Talk:National Socialism (disambiguation)

Guidelines
This disambiguation page is based on an old version of the National Socialism article which was used just for disambiguation. That article gradually turned into a nasty POV Fork of Nazism. I want us all to resist the temptation to do the same thing with this article. Lets keep is as a pure disambiguation page. Its purpose is just to help people find all the things called "National Socialism" or "National Socialist" which have articles in Wikipedia. The list can be added to but it needs to remain formatted as a clean list without commentary or any other comment; No paragraphs, no references, just list items and the links to the separate lists of parties and movements. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You should make a note of this in a "noinclude" Wiki note (it can only be seen by editors when editing) that says for users to only add to this as a list and to not add commentary or paragraphs to it. I support your proposal and I support adding the noinclude note I have recommended here.--R-41 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * this page has been split into 3 different, rather confusing pages:


 * national socialism, which only means nazi in wp, despite most here consider nazi not socialist?
 * National Socialist Movement, i think it already movement-ed into an actual party?
 * national socialist party, do we really need 2 additional disam of a disambig? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (moved National Socialist Party (disambiguation) to National Socialist Party: "(disambiguation)" is superfluous; see Malplaced disambiguation pages.)
 * not such thing as the national socialist movemen, a term not found in RS, nor discussed on it's own talk page. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We already have disambiguation pages for NSP and NSM. I can sort of see why this fragmentation might be considered undesirable but, while we have those, incomplete duplication is even more undesirable. It is far better to merely link them. If anybody wants to nominate them for merging here then that might be worth considering but I have reverted to the consensus version for now,
 * Also, I think we need to be very careful to avoid allowing the gradual reintroduction of original research here (which has wrecked this disambiguation page in the past). I see the inclusion of "Socialism in One Country" and "State socialism" as falling into this category. These are not described as "national socialism", and are not even unambiguously related to National Socialism, hence they do not belong in a disambiguation page for the term "national socialism". --DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * agree undesirable fragmentation.  Since you did the revert, perhaps you would be willing to do the merge, if not perhaps self-revert until someone who is willing can?  Please explain the difference twixt national socialism and Socialism in One Country or State socialism?   (i suspect you will direct me to read something, but i would love a short answer here if you are able)   Darkstar1st (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If anybody wants to propose a merge they can. I am in two minds about whether a merge is a good idea and unsure what the best structure for a merge would be so I am not going to propose anything myself.
 * As for "Please explain the difference twixt national socialism and Socialism in One Country or State socialism?", I am afraid all I can do is point out that we have zero reliable references linking them and hence any link you may wish to draw is your own original research. There really is no hope of including them in a disambiguation page on "national socialism" as they do not contain the phrase "national socialism". Even if there were a link that would be covered in the articles, not here. Please note how the list of parties is only for parties called "National Socialist". I am sure there are many, many examples of Nazi and Neo-Nazi parties that chose not to use that name but they don't need disambiguation and are not on the list. To expect otherwise is to completely misunderstand what disambiguation pages are for. They are for things with the same name not things with the same nature and certainly not for things that individual editors believe to be of a similar nature. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * actually there are several sources, unless you consider the following not a RS, would you please self-revert. National Socialism was a form of state socialism that rejected the "idea of boundless freedom" and promoted an economy that would serve the whole of Germany under the leadership of the state.  Bernd-Rüdiger Hüppauf. War, violence, and the modern condition. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1997. Pp. 92.''  Darkstar1st (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant WP article is State Socialism, which was the ideology of the German Conservative Party, not State socialism and you are misquoting. It does not say that Nazism was a form of state socialism but that it was "conceived of as a form of "state socialism"".  (Note the quotes.)  Also, the author of the source is Wolfgang Michalka, not Hüppauf.  TFD (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * you should tell amazon.com that as well...    Darkstar1st (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell them what? TFD (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the author of the source is Wolfgang Michalka, not Hüppauf. yet somehow the publisher put his name on the cover?   Darkstar1st (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hüppauf is credited on the front cover as the editor of the book, not as the author of the article you are using as a source. TFD (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * good point, perhaps you will fix the reference i made to the RS? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * are you suggesting Michalka is not a RS? I can't understand what your argument is if you accept national socialism was conceived in the womb of state socialism yet was not actually socialist?  Darkstar1st (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This may be a vaguely interesting thing to discuss but it is way off-topic here. Even if you are right about an ideological link to State Socialism it doesn't even matter because this is a disambiguation page for things called "national socialism". Nothing else belongs here. It is about the name not ideologies. It is only about the name. It is about nothing else but the name. Related ideologies can be discussed in the actual articles. This is not an article. This is a disambiguation page. If you are still arguing over what should be here then you have still not grasped what a disambiguation page is for. It is a jumping off point for people looking for various things with the phrase "national socialism" in their names. That is all. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it your edit that removed several parties with the actual phrase from the page as well? Do we really need 3 diam pages for national socialism, did you know one of the pages gets redircted?  fancy that, a disam so useless it skips itself, sheer brilliance.  perhaps wp:own would apply if this page fragments/deflects anything not 1942 and goosestepping.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but we already covered this. At the moment we have separate lists for National Socialist Party and National Socialist Movement so it is pointless to duplicate those here and even worse to do so in a partial and incomplete way. We want people looking for specific parties to quickly find their way from this page to the ones with all the appropriate parties on it, not to get stuck here looking at an incomplete list and wondering why the thing they are looking for isn't on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We want people looking for specific parties to quickly find their way from this page, indeed! since the sum total of all 3 disam pages is 20 lines of text, or about half a page, would having everything with the term national socialism be the fastest?  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bismarck's opponents labelled his policies "state socialism" - "socialism" is a typical slur made by free marketers against anyone with whom they disagree, even today. TFD (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN
This edit seems to be in a direct contradiction with our policy. I expect everyone who wants to restore this material to provide reliable source that demonstrate that Stalinism and leftist nationalism are considered as the instances of national-socialism, and, importantly, that this is majority viewpoint (the latter is important per another core policy).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the policy is that while controversial changes are discussed on the talk page, the article stays at last stable version before the controversial change. See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for details -- especially this paragraph: "The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors." I would add that it isn't BRRD either. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I explained my position, and I expect you to provide an evidence that the text you added (i) is supported by reliable sources, and (ii) reflects mainstream views. Failure to provide these evidences will result in the initiation of the AfD process, because, as far as I know, according to the mainstream views, the term "National socialism" requires no disambiguation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are addressing me, you are misunderstanding who has the burden. Every edit I have made to this page has been purely technical, in order to bring it into conformance with WP:INTDABLINK ("creating [disambiguation] links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article), MOS:DABRL ("A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link") and WP:BRD ("If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble.") I actually have zero interest in the actual topic and I don't know or care whether those links should stay or go. I am just correcting technical issues such as correcting your using BRRD instead of BRD with a BRRRD (same end result as BRD).


 * This does not imply that nobody has the burden of justifying the inclusion of those links. In this case, the person who reverted you (Darkstar1st) should explain why he thinks they should stay. If nobody steps up to defend them (the usual amount of time we give for this is a week), then you alone make up the consensus and thus will be free to delete them. If someone does defend them, then you should seek consensus in the usual way. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I expect everyone who wants to restore this material to provide reliable source that demonstrate that Stalinism and leftist nationalism are considered as the instances of national-socialism". it is best not to paraphrase. Correct wording would be "I expect anyone who wants to retain this material to provide reliable sources that demonstrate that Socialism in One Country and Left-wing nationalism are sometimes referred to as National Socialism." That minor correction aside, you are entirely correct. Someone does have to source those claims now that you have disputed them, or the entries get the boot.

Re: "...and, importantly, that this is majority viewpoint", no Wikipedia policy or guideline (including the one you linked to) requires that. Disambiguation pages link to all topics that the term refers to, not just the "majority viewpoint". For example. look at Abacus (disambiguation). The majority viewpoint is that "abacus" means a counting frame. There is no "majority viewpoint" that "Abacus" is a restaurant in Dallas, Texas, but that is one meaning of the word. So whoever wants to include the two terms we are discussing has to show that some people use the term, not that the majority do. See Disambiguation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would question whether any of these articles (except Nazism) belong here. Neo-Nazism and Austrian National Socialism would more likely be disambiguations of Nazism.  Strasserism is merely a faction of Nazism.  Socialism in One Country was not called ns.  Ironically, the country (the USSR) was made up of many nations.  And Left-wing nationalism is not even a meaningful term.  TFD (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Someone does have to source those claims now that you have disputed them, or the entries get the boot. " I would say, the person who reinserted this claim is supposed to provide the source, otherwise, s/he should not oppose to the removal of this text in future.
 * Re Abacus, the analogy is incorrect. These two terms (the counting frame and the restaurant) are two quite irrelevant things, however, the fact that both the counting frame and the restaurant have the same name ("abacus") is not questioned by anything, and both meaning are mainstream ones (no sources exist that claim that the counting frame or the restaurant have different names). By contrast, the idea that the term "National socialism" may refer to Socialism in One Country or to Left-wing nationalism is hardly mainstream, and the main articles about these subjects contain no discussion of this strange idea. In summary, I still got no evidence that the term "national socialism" needs in any disambiguation, because it has just one, single mainstream meaning. Accordingly, this page should be deleted if no evidences of the opposite will be provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re "I would say, the person who reinserted this claim is supposed to provide the source, otherwise, s/he should not oppose to the removal of this text in future", you can say it, but it doesn't make it true. I am allowed to make purely technical changes without getting involved in the content of the page. All I did was to bring the page back to the exact state it was in before you made your improper revert. I don't have to give you any justification for putting it back other than this: You (apparently in good faith through unfamiliarity with the rules) made an improper edit, which I reverted. At that point, everything resets as if you had never made the improper edit, and you should now follow the steps in WP:BRD rather than making demands of the editor who reverted your error. The rest of your comments are about the actual content of the page, which I am agnostic about. The content is between you and the other editors. All I ask is that you not violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines along the way.


 * I did notice that you mentioned deleting the page rather than deleting two entries on the page. Was that a typo on your part? If not, have you familiarized yourself with the procedures and criteria for proposing the deletion of a disambiguation page? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think that your understanding is correct. In any case Paul and I are the only people expressing an opinion on the inclusion of the material and I think it does not belong.  TFD (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "I do not think that your understanding is correct", you will have to be more specific. The rest of your comment is about the actual content of the page, which I don't care about. If a week goes by and nobody objects, take the material out - at that point you will have a 100% consensus. If you object to giving everyone else a week to comment, please explain what the hurry is - the page has had that material in it for months. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BRD is not a policy or even a guideline and if you actually read the essay, there is nothing bold in Paul's deletion. There's nothing about 1 week in the essay.  TFD (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * An editor reversed my deletion of "socialism in one country" with the notation, "wouldn't socialism in one country qualify as national socialism?" Whether or not it does, the article socialism in one country does not say it was ever called that and no sources have been provided that that is an alternative name.  Note that the Soviet Union was composed of nations, so saying socialism in one nation would make no sense, because the policy was that it would be carried out in all nations in the country, e.g., Russia, the Ukraine, Latvia.  Please do not restore the incorrect link without discussing on the talk page and gaining consensus.  TFD (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have warned Darkstar1st about edit warring, but your revert did not follow Wikipedia's policy. While controversial changes are being discussed on the talk page, the article stays at last stable version before the controversial change. In particular I draw your attention to the diagram at Consensus and the expanded explanation of same at BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The relevant passage is "The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again. If one skips the Discussion part, then restoring your edit is a hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but can get you into trouble. The objective is to seek consensus, not force your own will upon other editors." Please note that "restoring your edit" is not the same thing as "restoring material" - an edit can be addition or deletion. Restoring either is against the rules. I have rolled back the page to the last stable version before Paul Siebert, Darkstar1st, and The Four Deuces/TFD started reverting each other. Whether you like it or not, keeping the article at the last stable version while discussing changes is a longstanding Wikipedia policy, and further reverts may result in the editor doing the reverting being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop reverting each other and seek consensus on the talk page. This includes giving Darkstar1st time to respond while the article stays at the last stable version. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: On Darkstar1st's talk page he has indicated that he does not wish to seek consensus. I have asked him to clarify that just in case he is just venting frustration, but unless he indicates otherwise or starts using the article talk page within 24 hours, I am going to change the page to the version preferred by Paul Siebert and Four Deuces/TFD. If Darkstar1st chooses to revert without discussion again after that, please revert with the comment "reverting edit against consensus" If he keeps doing it I will take steps to have him blocked. Again, none of this is personal and I still don't care which version wins. I just care about Wikipedia's policies and procedures being followed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the drama here, which I can't be bothered to read in full, I'll just make the only really relevant basic point about the inclusion of Socialism in One Country and Left-wing nationalism which is this: If we have Reliable Sources showing that these movements have ever been referred to (maybe in English language translations) as "national socialism" then there may be a case for including them. I would expect to see a reference for this in the two articles justifying this usage before they were included here. If this is not the case, and I see no evidence that it is, then there is no justification for including them here. This is a disambiguation page for things called "national socialism". Things that have never been called "national socialism" do not belong here. It would serve no purpose of disambiguation. I can see why some people might think these movements have similar names but it is not for us to join the dots if no Reliable Source has already joined them for us. If we don't see any references supporting them soon, they will have to go.

I disagree that we don't need a disambiguation page at all. The other entries are clearly valid. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just got a message on my talk page that makes it clear that the one editor who prefers having those links in is not willing to discuss why on the article talk page, which makes the overwhelming consensus to delete the two entries, so I have removed them and warned Darkstar1st to not edit the page without consensus. In a couple of days I will take this page off my watch list, so if you have any further problems with him revertying in the future, please drop me a note on my talk page. I know some here have been frustrated by the way I handled this, but keeping the article at the last stable version while discussing changes is a longstanding Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whereas I agree with the first part, I have to add to that one more point. Not only reliable sources are needed to confirm that the term "national socialism" is being used to describe Socialism in One Country etc, these sources have to be mainstream ones. Otherwise, such disambiguation would be a violation of our NPOV policy.
 * With regard to the need of the disambiguation page, I disagree. Disambiguation is needed when the term refers to quite different topics: thus, in the guidelines you can find the typical example, mercury, which refer to totally unconnected topics, the planet, the Roman God, and the metal. By contrast, Strasserism, Austrian National Socialism, and Neo-Nazism stem from the same roots, namely, from German Nazism, which means that they are the subtopics of the Nazism article, not separate subjects.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for improved page
everything with the term national socialist and a few extra, feel free to edit add/remove Darkstar1st (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * apparently no immediate objection, i will wait another day then make the change. plz discuss now if you intend to revert and are an active/new follower here.   Darkstar1st (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This could be seen as a propaganda exercise to associate socialism with nazism rather than an attempt to provide a worthwhile disambiguation page. Canada's New Democratic Party which is the official opposition btw is not Marxist and was one of the most anti-Nazi parties in the country.  TFD (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * no, i simply compiled the 3 existing disam pages onto one, it was is who added Canada, perhaps your accusations of propaganda wp:AGF plz should be leveled at him, not me?  Darkstar1st (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * barring any further objection, i will add the new page as soon as TFD makes his amendment to my sandbox, otherwise i will add the new page in 24hr or so. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages serve a purpose. No one will type in "national socialism" if they are searching for the New Democratic Party - your whole exercise is a waste of time.  TFD (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, np, ill just use the ones with natisoci in the name. are there any other corrections from you, or anyone else?  keep in mind i am only compiling the other disam pages, not adding terms   Darkstar1st (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to explain why any reasonable editor would find the additions useful. No reasonable editor would use this page to find any of the articles you wish to list.  TFD (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * happily, the reason why a reasonable editor typing the term national socialist would use the page is to find other terms including such. unless there are any other questions, or corrections, i will add the new page.  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't, it is tendentious. This type of page is not done for any other ideology.  TFD (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * no, rather expedient to remove the excess clicks required to navigate. currently one has to back out of being automatically redirected to nazism then to the National_Socialism_(disambiguation), then click an additional disam link to a non-existent page, only to be redirected to list where one could find the link to any current or past organisation with the exact same term, that is the very definition of tendentious.  any other objections/comments?  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating the same arguments and I see no reason to repeat mine. You have not obtained consensus for your changes  TFD (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * you'll likely explain your reasoning in summary of your revert, i will then bring the issue to a 3O, unless anyone else joins this debate and i will move on to an rfc. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

lets add the socialism portal here! :)
Since all these parties have named themselves socialist, why not add the socialism portal here to link with other forms of socialism? unless objection, i will add such soon. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We have been through this before and I think you know perfectly well that there is no consensus for this. National Socialism is not a type of Socialism. It has been removed from the Socialism portal template before as not directly relevant. Adding it here would be spurious. It would be misleading. It would not provide links to relevant related topics. Furthermore, such templates do not even belong on disambiguation pages. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So they are actually socialist, here are some excepts.
 * The basic elements of the economy must be in the hands of the State Russian National Socialist Party.
 * Common good goes before individual good National Socialist Movement of Denmark
 * The abolition of incomes unearned by work The breaking of interest slavery. National Socialist Movement (United States)
 * We demand the nationalization of all businesses, which have been formed into corporations (trusts). National Socialist Movement (United Kingdom)  Darkstar1st (talk)
 * I am not going to waste my time arguing this with you. You are entitled to your own opinions but you need to accept that your analysis is not the mainstream one and that we can't just put our own opinions in the articles and pages. You continue to try to debate your view of the truth into articles and pages of Wikipedia. That would be inappropriate even if your arguments were sound. Wikipedia exists to document reality not to reshape it. If you want to debate political theory I suggest you find a more appropriate forum. Anyway, I can only reiterate that templates of this kind are for articles and not for disambiguation pages. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * plz limit your discussion here to the article, if you wish to discuss my editing style, plz visit my talk page. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose National Socialism is not a form of socialism. Also, this is a disambiguation page, so a portal should not be added in any case.  TFD (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * unless you can point to a source that claims the Russian National Socialist Party The basic elements of the economy must be in the hands of the State is not socialist, then we must rely on the rs provided in the article, ditto for the rest of the groups who insert the term socialist in their name.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  Instead of wasting other editors time across countless talk pages in multiple postings, either get the policy changed or get the mainstream academic consensus to change.  TFD (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * rs have confirmed the parties exist, so until you have a rs for each party, stating they are not socialist, we must accept the rs presented. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an unacceptable argument. We do not classify parties based on their names, but on what reliable third party sources say.  Instead of wasting other editors time across countless talk pages in multiple postings, either get the policy changed or get the mainstream academic consensus to change.  TFD (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * you do not have the authority to judge arguments. the rs are listed on the articles, if you wish to dispute such, plz do so there.  Darkstar1st (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * so if you have a specific source, claiming the Russian National Socialist Party, is not actually socialist, plz share. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not have the authority to present arguments in the first place. We rely on how reliable sources describe parties' ideology, not on what Darkstar1st argues based on his original research.  If you don't like that, get Wikipedia to change its policy, persuade political scientists they are wrong or find a different forum.  TFD (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)