Talk:Nazism/Archive 10

National socialism
How many times does the phrase "national socialism" have to appear in the lead paragraph before the libertarian editors will be satisfied? Is there any room for compromise here? Today there are several forms of "National Socialism," and there were National Socialist ideologues in other countries than Germany in the interwar period. That is one reason the Catholic hierarchy proposed the idea of syndicalist corporatism. Editors here have repeatedly chosen to support a disambiguation page for the term National socialism. The horse is dead. Stop beating it.--Cberlet 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I personally think this article should be named National Socialism. If there were and are other kinds of "National Socialism(s)", then they should be named something like National Socialism (non-Nazi version, example example). And the reason why you're removing National Socialism from the lead is because you want to make Nazism a more legitimate name than its actual name. It's of course, simple POV-pushing and nothing else. It's a simple tactic; first they removed the Socialism category, now they're trying to remove National Socialism, that way, making it look like Socialism and National Socialism have nothing in common. &mdash; Devil May Cry (talk · contribs) 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an outlandish personal attack. Who is this "They"? you refer to? Please refrain from further attempts to smear me as an apologist for Nazism. This is especially absurd given my writing outside Wikipedia on this subject.--Cberlet 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologist for Nazism? I did not say nor did I imply anything of a kind. It's very interesting to note however, that you made such a conclusion on your own. This is an outlandish personal attack. &mdash; No, it is not. This article has been hijacked by POV-pushing Wikipedians who want to impose their own political POV on the article's topic, such as, "Nazism has nothing to do with Socialism, it's Socialism in name only," etcetera. Your ability to list books, as scholarly as they may be, do not give you the right to write whatever you want in the articles. You can't just list the name of a few scholarly books and then enforce your own politcal POV on the article. And your articles outside of Wikipedia, is none of my concern. &mdash; Devil May Cry (talk · contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Most serious scholars of Nazism observe that it evolved out of a form of socialism. This is reflected in the entry, and I agree with it. The term "national socialism" appears four times in the lead, twice in English, twice in German. Your claims are false on their face. Your attempts to portray clear writing that follows contemporary scholarship as some form of insidious conspiracy of POV pushing is without merit. I am not trying to push my "own political POV on the article's topic." If I was, it would look quite different. It would look more like one of the many articles I have published internationally on the subject.--Cberlet 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Most serious scholars of Nazism observe that it evolved out of a form of socialism. This is reflected in the entry, and I agree with it. &mdash; It is good that you acknowledge that much. That is a lot more than most editors have agreed on about this article. The term "national socialism" appears four times in the lead, twice in English, twice in German. &mdash; Yes. Is that a problem? Many articles here on Wikipedia do have similar leads with alternative titles, especially if the topic happens to have another common name. Your claims are false on their face. Your attempts to portray clear writing that follows contemporary scholarship as some form of insidious conspiracy of POV pushing is without merit. &mdash; Of course such claims are false since I haven't accused you of any conspiracy. Now you're making things up. I am just saying, there is some POV-pushing going on here, and it has to do with some Wikipedians who don't consider Nazism a form of Socialism, and it has to do with their own political POV. That is why National Socialism has been removed many times from the lead and Socialism from the category. As for "contemporary scholarship", you still do not seem to understand. Do you understand why we have cite templates here on Wikipedia? If you're going to cite an academic source, that is fine and I encourage you to do it, but do it properly. You can't just add and then claim your edits are purely based on academic research. You have to cite specific passages, pages, etcetera. And about your writing: I do not care about whatever it is you write. You can stop bringing up your writing merits; it won't give you any special privileges of expert opinion here. &mdash; Castlevania (talk · contribs) 23:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nazism is not a form of socialism. This claim is made by a tiny hanful of libertarians such as Hayek and von Mises. Most contemporary scholars of Nazism do not call it a form of socialism, any more than serious scholars of capitalism call it a form of feudalism. We have had this discussion many times over the past few years. The idea that Nazism is a form of socialism has been rejected numerous times, as has the name change, as has the battle over the disambuiguation page, as has the claim that Fascism and Nazism are on the political Left. If there is POV pushing going on, it is by libertarians and others on the right who try to jackhammer their marginal views into page after page on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nazism is not a form of socialism. &mdash; Thanks for proving my point. Nazism most definitely does have a lot of Socialist influences. Is it pure Socialism? No of course not. But it is definitely what the name implies: National Socialism. It is a nationalist version of Socialism. Socialism in itself was more of an international movement ("Workers of the world, unite!") whereas Nazism was simply for the workers in Germany, i.e., ethnic Germans. That said, there were of course differences between Stalin's Socialism and Hitler's Socialism, but as you said, Nazism evolved out of a form of Socialism, and Nazism obviously had a lot of Socialism elements intact. the claim that Fascism and Nazism are on the political Left. &mdash; That claim makes a hell of a lot more sense than Nazism being on the right. Not that Nazism is either left or right in my point of view, but to call Nazism right-wing is preposterous since it has nothing in common with right-wing politics, save for some conservative elements. Anyway, National Socialism must be included at the very beginning of the lead per WP:COMMONNAME. &mdash; Simon Belmont (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason that National Socialism goes to disambiguation page is that it no longer primarily refers to the German Nazi Party. There are today several forms of national socialism, and not all neonazi movements or ideologies are based on national socialism.--Cberlet 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is some text from the Wiki entry National socialist party:


 * Parties that existed before the rise of Nazism
 * Parti Socialiste National, in France, founded by Pierre Biétry in 1903. It became the "Fédération Nationale des Jaunes de France" (or the "Yellow socialists") in 1904.
 * Czech National Social Party, founded in 1898
 * National-Social Association, founded in 1896
 * National Socialist Party (UK),1916 to 1919
 * National Socialist Party (Philippines) (Aguinaldo), founded 1930
 * Austrian National Socialism
 * So the lead that keeps getting stuffed back in is not factual, and represents what is today a marginal viewpoint. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply.--Cberlet 04:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this a marginal viewpoint? Every other encyclopedia I've seen refers to "National Socialism" as being Nazism, even dictionaries.   While other political parties have used or use the words National and Socialist together in their naming, it is clearly not the same thing. National Socialism is the unique ideology of Nazism. In fact isn't the word Nazi a contraction of "Nationalsozialistische", e.g. National Socialism? The machine512 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

<-Nazism, captal "N", (the German interwar variety) was a form of "National Socialism." It was not the only form. A number of national socialist groups used the phrase "national socialist" in their names. Today there are numerous national socialist groups. The idea that the term "National Socialism" refers only to interwar German Nazism is not accurate. When you state that "National Socialism is the unique ideology of Nazism," it is demonstrably false. It may be a popular perception, but it is still false. German Nazism was a form of national socialism, but not all forms of national socialism are "Nazism," which refers only to the interwar German national socialist party and government under Hitler. It would be using this logical fallacy: Collies are Dogs, therefore all dogs are Collies.--Cberlet 13:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see your point, however, looking under the various forms of Socialism I don't see any specific reference to a strand of Nationalist Socialism, if you could point this out that would be helpful. Aside from that, it really all comes down to naming conventions for example the "Democratic Socialists" and the "Socialist Democrats", are they the same thing? In all, the term National Socialism in the most widely used and accepted context refers to Nazism. I don't think we should change the dictionary definition and direct translation of the term Nazism to make way for the few parties who go about the unfortunate task of naming themselves this. The machine512 14:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I haven't seen this dab page before: National Socialist Party. Look, we all know that there are other parties than the NSDAP who have labelled themselves National Socialist or Social Nationalism etcetera. That is completely beside the point. Fact of the matter is, that "Nazism" has become entirely glued together with National Socialism (the original name of the ideology) because it resulted in an entire world war. Your statement: So the lead that keeps getting stuffed back in is not factual, and represents what is today a marginal viewpoint. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. &mdash; is your own personal POV and does not apply on Wikipedia. Nazism, compared with other unrelated obscure and minor National Socialist parties whose success was/is very minimal, is not a marginal viewpoint at all. It is still an ideology that is alive in the form of Neo-Nazism, and it is still an active, world wide ideology (though not very influential at the moment, and hopefully won't be in the near future), and Nazis more or less have copyrighted "National Socialism". Seriously, when you hear National Socialism, what is the first thing you think about? It sure isn't Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Either way, National Socialism is the common name of Nazism. Though Nazism has become more common in colloquial speech, that doesn't mean National Socialism must be removed from the lead. Your version is actually trying to standardize Nazism as the ideology's official name, which is inaccurate. And Wikipedia is all about accuracy (or should be, which is obviously not the case). &mdash;  Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop shifting your signature names, EliasAlucard, it is deceptive and annoying. No one is suggesting removing the phrase "national socialism" from the lead. In the accurate version it appears twice each in English and German.  This is about writing a better lead, not about your original research and POV contentions which have surfaced on other pages and been tendentious.--Cberlet 14:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, I find it odd that the National Socialism page doesn't link here and that the National Socialism (disambiguation) page links back to National Socialism. At the least without changing the name of this page National Socialism should link here and the National Socialism (disambiguation) should be used for all the other possible meanings of the term. And a see also link should be prominent above this page. That would be the standard Wikipedia approach. The machine512 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The National Socialism and National socialism should redirects to National Socialism (disambiguation) which has Nazism as its first link. It should be invisible to the non-editing user, but a Bot messed it up.--Cberlet 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet, you claim that Nazism is a form of National Socialism. That is fine, but realize that National Socialism is also another English common name for the ideology and practices of the NSDAP. Intro should reflect both of these facts. -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Vision Thing: you have no leg to stand on. This entry repeatedly mentions National Socialism, and your marginal claims on this matter have repeatedly been rejected by a majority of editors, as you are well aware. This endless attempt to impose a marginal POV on this entry is a waste of all of our time,a nd tendentious as well as disruptive.--Cberlet 21:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What marginal point of view? Are you saying that National Socialism is not another English common name for Nazism? -- Vision Thing -- 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that this same debate was held in September, and the majority felt that "National Socialism" should go to a disambiguation page and that this page stay named Nazism. There is already clear mention in the lead that Nazism is a contraction from National Socialism in German.  There is also a plethora of evidence that has been posted on Wiki repeatedly noting that Nazism is not the only form of national socialism.  This is a case of an aggressive minority viewpoint seeking to impose its POV on Wikipedia repeatedly over several years.--Cberlet (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * September debate was about page rename, and I don't see how it's connected with this. It seems to me that you are trying to obscure the fact that another English common name for this ideology is National Socialism (even if Nazism is more widespread). -- Vision Thing -- 15:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This obvously false. I support having the name national socialism in the lead.  I oppose the false construction that "National Socialism" only means German Nazism, or that German Nazism is the only form of "National Socialism." This is false, and Vision Thing, you know it is false becasue this debate has happended many times before with you right in the middle of it. The the main proponents of this view have been tendentious POV pushers with a long history of rewriting various pages throughout Wikipedia calling Nazism just another form of socialism, or claiming Nazism and fascism in general are on the poltiical left. This is a marginal view. Mentioning "National Socialism" four times in the lead is quite sufficient--even redundant.  I am objecting the the clearly false framing of the lead that equates "National Socialism" with German Nazism. Once again, I am returning it to a sensible, accurate NPOV version that mentions "National Socialism" four times in the lead.--Cberlet (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I support having the name national socialism in the lead. &mdash; No, you don't. You've removed it several times. I am objecting the the clearly false framing of the lead that equates "National Socialism" with German Nazism. &mdash; We're not equating National Socialism with German Nazism. It just so happens to be the case, that the German National Socialism that was held by Hitler, is historically, the most successful National Socialism ever. Therefore, just as Marx somehow patented Socialism, the German Nazism is the mainstream National Socialism. But of course, in reality, Nazism does have Socialist elements, and it is a form of Socialism, though the Socialism aspects in Nazism isn't as emphasized as in other Socialist ideologies. And Nazism is neither left nor right-wing. It doesn't fit in such a political spectrum because it's a very different ideology and not based on the economical struggle between Capitalism and Communism; it opposes both. While it is true that the mainstream media considers it to be right-wing, it's simply just an ad populum fallacy. But your version is simply based on consensus, while our version is trying to maintain historical accuracy. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 17:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is absurd.--Cberlet (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion, it is duly noted. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cberlet, making the statement "Nazism is the best known form of National Socialism" from my understanding is false. There is no specific known BREED of Socialism with a Nationalistic approach that is directly called "National Socialism" (other than nazism). The few non-nazi parties listed under National Socialist Party are not part of this (alleged by you) "new breed of socialism" but rather just socialist parties which just so happen to be titled "National" in their naming. The machine512 (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that there are numerous scholarly cites to books and journal articles that talk about new forms of national socialism. Examples in the U.S. include White Aryan Resistance and the National Socialist Movement. There were other post-WW I forms of national socialism than the German variety. Popular misconceptions, no matter how sincere, do not trump actual published research. Please stop restoring an flawed and false lead based on a failure to check conemporary research.--Cberlet (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a "flawed and false lead" when every other contemporary dictionary and encyclopedia uses the term National Socialism, even instead of using the western contraction Nazism  . Check even the German version of this page (or any other language for that matter), they are titled "National Socialism". Using terms defined by a few scholars here and there is giving WP:Undue Weight and going against the rest of the world's definition and even the true naming of what this was called by the Germans during WW2. The machine512 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is getting more and more obvious that Cberlet has some weird agenda. He obviously doesn't understand the logical arguments we're putting forth, despite that there are several encyclopaedias calling the ideology, specifically, National Socialism, and he talks all day about scholarly research yet he doesn't actually provide any sources except titles of books without being specific on what's written supporting his claims. &mdash; EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

<---This has become surreal. I am not changing the translation of the contraction. I am pointing out that "Nazism" was not and is not the only form of "national socialism." This hysteria over demanding that there be 5 uses of the term "national socialism." in the first paragraph rather than 4, and the rewriting on the lead to imply that "Nazism" was the only form of "national socialism," has become a tendentious POV war, and frankly somewhat fanatic and ludicrous.--Cberlet (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody is suggesting that Nazism is only form of National Socialism and the intro is clear on that when it says: "Nazism was the main form of National Socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 17:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But the point of the entry is to explain Nazism to a reader, not push a minority POV about Nazism being a form of socialism.--Cberlet (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be useful if you would drop this rhetoric about "a minority POV". That "National Socialism is another common English name for this ideology is easily defendable fact. -- Vision Thing -- 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The last time we voted on this issue, the POV pushing about "national socialism" being congruent with "Nazism" was found to be a minority POV. That is why there is a National socialism (disambiguation) page. Do you dispute that there were/are other forms of "national socialism" prior to and after the German "Nazi" variety? No. No one is disputing that "Nazism" is a form of "national socialism." The issue is what makes for a better entry and lead on "Nazism." All this rhetoric about how some of us are to push a minority POV by tring to write a better lead is nonsense. How many times does this have to be noticed up for mediation? How many times do the real minority POV pushers who have lost every almost editing debate here and on related pages have to be admonished and sanctioned? This is a waste of time.  We are here to write a better entry. Reverting back to the same badly written and overly complicated lead is not useful. How many times does this debate have to resurface? Does it have to be every 6 months?  Can't we at least have it just once a year?  Do we have to call for comments again?--Cberlet (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you are confusing things. Maybe you should contemplate on why United States leads to an article about United States of America and not to United States (disambiguation). -- Vision Thing -- 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In German, there is no difference between Nationalsozialismus and Nazismus. The latter is a popular contraction of the former.
 * --Forrest Johnson (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We have in English a National socialism (disambiguation) explaining that there are diffrent forms of National Socialism, and the lead on this entry page mentions that Nazism is crafted from "National Socialism" in German.--Cberlet (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there are different forms of national socialism but if it's capitalized "National Socialism" it's the proper name for Nazism. It's like "libertarian" and "Libertarian." Ron Pistol (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no nazismus in the German language because all nouns are capitalized. The word Nazismus is used to describe a political ideology, and mainly in a historical sense, because Nazism is outlawed, and no contemporary party can properly be called Nazi. Because Nazismus is not considered a coherent theory of government, other terms are usually used to describe Hitler's dictatorship, e.g. der NS-Staat or die Nazi-Diktatur. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And this is the English language Wikipedia. And in the English language Nazism refers to the German interwar movement and ideology, while neonazism, Neo-Nazism, and neo-Nazism have been used to describe the post WWII varieties. --Cberlet (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the English language "National Socialism" also refers to the German interwar movement and ideology, as it can be seen from variety of sources. -- Vision Thing -- 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would dispute the claim that the word Nazi disappeared from Germany after 1933. It certainly disappeared from official use, but it remained a common colloquialism.  I have here a copy of the Brockhaus dictionary from 1935, which refers to Nazi as a abschätzige Abk. von: Nationalsozialist.  I can cite memoirs and contemporary letters showing that the word remained in use. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Bias
--Forrest Johnson (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am posting here under my own name. I have a master's degree in history (2005) from the Free University in Berlin, as anyone can confirm by contacting the Friedrich Meinecke Institute (dekan13@zedat.fu-berlin.de). For best results, communicate in the German language.

It is a favorite sport of extreme partisans in the United States to identify their opponents with the Nazis. On the right, this is daily fare for luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, who identify feminists or environmentalists as Nazis. On the left, the accusation of Nazism is regularly thrown at the Bush administration because of its policies on torture, domestic espionage and imprisonment without trial.

Regardless where you stand politically, changing history to reflect contemporary political views is absurd. In this case, the currently protected version of the "Nazism" article includes sections reflecting a political bias. These should be modified or removed:

INTRODUCTION

The National Socialist party described itself as socialist, and at the time, conservative opponents such as the Industrial Employers Association described it as "totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist."

I'm not sure why this quotation is considered so important to the definition of Nazism. It appears a tendentious attempt to place Nazism on the left side of the political spectrum. The sentence should be removed entirely or else followed by another which provides balance, for example:

Marxists, however, lumped Nazism, together with fascism as purely capitalist phenomena: "Fascism is the openly terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic and imperialistic elements of finance capitalism."

POST-1933 DEVELOPMENTS

The section on British appeasement is irrelevant and should be discarded (everything from "Post-1933 Developments . . . " to "' . . . than live as slaves.'")

I would offer the following as a replacement:

After Jan. 30, 1933
In the night of Feb. 27, 1933, the Reichstag fire provided Hitler with a convenient excuse for suppressing his opponents. The following day, he persuaded President Paul von Hindenburg to sign an emergency decree suspending civil liberties and stripping the power of the federal German states. Opponents were imprisoned first in improvised camps ("wilde Lager") and later in an organized system of Nazi concentration camps. On March 23, the Reichstag passed an "Enabling Law" which granted Hitler dictatorial powers. Unions were abolished and political parties, other than the National Socialists, forbidden.

Having dealt with his political enemies, Hitler moved against his rivals in the party, principally those allied with Ernst Röhm, leader of the Sturmabteilung (known as SA or "brownshirts") and Gregor Strasser, leader of the Nazi left wing. Between June 30 and July 2, 1934, these were purged in the so-called Night of the Long Knives. With this, Hitler assured the support of the powerful Reichswehr. After the death of Hindenburg, on August 2, there was no one left who could present an effective challenge to Nazi power.

The Nazi Party had been anti-Semitic from the beginning, and shortly after seizing power had attempted a boycott against the Jews (see Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses). Official measures against the Jews had been limited by the reluctance of President Hindenburg, but the Nuremberg Laws, proclaimed by Hitler at the 1935 Nazi rally in Nuremberg, provided a legal basis for systematic persecution. Visible signs of anti-Semitism were removed during the 1936 Summer Olympics, but replaced shortly thereafter.

ANTI-CAPITALIST RHETORIC

This section is redundant and should be eliminated. If it must be retained, I would propose adding the following:

However, after the Nazis actually came to power, there were no serious efforts to abolish capitalism. Hitler declared in a speech on July 1, 1933: "I will suppress every attempt to disturb the existing order as ruthlessly as I will deal with the so-called second revolution, which would lead only to chaos." After the 1934 Röhm purge, the socialist wing of the Nazi movement was a spent force.

IDEOLOGY

We should distinguish between elements incidental to the Nazi program, and those to which they gave lip service, from the key principles.

I would question whether animal rights, environmentalism or public health were important parts of the Nazi program. To the rejection of modern art, I would add the rejection of jazz. "Freedom of religion" should not be included: The Nazis attempted to subordinate all forms of religion to the state, and locked up those (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) who proved intractable.

I would add "Racial purity" and "Anti-individualism," illustrated by the Hitler Youth slogan "Du bist nichts, das Volk ist alles.", also, the unity of the German people ("Volksgemeinschaft").

--Forrest Johnson (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You have many interesting ideas, Forrest Johnson, but you need to cite reputable published sources to back them up. You already have some of these cites at hand. Just start making changes with one cite at a time and see what happens. I think you make sense.--Cberlet (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not tell me what you dispute? Then I can more easily judge what additional sources may be needed. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pick what you think would make the article better, find a cite, then insert the next text. That's how it works.  Otherwise it is original research, which cannot be placed on an entry in Wikipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Original research" is the pile of old letters and documents in my workroom, or transcripts of the interviews which I am compiling for a projected book. What I have posted here is neither "original" nor "research," it is simply what my professors taught me in my eight years of study in Berlin.  You are demanding more particulars, but at the same time, you are extemely vague as to what these should be.  Have you no specific criticism? --Forrest Johnson (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Verifiability and other related links on that page to see Wikipedia's policies on backing up content with reliable sources.Spylab (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be helpful to review the citations I provided:
 * 1. I referred to a publication of the Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Berlin, a nonpartisan government organization which publishes information for educational purposes.
 * 2. I cited a quotation of a Hitler speech from Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," a classic work which has been outdated in some respects by more recent research, but remains a standard reference. Shirer was a contemporary witness, and if he quotes Hitler saying something, that's what Hitler said.
 * 3. I provided twelve internal links to Wikipedia articles, most of them undisputed.
 * I believe I have sufficiently documented all the points I wished to make. No one here has disputed any of them.  However, if anyone does have some specific criticism, I will be happy to provide further documentation. --Forrest Johnson (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are pointing at (You are demanding more particulars, but at the same time, you are extemely vague as to what these should be.) here - is a Wikipedia problem generated by the ill-defined freedom - Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. This freedom is used here on the most unethical way. On the Neo-Nazism talk pages I tried to get clear answers to the same type of claims (=extemely vague) from the same two persons you responded to here. To my great surprise, my questions were marked as an original research.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)