars and the media? Do you still want it to be a list or more of an article? For example we could make this a Nazi philosophers article with the short list and add the broader subject to a see also. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I first came across this at AFD I considered this as just a list an individual could use for research purposes. Several editors have been suggesting that it move more towards an article.  I believe when we finally decide on the labeling of the piece that will decide whether it stays as just a list or evolves into an article. Redirects sounds reasonable. ShoesssS Talk 12:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See here: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nazi philosophy" 23,000 Ghits
 * "Nazi ideology" 192,000 Ghits


 * There is an existing articles on Nazism. What about the simple title of Nazi ideologues? Nazi philosophers can be redirected there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability of endorsement by Carl Jung
I have an issue to raise regarding the source given to include Carl Jung is this list. This is original research: the sourced used is a primary source, and the citations used are contradictory. Yes, some words of admiration for the German Faith Movement, but only as part of a scathing indictment of the mass psychology of the Fuhrer and the Nazi movement. So, the same sources tells us that Carl Jung shouldn't be here. I have seen this very section used to prove that Jung was anti-nazi. In fact, the article on Carl Jung here verifies as much.

This is the problem with original research based on primary sources: unless we can find verifiability it should be taken out. In fact, policy requires we do so.

And this is a problem with these types of lists: you cannot base them on subjective criteria, in the knowledge of the editor, but on objective criteria, which is verifiability of sources. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case you can add a stipulation about the fact that he can be considered a supported on Nazism and against it. He supported the paganist aspects but not some other parts. The notion of ancient archetype has a connection to Nazi Occultism and race at the same time. This is not a black list, Nazism came out of a well developed "cultural" Europe, it of course has connections to all manner of areas of culture many of which could claim to have nothing to do with the war-like destruction that went on, we are trying to find out here also how innocent ideas were conscribed into Nazi ideology. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Likewise If you have an opportunity see what Geoffrey Cocks says about Jung and the Nazis, Cocks notes how the "disturbing ambiguities" of Jung's thought were welcomed by the Nazis. He shows how Jung accepted traditional negative stereotypes about Jews, claiming a distinction between able German psychoanalysts (himself) and suspect Jewish analysts (Freud). His ideas about collective memories and national cultures were also congenial to Nazi racial claptrap about the "Aryan Volkish soul." In fact, Cocks has quoted Jung's statement of 1933 that Adolf Hitler "is the incarnation of the Volkseele.". Thanks ShoesssS Talk 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguments here don't count for saving him on the page. If you have a reference and a quote you have to add it to the article, or he gets deleted. By the end of next week, all unreferenced or challenged individuals on the list will be removed, and they can be added back with a firm reference when someone does the work to add it to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh that is not an argument, rather a reference :-). ShoesssS Talk 18:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arguments are the main thing that counts here, that is what the talk page is for! And a good argument too, thank you Shoess for this information. We are lucky that someone at has the wherewithal to look into these people before removing them from the list. Richard, I think a week is reasonable from your point of view, however, considering that these are mostly dead people there is no dire need to save their reputation --their theories speak from themselves-- then we will allow a month or two's leaway in general, unless it is an obvious mistake or someone needs more time for some given reason. I think it is better to allow for an expansion of the list initially to ensure we gather enough and then later to begin closer scrutiny. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the general academic consensus that Jung (in fact anyone in this list, but lets stick to this one) was a supporter and ideologue of the Nazi Party or at least is there any general, non-fringe, debate around this? I haven't found it, but I am not an expert. However, to use one example, there is plenty of verifiable debate and consensus on Nietzsche as a clear and marked ideological influence on the Nazi movement, even if he predated the movement (and even the pre-movement) by decades. Yeas, there have been questionable things by Jung, and yes Jung's views on Volkische etc were what you would call today "suspect", but it seems no serious mainstream reliable source would include him in a list like this list. A fellow traveler? Perhaps. An ideologue? Prove it.--Cerejota (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Title options preferences please
Firstly let us see what are the total options for a new title, this seems like a reasonable order of names that have cropped up so far, can add more to end of list later:

I think the headings fall into a confusing array of meanings. Firstly the main title "Nazi Philosophers" was simple in order not be too specific and allow for a broad article that could be a simple list or allow development into a fuller article. However, others interpret the title as strictly defining what should be in the article. The second confusion is between the direction of the article as a fuller article, or a list and within that as a tight list of those connected only with Nazism or broader as those who also include those one or two generations prior to Nazism and therefore also intellectuals from other countries that were fascist/nazi in race/ideological outlook. So perhaps it is time to put it to vote on the above list and also perhaps to say what kind og article we need, ie, broad or tight, a plain list with captions or open for fuller development, with photos of the individuals, paragraphs on them etc. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Nazi Philosophers
 * 2) Nazi philosophers (note lower case p)
 * 3) Nazi Philosophers and Ideologues
 * 4) Fascist Philosophers
 * 5) List of Nazi philosophers
 * 6) List of People Associated with Fasicsm
 * 7) Nazi ideologues
 * 8) Philosophers and Nazism
 * 9) Intellectuals and Nazism

Renamed yet again
Now we are into the 10th renaming (?), after having tried out all the "list of" names it appears we've gone back to a name with ideologues in it.


 * 1) Ideologue emphasises the aspect of belonging to the Nazi party, however, from the outset this page also attempts to include, if not even more so, those precursors and figures that formed the intellectual climate of Nazism and therefore of fascism. A great many of whom were not even alive when Nazism came along.  Also this titles tends to exclude our important sections on those who were suppressed by Nazism.  In fact suppression is of course one of the main tools of Nazi Germany, as of any state that is authoritarian, so it is vital to be able see what got suppressed and their reason for the suppression.  Admittedly going on the title "Nazi Philosophers" does not explicitly include the suppressed neither, but it does allow them more so, since it could mean, by implied ellipsis "philosophers (suppressed by the) Nazis"

Again the name should not be moved except where there is some consensus, it disturbs edits and no one knows day to day what the page name is. I don't need to point out the irony on this page of just going off and making these moves without consulting anyone or even stating an intention to move it. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Nor could one call Nietzsche, and many others, "ideologues," ideologue gives the impression of someone just following along within a given system of thought, we are not trying to look to those people so much as look toward the originators of this "system" of thought. But Nazi ideology is not really an ideology, it is quite a piece-meal affair, a rag bag of oddities that could not be called an "ology" at all.


 * There is a consensus to change the name, a third opinion confirmed the need to do so (as in fact did a fourth of sorts). You and Shoessss are welcome to suggest an alternative. I think philosophers fit nicely (though imperfectly) under the definition of ideologue, as they certainly advocate an ideology. This title also broadens the article out to other thinkers and ideological advocates who may not be philosophers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus on the name change was clear to me, two votes for the new name, none for any alternative. "Nazi Philosophers" was confusing, see what DGG wrote above. The capitalized "P" makes people think there is a group officially called "Nazi Philospher" like "Poet Laureate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the consensus is that the name is not right, but there was no consensus that it should be Nazi Ideologues. It is Richard and CoM who seem to wish, now and then, for 'ideologue' in the title.  As to the one person, DGG, he only suggested that we use a much more general name than "Nazi philosophers," easier said than done, since, as I have pointed out, the term 'ideology' is in fact much more restricting.  It excludes philosophers since it refers to a system of ideas that is already there and to which the ideologue attaches herself.  Not only is the the word 'idea' and the suffix, '-ology' inapprorpriate to Nazism but the word is divided into three meanings that do not fit: roughly, it is firstly a Marxist term for false notions about nature/history, secondly it means a system of ideas, and thirdly, it means an uncritical belief in some "system" (such as liberal ideology or neocon ideology, etc.).  In addition its journalistic tone is not good for an encyclopedia.  Its derogatory sense is also limiting since it straight away childishly indicates a "list of baddies," DGG and others also warned against this attempt at a "black list" 84.203.1.184 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus was reached and the article moved to that title. You moving the article to what you please, is not consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Both you, and, to a lesser extent, CoM, have moved the article several times, it was only moved back to the original title except in this last case. There was no consensus for the title ("Ideologues") that you gave it, only you and CoM wanted that title, Shoess, DGG, all the other Afd commentators and all the other commentators and contributors to the article, did not enter consensus on "Ideologues."  Any title will be wrong, the current one needs a statement in the opening paragraph that it doesn't include intellectuals who simply opposed Nazi ideology with some other ideology.  Again I'm ok if you move it back to the original title, I do not necessarily agree with the current "Intellectuals and Nazism.", another option is "Nazi Intellectuals and suppressed intellectuals," for correctness, but should the title not also be aesthetic, this is long-winded. Or do we open a new subsection and include a limited list of "Philosophers who opposed Nazism," that is someone who opposed it through their expertise & work and not just as a part-time journalist who happened to be an intellectual in a totally different area.  84.203.1.184 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When editors move articles, they should make some effort to adjust links to avoid double-redirects and the like. I have just cleaned up some redirects resulting from the above move-fest.  Please obtain a solid consensus for any further moves to avoid a worse tangle.  The current title (Intellectuals and Nazism) seems as good as any for now, and so seems a satisfactory resting-place. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Suppressed Artists and Philosophers
The suppressed artists list is being constantly suppressed by an editor on here, let me give a concrete example, Hemingway's books were burned by the Nazis, you should be able to find his name on our list since it indicates the Nazi ideological hatred of his work. Now it is not possible to find this piece of information on the Nazi Burnings article nor on the article on Hemingway himself. Someone suggests adding a "censored by the Nazis" page, yet there is no reason to divide this article since we have good headings and categories for it and the Afd to which we must refer as some basis for why this article has not been deleted, in other words exists at all, the afd sanctioned this and also the original title. It would required another large vote of the dozen or so who took time out to vote on it to change this.84.203.1.184 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea of burning books and the person who thought of it belongs, as part of the ideology. Individual authors of burned books do not belong, any more than individual books in Hitler's library may or may not have contributed to Nazi ideology. The proof is in the references. Find a reliable source that says that Hemingway somehow contributed to Nazi ideology and he can stay. As I said earlier you can't have a list of your favorite colors, then sneak in a list of your favorite Pokemon characters. They are two different animals. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Making clear who was and wasn't actually a Nazi
I think it needs to be made clear when someone's ideology was co-opted or used, but the person wasn't themselves a Nazi. Can we make a special section for these people? Francis Galton is one example. Also, I think having Degenerate art a see also is a bit weird. What does that have to do with Nazi thinkers? Nazism, if it's not mentioned in the article would be a good see also, and maybe Scientific racism and Nazi Eugenics. Also, it's highly controversial, but Darwin's ideas were influential.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Degenerate art was a compromise as a way of removing the artists names who were in the article.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * People who were Nazi party members are already tagged with a short sentence. Would you prefer a different way of grouping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there's still the word Nazi in the title. In addition to saying who is a nazi, at least we can designate who wasn't maybe? If it breaks up the groupins too much to separate them?  The other thought I had was that it might be nice to have a section on the debunkers of Nazi ideology. Jesse Owens and Albert Einstein come to mind, and I'm sure there are many others who aren't just examples but directly disputed the idealogical underpinnings. Who are the most prominent refuters of eugenics and social darwinism etc? As far as degenerate art I don't see that it has anything to with this topic, but I will see if someone else can make a good case that it does. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with ChildofMidnight that we need a clear divisions, subheading or the like for grouping those who were not members. We can at least stand over the fact of membership and allow the others a looser association.  I'm sure you will find thousands of people in both U.S., Britain and Russia debunking Nazism but interesting would be to see earliar (than the war that is) debunkers as you suggest, Nietzsche could also be included there in his debunking of anti-semitism and criticism of the pan-Germanic notion.
 * As to Artists, we must not forget the intellectual role of artists at this critical junction in the 20th century, art was a hugely powerful intellectual force back then and you can see sometimes much more clearly the way ideology works when you look to the trouble they went to to suppress some fairly innocent looking stuff, the question arises, what sort of mind would get irate and bilious about a picture of a Vase, or a theory about the unconscious to organise nationwide repressions, was it bitter envy like the rage against sexual promiscuity in some places or was it merely conservative but frightened for some reason.84.203.1.184 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As to Artists, we must not forget the intellectual role of artists at this critical junction in the 20th century, art was a hugely powerful intellectual force back then and you can see sometimes much more clearly the way ideology works when you look to the trouble they went to to suppress some fairly innocent looking stuff, the question arises, what sort of mind would get irate and bilious about a picture of a Vase, or a theory about the unconscious to organise nationwide repressions, was it bitter envy like the rage against sexual promiscuity in some places or was it merely conservative but frightened for some reason.84.203.1.184 (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence that says they were a party member if fine. Grouping into "party members" serves no purpose, and labeling an American as not a party member, or someone that lived 100 years earlier is just redundant. There already is a list called List of Nazi Party leaders and officials.


 * Artists are nice people, but if they didn't contribute to the Nazi ideology, they don't belong. There is an article on Censorship in Nazi Germany, and that where people whose ideas were suppressed belong. I am mot sure that Jesse Owens and Albert Einstein contributed to Nazi ideology by holding opposing ideas. If you want to have an article on people who weren't Nazis, or had ideas opposed to Nazism, that is a separate list that would include most everyone in the Allied Command, every Communist, and every leader in an allied government. There is already an article on the resistance movement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We need not label the division in the way you suggest (or as I had suggested previously) it may be simply one group of philosophers listed as the main ones and then a small subheading (named appropriately) which contains those who were not directly involved or were completely misappropriated.
 * I don't see why you think Artists are nice people! Anyhow, my problem with this now is that I'm not sure if you read the point now made a few times regarding the importance of suppression in showing up an ideology.  Do you understand this or not?  We try to show the construction of Nazi ideology, its negative, ie, that which is destroyed, removed etc. and it is equally important in the construction of an ideology.  Art often has a philosophical and intellectual side, its furtive suppression is often a clearer demonstration of an ideology than an affirmation.  Those who held opposing ideas to Nazism ie, over a billion people, were not necessarily relevant in showing up Nazi ideology, they were more likely to show Liberal or Communist ideology.  When the Iraq war was proposed at the UN by Powell in news conferences, in the background was Picasso's Guernica, but it was covered with a blanket, and its being covered was "purposely"chosen as a backdrop.  There are news conferences there very often and it was covered only for this preamble period. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you think Artists are nice people! Anyhow, my problem with this now is that I'm not sure if you read the point now made a few times regarding the importance of suppression in showing up an ideology.  Do you understand this or not?  We try to show the construction of Nazi ideology, its negative, ie, that which is destroyed, removed etc. and it is equally important in the construction of an ideology.  Art often has a philosophical and intellectual side, its furtive suppression is often a clearer demonstration of an ideology than an affirmation.  Those who held opposing ideas to Nazism ie, over a billion people, were not necessarily relevant in showing up Nazi ideology, they were more likely to show Liberal or Communist ideology.  When the Iraq war was proposed at the UN by Powell in news conferences, in the background was Picasso's Guernica, but it was covered with a blanket, and its being covered was "purposely"chosen as a backdrop.  There are news conferences there very often and it was covered only for this preamble period. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

unlimited scope of list
Essentially every public intellectual in the European culture zone during the period of 1930 to 1945 was connected in some way with nazism, most of them as opponents. (If there were any indifferent, this very indifference tended to be read politically at the time and commented on.) this was not the sort of subject that could be avoided. In an earlier period, anyone contributing to the r social sciences ever was in some way a forerunner of either Nazi or anti-Nazi thought. One could argue the same for anyone ever connected with human biology or evolution. I therefore do not see the point of trying a general list. There was a point in the original intent--those philosophers and perhaps other intellectuals people who in their actual lifetime deliberately associated themselves with the Nazi party--this is a specific group, and worthy of some notice. But when it gets as far out as some of the recent additions, I begin to wonder about the clarity of purpose. DGG (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point DGG, what happens with a too general list is that it lacks depth. As to including anti-Nazis that weren't suppressed, a new article or section perhaps called "intellectuals against Nazism." The original intention was to find material links between Nazism and certain philosophers etc.., the title "philosophers" was intended to ensure it wasn't a sprawling list.  In classifying "intellectual", I had also attempted to ensure that we included those who were not merely local intellects but were prominent internationally.  However, we can take your substantial point on board.  Almost all, as you suggest, were involved, most especially in the war effort itself, however, the majority of these were involved as their "private" political opinion/vote, or they joined practical efforts, fighting, etc..
 * Those who went with the prevalent notion of the time of value-neutral science, that is, that the content is non-political, they were not neutral vote-wise and were either for or against Nazism and may even have published political articles, that is, often articles outside of their field of expertise or they may have merely fled Nazi Germany, these are acts of private individuals and are not relevant to this page. So the vast majority of people were involved in the war somehow but between 1920 and 1945 only few were involved explicitly in the production & formation of Nazi ideology.  Those that were doing this often used a number, but not that many, of prior philosophers, economists, etc.  Again, it is not a black-list but an exploration of concrete connections to Nazi ideology and its barbaric culture. Einstein, for example, would not be included here unless his scientific work was suppressed by the Nazis.  As to Einstein's political statements on Nazism, his readings in politics were not at the level of expertise to merit inclusion here.  So do not expect a new subheading for Physicists, unless there was some eg, Nazi cosmology/physics that differed from the rest.  84.203.1.184 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who went with the prevalent notion of the time of value-neutral science, that is, that the content is non-political, they were not neutral vote-wise and were either for or against Nazism and may even have published political articles, that is, often articles outside of their field of expertise or they may have merely fled Nazi Germany, these are acts of private individuals and are not relevant to this page. So the vast majority of people were involved in the war somehow but between 1920 and 1945 only few were involved explicitly in the production & formation of Nazi ideology.  Those that were doing this often used a number, but not that many, of prior philosophers, economists, etc.  Again, it is not a black-list but an exploration of concrete connections to Nazi ideology and its barbaric culture. Einstein, for example, would not be included here unless his scientific work was suppressed by the Nazis.  As to Einstein's political statements on Nazism, his readings in politics were not at the level of expertise to merit inclusion here.  So do not expect a new subheading for Physicists, unless there was some eg, Nazi cosmology/physics that differed from the rest.  84.203.1.184 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those who went with the prevalent notion of the time of value-neutral science, that is, that the content is non-political, they were not neutral vote-wise and were either for or against Nazism and may even have published political articles, that is, often articles outside of their field of expertise or they may have merely fled Nazi Germany, these are acts of private individuals and are not relevant to this page. So the vast majority of people were involved in the war somehow but between 1920 and 1945 only few were involved explicitly in the production & formation of Nazi ideology.  Those that were doing this often used a number, but not that many, of prior philosophers, economists, etc.  Again, it is not a black-list but an exploration of concrete connections to Nazi ideology and its barbaric culture. Einstein, for example, would not be included here unless his scientific work was suppressed by the Nazis.  As to Einstein's political statements on Nazism, his readings in politics were not at the level of expertise to merit inclusion here.  So do not expect a new subheading for Physicists, unless there was some eg, Nazi cosmology/physics that differed from the rest.  84.203.1.184 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already trimmed down the list to about 1/3 of its original size. I would show you the original but it was damaged in the cut and paste moves one of the other editors made to get around the consensus for the title change. The original list was just hundreds of names and no context. The see also section was another list of 50 names with no context. The original list also had links to a book that Himmler carried with him. Remember the current name is not the one chosen by consensus, it comes from a cut and paste move to get around consensus. The consensus title was "List of Nazi Ideologues", and the lede gives strict inclusion criteria.


 * Point of information: There was no consensus on that name, only two editors seemed to support it compared to a dozen or so commentators here and in the Afd. I say "seemed" because I can't explicitly say that ChildofMidnight wanted that precise name. As to Himmler's heavy use of the Gita, already discussed on this talk page and the conclusion was that the author(s) of the Gita are an indirect link.  84.203.70.55 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Swastika causes offence
I propose to remove the swastika and the touched-up photo of Hitler. The image is illegal in a number of countries. For historical purposes it may be ok for some in regard to the history of icons etc, but today it is a neo-nazi symbol of offence to many and especially to Jewish people and survivors. 84.203.1.184 (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I think there are better way to illustrate the article, and it seems to give the article and its contents almost a promotional feel. Given the ideologies and symbolisms involved, I think discretions is wise, and wouldn't censor any worthwhile information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not a good idea. It is the Nazi navigation box for Nazi articles. We don't censor Wikipedia, and we don't follow German laws here in the USA. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's part of the navigation box I guess we have to live with it? I would be okay with removing it because it doesn't particularly illustrate this article or add anything to the content. This is an article on the ideologues and philosophers not the flag or the symbolism. So I don't see it as censorship. Since it's not directly relevant I still say it's a bit almost promotional. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would any article in the Nazi series not have the Nazi navbox? You don't pick one out of a series and delete the Nazi symbol because it is an article you specifically worked on. If it was an article on fascism it would have the fascist navbox. Wikipedia isn't censored, if someone doesn't want to see a swastika, they probably shouldn't be reading articles on Nazi philosophy. If any topic is going to cause a reader undue distress, its best for that reader to avoid it, not to censor it for all readers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not arguing the point here is that it causes offence, as to other articles on Nazism that is a matter for the editors there, censoring censors and exterminators is not a problem for me. It is offensive and that is it, if a survivors wished to trace such intellectuals and see the article the first thing on opening the article he/she would be faced with is a swastika and some rather bland "committee" text (as opening paragraphs often are on wiki).  The very last thing we should have on this page is a swastika, but at least you removed your rather flattering, touched-up photo of Hitler deep in "thought." The swastika is perhaps one of the most offensive images in the Western world, in fact I can't think of one that is more offensive even the Soviet or Maoist flags are not quite as low somehow.
 * Wikipedia is not subject to German laws outside of Germany I agree but the matter of this article is somehow located within that realm and the law was not made there by accident but by reason of its offence as a reminder of their losses by the oppressor to any of Jews, gypsies, the disabled/aged or homosexuals.
 * Why should you wish to prevent a holocaust survivor from reading this article?
 * 84.203.1.184 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should you wish to prevent a holocaust survivor from reading this article?
 * 84.203.1.184 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't censored. If any topic is going to cause a reader undue distress, its best for that reader to avoid it, not to censor it for all readers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a very general statement on censorship that has little to do with editorial appropriateness of this particle article. I think allowing survivors to read this page is a priority of respect, you can say they need not go to the page but they will not know that the page contains a swastika until they visit it and when they find out, they will surely not revisit the article.  Nor would many others who know this.  Flags are not just neutral images, they are flown usually as a mark of respect toward that which the flag represents, hence the reason why burning a flag is seen as a form of protest or disrespect.  84.203.1.184 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From the most general 2nd-level argument against censorship, now to a lame accusation of belonging to the occult, when it is obvious that this flag is offensive to any holocaust survivor, that is called understanding and has little to do with the occult unless you consider human understand as occult. Nor am I suddenly "now using" this argument as you suggest, I have used it from the outset, it's offensive, it goes. This is not censorship, nor occult but the considered opinion of more editors than that of the only one who doesn't think it offensive and also tried to add a touched-up photo of Hitler to the page! 84.203.70.55 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are now using crystalballing, that is another frowned upon practice at Wikipedia. You don't have the ability to predict human behavior or the future. Just stick to Wikipedia policy. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't follow the laws of Germany or the laws of Ireland. The servers are in the US, and follow US laws. We also follow the conventions for articles as written in the Manual of Style and follow precedents set by other articles in a series. Crystalballing, see, is not an occult term, it is official Wikipedia policy about predicting future events. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)