Talk:Nazism/Archive 24

Socialism and the French revolution
Do we need this explanation of socialism in the lead? Although it may have some value in highlighting the contrast between "National Socialism" and "socialism", I don't see that we need to gloss every political term, especially in another political article. A definitive claim that it originated in the French revolution seems debatable too. Plus, finally, the added text seems a little over-linked.  N-HH   talk / edits  19:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No. And the sentence it replaces is wrong too.  It was presented as an alternative between socialism and capitalism, not international socialism and free market capitalism.  And if we present the nazi position, we need to present how experts view this, per neutrality. Since it is unsourced and not explained in the article itself, it does not belong in the lead.  TFD (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * keep and/or improve. The article on National Socialism which is redirected here, could definitely use more explanation of the similarities, example: National Socialist Program We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries, Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery, We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries, We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare, ... immediate communalization of the great warehouses..., ...free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility...prevention of all speculation in land. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum for repeating nazi writings. If you want to do that there are other websites that welcome it.  TFD (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The NSDAP 25 Point Program also states, "The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination", but I guess the POV apologists missed that one... -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  20:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nazi apologist, that's the first time i have ever been calt that, wow. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right-Wing apologists, who try to claim that all of the Right's "villains" from history (KKK, Nazis, etc.) are "secretly" Left-Wingers, and all of the world's historians have colluded in some massive conspiracy to dupe the common man... (Interestingly enough, you rarely see Left-Wingers trying to claim that Communists and Stalinists were "secretly" Conservatives all along!) It's just silly.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * some massive conspiracy to dupe the common man that sounds similar is being suggested here, the socialism part of Nation Socialism duped millions of Germans and it actually was not socialist at all. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The theory that nazism was left-wing is from nazi apologists. No one is accusing you of being an apologist.  TFD (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually - not precisely. Schlesinger averred that the extreme left and extreme right were close to each other in "Beyond Left and Right."  I doubt he was a "Nazi apologist." Collect (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He did not say that nazism was far left. His totalitarian theory said that what united the far left and right was authoritarianism, not economic policy.  And he said the "vital center" -  non-Communist Left, Center and moderate Right - had more in common with each other than with the far right right or left.  He also said, "A long tradition of ignorance concerning European politics has not equipped us for grasping nice distinctions between a Socialist and a Communist."  Surely you don't think he was equating nazism and social democracy?  TFD (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Back on the original point .. the initial shorter text at the end of the first para was a bid to clarify the distinction between "National Socialism" and socialism:
 * Prior to the emergence of the Nazi Party, other right-wing figures had argued for a nationalist recasting of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism
 * I think that is worth trying to do briefly, if not in those exact words, not just to flag up the theoretical history but to stop people bringing the usual tired debate here every two weeks. The reference is to figures such as Plenge and Spengler et al, where there is indeed more detail – and associated sources – in the main body. I'd also argue that it's reasonable to be more specific about their main targets rather than simply noting they opposed capitalism and socialism more broadly, when I'm not sure it's as simple as that, especially in the case of the former.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know what "recasting of socialism" means. Also, there is no indication that by capitalism, the nazis meant "free market capitalism".  You need to provide a source.  I do not think that the article needs to address fringe views, any more than articles on climate change, 9/11 or Barack Obama do.  For example the article on Barack Obama says in the lead he was born in Hawaii but does not say that this has been corroborated by his birth certificate, etc.  TFD (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I support N-HH's proposal to mention something along the lines of that "Nazis followed other German right-wing nationalists in the early 20th century who sought to gain new supporters by recasting "socialism"." What people should understand was that just as the word "socialism" seems taboo in American political discourse today or how "green" has been appealed to by even companies that are anything but environmentalist; Germany after World War I was radicalized - "socialism" - be it revolutionary or democratic was very popular - Germans were mad at war profiteers, the fallen monarchy, other issues, and there was desire by radicals to emulate the Bolshevik revolution of Russia. To be a monarchist or a capitalist in Germany amid revolutionary uprisings in 1918-1919 was not a popular choice. The word "socialism" to the Nazis in the early 1920s was about the same as an oil company attaching the word "green" or "environmentally-friendly". It was politically savvy in Germany in the late 1910s and early 1920s for Germans to portray themselves as sympathetic to socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.113.85 (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Recasting means refashioning in some sense (and as I said, I'm not stuck on any exact wording; "appropriating the term" would be another option, if a little more judgmental). I don't get the Obama analogy - to the extent that the content is addressing fringe views at all – and obscure might be a better word anyway – that seems entirely appropriate in an article of this sort. It's just about briefly noting, in the lead, the intellectual background out of which Nazism and related ideas emerged and explaining why the word "socialism" comes up in this context at all. That background was nationalist and anti-capitalist, but the latter only up to a point. As I said, this is sourced in the body and well attested in the wider secondary literature. I'm not insisting it has to be in the lead, or in what precise form it should be there, but I don't quite see the objection – we can make editorial judgments and offer broad summaries and outlines in a lead without having to source every word at that point and clutter the opening paragraphs with footnotes.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is a (short!) list of instances where I'm accused on this project of being a "communist" (to which I usually reply "damn it, man, I'm a doctor, not a Bolshevik!"). My point being I hope I won't be adding "Nazi apologist" or "right-wing apologist" to my list of titles. In fact, I've had family members end their span here.

All that said, I always try to be as objective as possible on Wiki, and I can't help the feeling that the depiction of Nazism here may be influenced quite a bit by counter-reaction to the ridiculous right-wing, Fox-Newsy, Tea-Party nonsense I've had the privilege of experiencing first-hand over in the States. The Nazis were indeed quite "socialistic" in their ideology, and I've quoted sources to that effect on more than one occasion. This is being sidelined in favor of a view that all their invocations of socialism were an "elaborate ruse", where Hitler and his cronies snicker slyly at all the fools who believe they're socialists. Now, this is a legitimate scholarly view, no question, but I believe that it only represents one side of the spectrum of scientific opinion on the matter (and let's be frank - the left wing). The actual facts were that the position of the Nazi Party was swung towards the right through their effective alliance with Germany's conservative political elements, with whose help they came to power in the first place. But this article really should concern itself with the theory of National Socialism at least as much as its practice (which is more appropriately covered here and here). -- Director  ( talk )  07:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The said they were socialist but instead of defending the working class they defended the people and instead of opposing the capitalists they supported them, except the Jewish bankers. Instead of equality, they supported hierarchy.  Instead of allying with socialists and labor unions, they allied with conservatives, right-wing liberals and capitalists.  Serious writers do not consider this revision to be socialism and in any case few nazis believed or even understood it.  TFD (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Its important not to confuse socialism with communism (which is ofc a specific form of socialism). So far as I am aware (until the war got serious of course) the Nazis did in fact improve the conditions of the German worker, through making his wellbeing the responsibility of the state. They didn't strip the capitalists of their property, but did impose certain rules on how they could treat their employees. The state essentially subsidized an improvement in the living standard of the average worker, and to a degree which, in modern american terms certainly, would be called "socialist". The trade unions were replaced by the state-sponsored trade unions, which did in fact bring tangible benefits - being backed by a dictatorship. A real right-wing dictatorship (and Europe had plenty of those) would suppress or abolish any sort of labor unions altogether - not establish its own.
 * And you are making the mistake of equating the actions of the Nazi Party with the ideology of Nazism. Political expedience is one thing, ideology another. As for alliances with "the Socialists", there was no "Socialist Party" in Germany at the time: there were the Social Democrats, and the Communists. Hitler (like the communists) openly advocated dictatorship, and was therefore fundamentally opposed to the SDs.


 * To call Nazism as a whole a "form of Socialism" would represent the opposing end of the spectrum of opinion in scholarship, it is not some extremist crackpot view - just google "definition of nazism". But I myself would say that it is certainly a decided minority view. To say that Nazism - as an ideology(!) - had plenty of socialistic elements, is far from either end of the spectrum. -- Director  ( talk )  09:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually the living standard of the average worker fell, it was not subsidized, working conditions did not improve and the state reduced its responsibility for workers' welfare. The state controlled unions did not bring tangible benefits, and of course union leaders were arrested. And state-owned industries were privatized.   But then unlike the Communists and Social Democrats, they did not claim to speak for the working class.  It does not matter what Google brings up, it only matters what informed opinion is.  TFD (talk) 09:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WordNet appears to be some sort of experimental database and is not an authoritative source for any definition. There's no obvious reason why the definition there appears top of Google search, and the fact that it does not only proves nothing but is actually a bit worrying. As is its definition of socialism as simply meaning "state ownership of industry".  N-HH   talk / edits  12:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Following the arrival of the Nazis to power, the living standard of the worker rose dramatically (as did the standard of the average German overall). We can explain it any way we like, but its a matter of public record one way or the other. And the state most certainly did subsidize an increase in the average worker's standard of living, a famous example of which are the state vacations. Can you doubt that such policies would be referred to as "socialist" in modern day terms, particularly in the US? In many respects they were similar policies to those of FDR and the New Deal in America, but were more radical. Trade unions were abolished and replaced by state-run trade unions. State-run trade unions. A very conservative policy I'm sure. The leaders that were arrested were arrested (a very general statement) due to affiliations with the immensely powerful Communist Party (the second party in Germany, really), which pretty much ran the labor unions. The Nazi priciple is that the economy must serve the state ("the people") which is fundamentally opposed to the doctrine of economic liberals such as the Republicans in the US. Of course, for the record, I like the Democrats myself :) -- Director  ( talk )  16:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And WordNet is in effect a (highly reliable) dictionary published by Princeton University, supported by the National Science Foundation, and endorsed by Google. Though I am hardly surprised at the attempts to sideline and ignore that source as well. Fits the pattern. -- Director  ( talk )  16:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what "pattern" would that be? If you're suggesting that I have a record of ignoring, second-guessing or cherry-picking sources and authoritative content, preferring to rely on my own personal ruminations and guesswork, I think the cap fits slightly better on another head – which makes the insinuation even more ridiculous, coming as it does from the person in question. As for WordNet, could you provide some evidence for your assertion of high reliability beyond the words "Princeton" and NSF (let's quietly pass over "endorsed by Google")? The site itself does not pretend to be designed to work as a dictionary providing definitions per se, let alone as a political dictionary. Nor does it explain how it creates or sources its substantive content.  N-HH   talk / edits  17:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You two should stop getting so personal. Let's go back to what the sources in this article says.
 * (1) FACT: The Nazis appealed to the word "socialism" and socialistic sounding rhetoric as a means to gain support.
 * (2) FACT: The Nazis did not implement any wholescale social ownership of the means of production.
 * (3) FACT: The Nazis during their rise to power, claimed that the meaning of "socialism" in their view was not a Marxist definition, but a different one.
 * THE REPEATING ISSUE ON THIS TALK PAGE: Over and over again, partisan right-wing libertarian users are going to attempt to hijack this page on accusations that the intro is not addressing the "socialism" factor. And in turn, this will result in partisan left-wing users becoming defensive, not wanting the word to be addressed at all. The result of these partisan back-and-forths is stalemate. By mentioning, as was done earlier in the intro, that far-right politics in Germany in WWI and after adopted the term "socialism" into their rhetoric, as is shown by sources in the article, this petty issue is neutralized.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh. "Princeton" is just a word? Well yes it is. So are the words "biased" and "POV-pusher". Those are just "words". The word "Princeton" in conjunction with the word "University" and the word "published by", indicate that a certain document may be published "by Princeton University". Now, let us try to find out what is indicated by the words "Princeton University". If we do, we may discover that they indicate one of the world's foremost centers of learning. And please be aware that very few dictionaries actually list outside references for their definitions (though I'm sure you would demand such a thing).. Nor was I aware that we are only allowed to cite "political" dictionaries..
 * Your implication that I myself, attempting to counter a perceived trend on this article and therefore posting sources contrary to it, am somehow "cherry-picking" in doing so, betrays a lack of understanding of the terms one throws around.


 * @IP, "stalemate" may not be the best term, as the article is pretty much slanted all the way towards one side. And every now and again its "scanned" and proposals like this pop out, just to make sure the POV message is clear. Btw I myself am by no means a "libertarian", in fact I perceive the ideology as just another name for laissez-faire capitalism. America has the weirdest, silliest politics I know.. -- Director  ( talk )  20:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Director, I do not know where you are getting your information, and would appreciate if you could tell me. Without undertaking extensive research, I will provide a link to a BBC page that helps school children prepare for exams. "[T]he Nazis had abolished the trade unions, banned strikes, and given more power to the industrialists - real wages fell and hours were longer under Hitler." Women were removed from the workforce and young people were inducted into national service. There is little in these policies that would be out of place in 19th century liberalism. And neither the nazis or contemporaries referred to these programs as "socialism." IP, not only did the nazis not nationalize the means of production, they undertook an extensive privatization program. The argument reminds me of the U.S. bailouts. Lots of people thought the government giving the people's money to big business was socialism. TFD (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would list all the biased, oversimplified, and just dead wrong nonsense I was taught in history class, but I think we'd have to archive the page afterward. Even so, did you not notice the bit about "Everybody had a job, and a wage. To people who had been unemployed and starving, 'work and bread' was a wonderful blessing worth every civil liberty they lost." -- Director  ( talk )  20:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a blessing for some, still doesn't make it "socialism". Mpov (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll be perfectly honest. I know how Wikipedia works - its a democracy. If I can't convince you folks to "vote" in favor of any changes I propose, they won't go through no matter how sourced they are. So I don't want to waste my time, go through the trouble of picking up the publications I read, all so they can be discarded as "just words" or whatever. On top of that, I don't want to look like some kind of pro-Nazi POV-pusher. If I do pick up Hitler's Economy etc. again from the library, invest effort, get all worked up - I'll just be annoyed when it all inevitably turns out to have been for nothing. When the proposals get shouted down because they don't chime with the anti-Republican anti-Libertarian narrative of the article. And yeah, there's the fact that such changes would be making the Nazis look better, which isn't exactly super motivating for me either.
 * That's why I just note my objections from time to time. Besides it helps me "poll the electorate" and find out how new proposals might be recived, and how entrenched a certain POV might be. If the very suggestion gets shouted down by 6 users, I know there's just nothing to be done.. -- Director  ( talk )  20:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it is "dead wrong", then please provide a source that tells a different story. I imagine the sources that you use to get your ideas about fascism do not meet rs, but I would be happy to look at them.  Under classicical liberal theory, full employment can be achieved through reduction of wages, since supply and demand will achieve equilibrium at market value.  And this is best achieved through outlawing collective bargaining and placing the means of production in private hands.  That is the same program followed by Thatcher and Reagan.  Furthermore, everyone did not have a job - Jews and women were laid off, and of course millions of people were conscripted or imprisoned.  TFD (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything there's dead wrong, my point was its a bad idea to use grade school-level sources. Or would you want me to introduce the "blessing" bit right now? Actually, jobs were not created through reduction of wages - that's your OR and an oversimplification. People in Germany were starving and would have worked for any wage - but couldn't. The process was far more complex and was achieved through state-run programs brought forth specifically for the purpose. These are the incredibly successful Nazi "Work-Creation Programs". Government programs. -- Director  ( talk )  20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to earlier observations, Director you're not proposing any changes anyway, you're just having a meandering generalist discussion about the nature of Nazism, based, as noted, on your own deductions and theories, while throwing in yet more – pointless and off-beam – implicit ad-homs against me ("biased"? "POV-pusher"? Really?) and patronising me as to what Princeton University is and how dictionaries work. While spectacularly failing to notice the difference yourself between a dictionary or political encyclopedia and an experimental lexical database created by a university psychology department. Since, as stated but ignored, the primary purpose of that database is not to provide definitions per se, it's a reasonable question to ask where they get their source material from and to not rely on it as a reliable substantive reference point for matters of this nature.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe I am on record from previous discussions as to what exactly my proposal is. Also I do not see how it is less patronizing to refer to "Princeton" as being "just a word", etc. -- Director  ( talk )  21:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Direktor, that is not my "OR", it is from the BBC's study sheets for GCSEs. While I would not use it as an article source, it refutes your misconceptions and if you have a question with any specific fact, other sources can be found.  Still you have not provided me with your sources.  The point is anyway that the 1930s policies were liberal and the "socialist" in "national socialism" was based on an ideology developed around 1900, which had nothing to do with full employment (which is also an objective of some forms of liberalism) or socialism as it is normally understood.  In the U.S. South, unemployed people were routinely arrested for "vagrancy" and put to work in chain gangs building ROADS.  Was that socialism?  TFD (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * People, please stop the combative back and forths. If you cannot, consider yourselves unable at this point to address the issue in a rational manner and take a breather to calm down, or request admins to assist. At this point all three of you are getting highly combative and aggressive, and it is not helping resolve this matter.
 * Now, let's get back on the main point, shall we, :) ... : the fact is that the Nazis appealed to socialistic-sounding rhetoric to gain political support, the fact is from sourced content in the article that right-wing nationalist figures in Germany utilized the word "socialism". The issue of this keeps arising in talk pages, in my perspective and that mentioned by N-HH, briefly addressing that the Nazis followed a right-wing nationalist tendency in Germany emerging in WWI of using the word "socialism", would resolve the issue - and the article has sourced content that demonstrates this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.113.85 (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that is entirely correct. They picked the term "national socialism", which was the name of a known ideology developed in the 19th century by Georg Ritter von Schönerer, who happened to be a liberal.  TFD (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that says that the Nazis used the term "national socialism" from von Schönerer? The article shows the cases of three people: a person named Plenge, and two others Spengler and Bruck whose usage of "socialism" whether it be "national socialism", "Prussian socialism", etc., was what the Nazis used. Regardless, I think N-HH's proposal for briefly mentioning the fact of their un-orthodox usage of the word it in the intro is a wise means to address the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.113.85 (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Shoenerer did not use the term, but developed an ideology that would be called national socialism in retrospect. For the origins of the NSDAP's name, see The Question of German Unification: 1806-1996, p. 55.  "The German National-Socialist Workers' Party founded by German workers in the border regions of Bohemia in early 1918, provided the name for Hitlers NSDAP in Munich.  The DNSAP was originally founded for German workers in opposiion to the Czech National-Socialist Party and the international (Marxist) Socialist Workers' Party."  The DNSAP was a successor of the Austro-Hungarian German Workers' Party, founded in 1903 by Von Schoenerer's followers in his Pan-German Party.  Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria, p. 281, says the Czech party choose their name in order to distance themselves from conservative nationalists, not because they were socialist.  It seems reasonable that Hitler would name his party after the Czech party, which had a similar ideology, especially since he was Austrian and counted Schoenerer as one of his major influences.  Of course it does not say why he would do this.  Did he think that "national socialism" was in any way socialist?  TFD (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of discussion that's really not relevant to the issues at hand. This article is about Nazi ideology. Not its practice alone. Even if we had a clear-cut case where the Nazis expressed their ideology, and did everything exactly the opposite (which is not what we have) - we would still have to base a description of their ideology ultimately on what they said. Not what they did (though that too is a relevant subject of course). The fact that the Nazis did only have one brief practical expression of their ideology is probably the reason behind this.

Its difficult to describe the ideology of Nazism if most of what they said about their ideology is discarded here as sort of "elaborate deception". The German Nazi Party may or may not have been running a scam, but the ideology they peddled remains such as it was regardless of their honesty in its implementation. That is something we should describe. Ugh... -- Director  ( talk )  07:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

""...their [Nazi] version of socialism did not offer the sweeping economic and social revolution advocated by the Marxists. National Socialism would eliminate neither private property nor class distinctions. It would provide economic security and social welfare programs for the workers; employment, a just wage, and protection from capitalistic exploitation would be guaranteed. But economic equality and and a classless society were never Nazi goals. What workers would receive, aside from economic justice, would be enhanced social status. The new image of the worker would be one of honor and pride in his station in life. Workers would no longer constitute an alienated and despised group. They would again take their rightful place in society; their importance and dignity would be recognized by the rest of the nation. In the ideal Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, classes would exist (based upon talent, property, profession, etc.), but there would be no class conflict. Different economic and social classes would live together harmoniously and work for the common good. A national consciousness would replace the class consciousness that had historically divided Germans and turned them against one another."

"Although socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of the Nazi ideology, compromises were made on these aspects before and after the Nazis seized power. Ultimately, many of the socialistic ideals and programs remained unrealized. Part of the reason for this was that within the party there was violent disagreement over the essence of national socialism. Hitler, himself, was more concerned with the racial, nationalistic, and foreign policy goals of the ideology than he was with socialism. While he glorified the workers in his speeches, he later downplayed socialism in his efforts to gain votes from the middle classes and funds from wealthy capitalists. However, the left wing of the Nazi party, lead by Georg and Otto Strasser, considered Nazism essentially a socialistic and anticapitalistic movement. Their goal was the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist state, and they vigorously protested Hitler's compromises. In most cases, Hitler's views prevailed, but the conflict between these party factions over such issues would last until the suppression of the left wing in 1934. In theory, at least, socialism and anticapitalism remained integral parts of the Nazi ideology, and they continued to play a very important role in Nazi propaganda and election campaigns.""


 * "...no one spoke in stronger socialistic terms in this period than Hitler's protege, Goebbels, who attempted to conquer the proletarian districts of Berlin with his National Socialist message. The socialistic orientation of the party from 1925 to 1928 was reflected not only in its propaganda but also in its membership. (...) This decidedly socialistic orientation was, for a variety of mutually reinforcing reasons, reversed by Hitler in 1929."

This is me just copy-pasting stuff from the couple books I picked up earlier. There is an entire library on the "socialistic" programs initiated by the Nazi state, and while the autobahns are indeed the most famous such socialist program, they are just one small part of it all. I recommend you pick up Hitler's Economy by Dan Silverman (Harvard University Press) for a detailed description of said work creation programs. -- Director  ( talk )  07:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I generally agree but note there is disagreement over whether they had an ideology or what it was. The problem with this article is that it assums as given they had an ideology, confuses it with their actions and does not present the ideology providing the same weight to different issues that rs do.  Nazism for example is about the Nazis did, with little reference to ideology.  TFD (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The view that National Socialism isn't "really" an ideology is quite a minority view in scholarship and really should not be taken seriously on our, tertiary level. Perhaps it warrants mention at best. Here's a bit more:

""One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners.""


 * -- Director  ( talk )  08:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may join this discussion... Of course many reliable sources occasionally use words such as "socialism" or "socialistic" to describe some ideas that some Nazis supported at some points in time. However, as can be seen from the quotes you provided, the statements on the socialistic views in question come with qualifications, caveats and explanations of the twists and turns of Nazi ideology and intra-party disagreements. You chose to bold certain parts of the quotes, but one could easily bold other parts: "National Socialism would eliminate neither private property nor class distinctions."; "economic equality and and a classless society were never Nazi goals"; "A national consciousness would replace the class consciousness"; "within the party there was violent disagreement over the essence of national socialism"; "[Hitler] downplayed socialism in his efforts to gain votes from the middle classes and funds from wealthy capitalists."... and so on. These authors, like many others, are saying that Nazism contained both socialistic and anti-socialistic views and people.

I think the introduction to the article is fine the way it is now, generally speaking. There is no reason to add some digression about whether or not the Nazis were serious in using the word "socialism" and what they meant by it. Specific planks of Nazi ideology (providing economic security and social welfare while at the same time supporting private property and making alliances with wealthy capitalists) should be mentioned in the body of the article - as they currently are - but without attempting to judge whether these things deserve the label "socialistic" or not. Tell the readers what the Nazis believed and did, and let them judge whether it was "socialistic".

Also, regarding the alleged distinction between ideology and practice: this distinction exists far less for Nazism than for other ideologies. Unlike liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism or even fascism, Nazi ideology never existed as a body of ideas separate from the world of practical politics. It was always the ideology of one specific political party, and the chief theoretician of Nazism also happened to be the leader of the party and state that put the ideology into practice. Nazi ideology is far more closely intertwined with the actions of the NSDAP than any other major ideology is intertwined with the actions of a specific party. Hitler's actions defined Nazism far more than any one person's actions defined any other major -ism. For this reason, it is absolutely impossible to discuss Nazi ideology separate from Nazi practice.

In fact, I think it is only because of the historical importance of the Nazis that we have two separate articles called Nazism and Nazi Party. For any other ideology that is defined by a single party the way Nazism is defined by the NSDAP, the [____ism] article would be a redirect to the [party name] article. -- User1961914 (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will repeat that one must differentiate between socialism in general and communism specifically. Socialism as such by no means must necessarily entail the elimination of private property or class distinctions, the pursuit of complete economic equality, or a classless society (the latter is a term coined by Marx). There are many sub-forms of socialism that really do not conform to the usual definition nor even pay lip service to the general definition of "socialism" (which is usually "public ownership of the means of production"). They are still called "socialism". In fact, here's a map with modern-day socialist countries highlighted . This confusion probably again stems from wacky American politics where the right like to use the word "socialist" as a label for opponents, but what they usually describe is Marxism. -- Director  ( talk )  08:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What socialism does or does not entail depends entirely on who you ask (which, by the way, is another reason why it's futile to try to decide whether the Nazis were "socialistic" - whose standards of "socialism" are we using?). The three major views of socialism are the Marxist view, the social democratic view and the anarchist view. All of them exclude Nazism, for different reasons. In the anarchist view, socialism requires the abolition of the state. In the Marxist ("communist") view, socialism requires the elimination of private property and class distinctions, and the pursuit of economic equality. In the social democratic view (which is the one represented by the Socialist International and its member parties, and therefore the "socialist countries" on your map), it's true that socialism does not entail any of those Marxist things... but it does entail parliamentary democracy, rule of law, human rights, and anti-racism. -- User1961914 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Their view of the "welfare state" was that it supported the undeserving and it was not a proper role of government. TFD (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Socialism does not entail parliamentary democracy, that's SD specifically, nor would I say there was any more or less "rule of law" in Nazi Germany than in the Soviet Union. And I would argue that pretty much everyone has to exclude Nazism after WWII, for political reasons, and that such was not the case 1939-41.
 * And here again I must repeat that it is not argued that Nazism is a form of socialism, but merely that its ideology has "socialistic elements".


 * @TFD, here's an entire book about the Nazi welfare state (one of many ofc). I'd say there isn't a single welfare system in the world that would describe itself as supporting the "undeserving". --  Director  ( talk )  09:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you did provide a map of countries governed by SD parties and called it "a map with modern-day socialist countries"... which led me to believe that SD was your standard of socialism. As for excluding Nazism, that was the practice before WWII as well as after it. The three major branches of socialism - the communists, anarchists and social democrats - were all intensely anti-Nazi from the beginning, in the 1920s. More to the point, however, I must say I do not understand what you hold as your standard of socialism. If socialism does not entail the things communists advocate, nor the things social democrats advocate, nor the things anarchists advocate... then what does it entail? Is the mere existence of a welfare state evidence of socialism? But in that case, the USA is socialistic... -- User1961914 (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, just to clarify: I am not denying that Nazi ideology may contain some "socialistic" elements, according to some authors' views of what counts as "socialistic". What I am saying is that this is just a label, it is not important, and the body of the article should simply mention specific policies and ideas without entering the minefield of trying to judge whether they are "socialistic". Ultimately, I'm saying it's pointless to argue over labels and we should just stick to the facts. -- User1961914 (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By that definition this entire article is about a "label" (what is "Nazism"? Its just a label.). I don't think that's a useful way to look at things. I'm all for sticking to the facts. If its a fact that Nazism did indeed have socialistic elements, then the lead should mention that. That's all I'm saying. -- Director  ( talk )  09:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Nazism" refers to the ideology of a concrete political movement. "Socialistic elements" could refer to anything. There's a big difference in how specific the two terms are. But in any case, it is not a fact that Nazism did indeed have socialistic elements. It's a highly controversial claim made by some sources and not by others. Also, what would our readers gain if we added a sentence about this to the lead? Suppose the lead said, "According to some sources,[cite], Nazism had socialistic elements." Would this improve anyone's understanding of Nazism in any way? No. It would be entirely meaningless unless we actually said what those "socialistic elements" are. And then we would be launching into a detailed description of certain controversial aspects of Nazism, which is something that does not belong in the lead. -- User1961914 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's just a matter of formulation. I don't think "socialistic elements such as X, Y, and Z" would necessitate much space.. -- Director  ( talk )  09:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But that would be POV, because we would be saying that X, Y, Z are, in fact, socialistic elements - when in fact they would be elements that some authors consider to be socialistic and others don't. There is nothing even remotely approaching scholarly consensus on the question of which particular ideas or policies are socialistic. The only NPOV way to approach the issue would be to describe the controversy, rather than state unequivocally that X, Y, Z are socialistic. And that would lead to the bloat I mentioned above. -- User1961914 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, pretty much any statement could be described as "POV" when subjected to such standards. Historians are very much in disagreement on many, many aspects of Nazism. Its a highly charged issue. Its a matter of putting together an NPOV formulation, based closely on the relevant sources. -- Director  ( talk )  10:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, the few reviews I could find on your book say it is controversial, and the findings are contrary to the literature publishd on nazi Germany. I notice too it was not published by an academic publisher and mainstream historians have ignored it. I agree that no government claims to support the undeserving but the nazi ideology was that welfare itself supported the undeserving. Like classical liberals they put the unemployed into public works projects and if they were unable to do that put in concentration camps. Hence no need for welfare. The book is briefly mentioned in The Routledge Companion to Nazi Germany, p. 44. Anyway, you said this article is about nazi ideology, not the pragmatic decisions they made. TFD (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to Tooze's critique of the book which is mentioned in The Routledge Companion. TFD (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, unlike the others I didn't actually read Hitler's Beneficiaries, I found it just now. The criticism I can see, however, does not deny that the Nazis had a welfare state, but rather criticizes Gotz's conclusions (which is fairly common, you'll find such criticism for most serious publications). As I said, though, it is merely one of a vast library of publications that go into great detail describing the Nazi welfare state. The Nazis did attack the Weimar Republic's welfare system, that's what you're referring to, but they didn't denounce welfare on the whole - and established a system of their own. I think the matter is more accurately covered here. And yes, I'm making the argument that welfare is part of Nazi ideology.... you know what's wrong with that? I sound to myself as though I'm arguing against welfare :), whereas I actually support it. That perception is a major issue both on this talkpage and in discussing Nazism in general - everything the Nazis did must be evil by virtue of the Nazis having done it. -- Director  ( talk )  10:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Can we stop with the convoluted discussions based on our own views and conclusions about Nazism and politics more generally? Talk pages are meant of course for looking at substantive changes to the text of the page. Anyway, there are two distinct issues here around "socialism":  N-HH   talk / edits  12:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As to whether the lead, or indeed the rest of the main page, should talk about the socialist – as that term is usually used in serious political analysis – elements of Nazism, I agree that it is not appropriate to explicitly label Nazism or any aspect of Nazi ideas or practice as such. No mainstream analysis or definition posits Nazism as a whole as socialist in this sense and there will not be agreement in mainstream academia about labelling individual aspects as such. Beyond that point, I don't see any evidence for any suggestion that the page is missing information about such things: the lead alone mentions the party's declared anti-capitalism, the calls in the Nazi programme for nationalisation and the party's "socially and economically radical factions" etc. The body has extensive detail about such things and the influence of socialist ideas. That seems fine to me and more than enough.
 * The lead used to have a short sentence explaining the different and discrete use of the word "socialism" by some on the right and some of the intellectual background to Nazism. That was wiped when a later addition to it was removed. I think something along those original lines should be retained, as it offers useful background information and context in its own right but would also head off some of the "Nazis are socialists, right?" nonsense that descends on the page from time to time. As far as I can tell, if the exact wording could be agreed, there could be support from most people for something like that.


 * I support your proposal N-HH. There is evidence in sourced content of the article of the Nazis using an un-orthodox usage of the word "socialism" by Plenge, Spengler, and Bruck, and according to TFD the legacy of a man named Schonerer. Reading the content of what Plenge, Spengler, and Bruck were talking about, it clearly appears that they were utilizing the word in some attempt to justify right-wing nationalist goals. This Spengler and Bruck from the content are associated with party called the "Conservative Revolutionaries". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.113.85 (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal as well, although I think the current state of the lead is not bad, either. If we are to restore a sentence or two about the use of the word "socialism" in "National Socialism", then I have a suggestion of my own. First, note that before recent changes, the last sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph looked as follows:


 * I propose to keep the wording mostly unchanged, but to integrate that sentence about socialism into the second paragraph, rephrase a couple of statements and add a tiny bit more detail. Here is my proposed second paragraph:


 * Hopefully, this can serve as the basis of a consensus formulation. -- User1961914 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we need to find sources and reflect them rather than develop our own description.  We need to bear in mind that it is questionable whether or not there was a nazi ideology, and therefore not state this description as definite fact.  TFD (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I am not suggesting a major change, merely a slight rephrasing of material that is (or was, until recently) already there. The sources are in the body of the article (which is one possible style suggested by WP:LEADCITE). You seem to be suggesting a complete re-think of the lead. I may or may not support that, depending on what particular changes you have in mind. But in any case, shouldn't we resolve the issue of the recently-removed sentence about "socialism" before we consider the much bigger project of rewriting the entire lead? Keep in mind that proposals that are too ambitious often result in no action being taken because editors can't come to any agreement... That's why I'm trying to keep my suggested changes as minimal as possible. -- User1961914 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, as I said above, if we end up agreeing to leave the lead as it stands now, I think that's fine too. -- User1961914 (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

(Apologies for my absence, holidays and all that..) The crucial points I'd like to bring across are as follows: (the exact phrasing is ofc open to discussion) This is summed-up rather well in Bendersky 2007: "Although socialism and anticapitalism were significant parts of the Nazi ideology, compromises were made on these aspects before and after the Nazis seized power. Ultimately, many of the socialistic ideals and programs remained unrealized."
 * The ideology of Nazism included significant elements of socialism and anticapitalism
 * In 1929 there was a shift in the policies of the Nazi Party away from said elements, primarily due to their alliance with conservative and nationalist groups

I believe these are relatively basic and uncontroversial historical facts, that shouldn't be a subject of so much debate here. I imagine very few historians would dispute the Nazi ideology had socialistic elements, or that there were changes in the political orientation of the Party at the end of the 1920s (which is sourced, and I've not seen any contradicting references).

There's also one more thing that always bothered me. What the Nazis employed is called "scientific racism", whereas here we use the term "biological racism" - which is less a common term and doesn't exactly denote what the Nazis did. Anthropology (which is the "science" in question) is part biology, part sociology, part archaeology, part linguistics. Its implied that biologists are somehow extraordinarily racist... -- Director  ( talk )  09:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather than say socialism must be mentioned, let's put in what Bendersky said, why don't we summarize his chapter "The historical roots of nazi ideology" and provide the same weight to socialism and other aspects of nazi ideology that he does? Basically he devotes the two sentences you have quoted in the middle of his 17 page chapter.  And if you have a better source, provided it is from an academic publisher, then we can use that instead.
 * If we use the term "scientific racism", then it should be in "scare quotes", otherwise it would appear we are endorsing it.
 * TFD (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The source could go on for 200 pages talking about various aspects of Nazi ideology, but if he says "Nazism had elements of socialism" - then that's what he says. He doesn't have to talk about said aspect for a 100 pages for us to include it in one sentence. Its not as if he's discussing various scholarly positions and has "placed weight" on this view or that.


 * Re scientific racism, I do not see how "biological racism" needs scare quotes less than "scientific racism"? Is biology not a reputable science? As you can see, though, the term is not used with scare quotes, either generally or in this specific context. One would imagine the word racism might tip the reader off as to the nonsense behind it, and if not - that's why we have wikilinks. Otherwise I suggest that such concerns re the propriety of the term are a matter for the scientific racism article. -- Director  ( talk )  10:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with the proposed tweaking outlined above. I think we could get too wrapped up in worrying about whether there even is a Nazi ideology as such: we can and should note any problem with the idea, but we have this page on "Nazism" and the existence of at least some kind of philosophy is acknowledged. The lead also does explicitly open by referring to "ideology and practice", which is something I put in deliberately. A switch from biological to scientific racism would make sense, not least because it's the name of the actual page (I'm not sure, as an acknowledged term, it needs scare quotes though). Beyond that, and especially with reference to the "socialist elements" point and the purported move away from them, a lead should offer a broad outline of the broad consensus among sources on the topic, not rely on a single source, for the reason of course that sources don't agree, especially on controversial topics such as this. We certainly shouldn't zero in on passing mentions of things and/or use loaded words such as "significant" based on one source (note also that your quotes from that source do not have anything at all about "primarily due to .."). Again, I'd say that we already make the point about anti-capitalism and the purge of radical elements with sufficient weight.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If the source has only passing mention of some elements, it means 1) they are not notable, 2) inclusion would be POV, since editors won't include all elements which have only one or two sentences in the sources. Mpov (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In accordance with N-HH's statement above, I support the tweaked outline presented by User1961914 with two modifications
 * (1) I would suggest leaving out is the word "reactionary", as it appears that the Nazis did not present themselves as reactionary alternative - in fact material in the article shows that they sought to avoid appearing reactionary and even appear anti-reactionary. This Conservative Revolutionary party that one of those right-wing nationalist figures was associated with apparently claimed to denounce reactionary politics. Thus it seems like the entire point of these right-wing figures grabbing onto the "socialist" mantle and radical rhetoric was part of an effort to avoid looking reactionary.
 * (2) Saying that it was opposed to "internationalist Marxist socialism" sounds like it would not necessarily be opposed to non-internationalist Marxist socialism, when it fact it denounced Marxism for Jewish roots. It would be better to just say that it was opposed to "Marxist socialism"
 * Thus that sentence would appear like this: --70.26.113.85 (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with Mpov, this is an important point to address and there are sources in the main body of the article that verify this.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there seems to be enough support for my proposed tweaking that I feel confident in going ahead and making the edit. I hope that will help to settle the issue that originally gave rise to this discussion. I will make the edit using the text that I originally suggested, since both the words "reactionary" and "internationalist" were used in the similar sentence that was present in the lead until recently (so they have previous consensus on their side). But if you wish to remove them, I will not re-add them. Right now I am not convinced either way about whether they belong in there. You make good arguments, but I can also see the opposing side: "Reactionary" can be considered a neutral descriptive term that simply means the opposite of "progressive" or "modernist" or "pro-Enlightenment", and the use of "internationalist" can also simply be a description of Marxist socialism rather than a suggestion that the right-wing figures would not necessarily be opposed to a non-internationalist version.


 * Of course, the other main issue, which arose in the mean time, is Director's argument that the lead should make some mention of the "socialistic elements" of Nazism and of the move away from these after 1929. I still do not consider such edits necessary and I am generally opposed to making them, but I could always be persuaded otherwise, and in the spirit of cooperation I have an idea for how to include such edits into the lead. We could change the third paragraph to become as follows:


 * Note that this is not a complete proposal, because I have a placeholder statement (in bold italics within < > markers) where the actual article would have a proper sentence. I put that placeholder in there because I'm not sure what the specific X, Y, Z things should be. Also, as I said above, right now I wouldn't actually support this edit myself, but I could be persuaded to support it depending on precisely what kind of sentence goes between the < > markers. One thing I definitely oppose is any use of the highly loaded term "socialistic elements" in the lead, but something like "anti-capitalist" or "anti-liberal" or "anti-laissez-faire" may be suitable. -- User1961914 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I mentioned the idea of removing the words "reactionary" and "internationalist" from the intro because I am concerned that it is going to cause confusion for the reader. Especially when they read about the Nazis denouncing reactionaries. We have to remember that the Nazis had their own worldview, and as warped as it was, it had its own logic, the ideas and words they used had their own meaning. "Capitalism" to them did not mean an economic system based on private property but instead was a reference to laissez-faire, materialist individualist economics and plutocracy that the Nazis associated with Jewish identity. Thankfully, now that we are addressing what they meant by terms like "socialism", rather than what we may expect they meant, we can now look at the Nazi worldview with more clarity and achieve further clarity in the article by describing what they meant when they referred to various systems like capitalism, etc.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposed to the "reactionary" attribute as well. The issue is much more complex than that. It would be akin to someone demanding to call Nazism "socialist" outright. These are extremes of opinion. "Internationalist" is also debatable, but much less charged. -- Director  ( talk )  20:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Three sources have thus far been presented that state Nazism had "socialism" as part of its program, or was socialistic, or that the Nazi Party had a socialistic orientation. Not "one". Four sources if you wish to count the Princeton source calling Nazism a "form of socialism". Here's a fifth: Renz 2010 p.74 (much of 'Chapter Four' really).

My contention is that it is biased to sideline or misrepresent sources in the manner proposed. A very specific kind of bias, too. I do not support the idea that Nazis are socialists or that Nazism is a form of socialism. However, any lead of an article discussing the ideology of Nazism that excludes mention of the fact that Nazism had strong elements of "socialism" is selective and biased by exclusion. This has nothing to do with the word "Socialism" in the name of the doctrine, but rather with real elements of it. Any such lead can easily be described as sporting a left-wing POV, and even though I'm very far from what you'd call "right-wing" myself, I view any sort of political POV-pushing, or anything that might be construed as such, with the utmost disdain.

I say again: #1 Nazism had "socialist" or "socialistic" elements. The term itself is sourced. #2 The shift in the ideological position at the end of the '20s. Those are essential, basic pieces of information that belong in the lead. -- Director  ( talk )  20:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In fact, brief descriptions of nazism in reliable sources do not mention socialism, while lengthy sources provide minimal mention, usually tucked somewhere into the middle of the narrative. However, followers of new right ideologies are overrepresented in Wikipedia, which is the only reason we are discussing this issue.  Nazism btw also had conservative and liberal elements, yet no one seems to want to emphasize them.  TFD (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we're discussing this issue because its a legitimate position in scholarship. And I am not suggesting that socialist influences be described in the first sentence - but I do not buy at all the idea that the author must express his position in some specific way you demand, or else its ok to exclude and/or misrepresent the source. besides, what shorter kind of definition would you want beyond "Nazism is a form of Socialism"? Perhaps we should take a break from countering these perceived hordes of neocons, hmm? And come now - am I not here actually suggesting to describe a shift towards the right and an alliance with the conservatives ? Yet somehow you claim I am against emphasizing conservative elements of Nazism?


 * Btw, overemphasizing the socialist elements of Nazism was a staple of Allied propaganda as early as WWII, or rather the 1930s already. Its not a new thing. -- Director  ( talk )  21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No, emphasis of socialist elements of Nazism was not a staple of Allied propaganda against Nazism. There were social democratic parties supporting the Western Allied war effort that back then identified as socialist, British Labour Party leader Clement Attlee was a member of Churchill's national unity government and cabinet during the war, and was British PM in 1945. The emphasis was placed on Hitler being a warmonger, wanting world domination, and being a tyrant.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well of course there were SD parties, but regardless, the best way to convince conservatives was obviously to emphasize socialist elements. Also SD ≠ Labor, strictly speaking. I know what I'm talking about, but never mind, that's a tangent. -- Director  ( talk )  19:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging by the last couple of posts, you still seem to be pushing this idea – and hoping to have it implicitly included in the article text – that the Nazis were originally some sort of more-or-less socialist party that took a swing to the right, especially once they made friends with the old-school conservatives. That is simply not the standard view of scholarship nor of the historical record. As noted, they emerged from the broader nationalist right, even if they were sometimes at odds with some other parts of it, especially the more traditionally conservative parts – which is the consensus view in academic writing. The fact that they also had some influences, ideas and propaganda that could, if one chooses, be said to have chimed with left-wing socialist ideas is – to the extent that it is true – already acknowledged in the lead and the wider text that we already have, without necessarily explicitly labelling it as such in WP's narrative voice. We therefore have the minimum that you seem to be asking but do not have, and should not have, any more expansive or definitive statements.  N-HH   talk / edits  22:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Director, that makes no sense. At the time, no one in the U.S. identified as conservative, even the KKK called itself liberal.  And Churchill would hardly have rallied Labour Party supporters by casting the war as a war against socialism.  Let alone that Stalin was presented in Western propaganda as a reasonable statesman.  TFD (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@N-HH, I am not interested in your speculation regarding what I'm "trying to push", I'm interested in your ceasing to WP:STONEWALL profusely sourced changes (that will reduce the distinct political POV of this article). Nor am I particularly fascinated by your often-expressed, but entirely unsubstantiated claims as to what is or is not the "standard view of scholarship". So far as I can see, such claims are based primarily on wishful thinking and personal "estimates", with a lot of OR interpretation into the mix. You can be sure the wording of any changes is to be based very closely on sources. Further, I have stated numerous times that, in my view and according to my research, it is not correct to say Nazism or the Nazi Party were "socialist" (at any time and in every parallel universe!), but to exclude mention of the fact that National Socialist ideology had socialist aspects - is indicative of political bias. I will not be drawn into a pointless debate (esp. one that seems likely to consist of my denouncing various straw men you construct).

@TFD, lets not hung-up on my side remark. I have no intention of suggesting changes be introduced to that effect. I apologize for veering off-topic, lets get back to the two points. -- Director  ( talk )  23:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Director, you talked about a "shift towards the right", even underlining the phrase. It's not unreasonable of me, in the light of some of previous comments, to then suggest that you "seem" to pushing the idea that they shifted from the actual left. If you're not, fine (and it's not wild assertion of mine to suggest that no standard scholarship would back such an analysis). That said, and as noted, the purge of the more radical factions is already mentioned, including in the lead.


 * As for simply socialist "aspects", I and others have repeatedly addressed this, including in those parts of my last comment which you've chosen to sidestep in order to focus on alleged strawmen. They, too, are already mentioned, just as, for example, similar things are mentioned on the Bismarck page. References to the relationship with socialism as a whole pepper the article. I don't actually know what you are asking for – if you want the text to say, in WP's voice, that specific Nazi ideas or practices, albeit not Nazism as a whole, can be explicitly labelled as "socialist", that will not fly, for reasons outlined and discussed.


 * As for stonewalling, I have no lessons to learn (see a certain WW2 occupation article and its naming issues). Plus of course, I am as much stonewalling as you are flogging a dead horse. It all depends on which side you look at any debate from. Anyway, one of my new year missions is to spend less time haggling on politics talk pages. Good luck everyone.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I must emphasize again how disgusted I am that we have at last come to the inevitable ad hominem speculation as to my supposed motives and what I'm "pushing". Though that does seem to be the standard modus operadi here. Tell us, N-HH, what am I "really up to"?
 * I underlined the phrase to demonstrate how fallacious the allegations are that I am against mentioning conservative aspects and affiliations of Nazism and the Nazi Party respectively. According to my research, and the sources cited here (!), they shifted towards the right at about 1929. I don't think I or anyone else (outside the Mises Institute) claims they were "the left" up to that point. That's another straw man.


 * Socialist aspects are mentioned in brief, perhaps, but they are cleverly not called what they are, nor are they included in the overall description of the ideology of Nazism in the lead. That should be a clue. That you here stand with WP:OWN "authority" and tell me from on high that facts supported by five different sources "will not fly", for reasons of "I think they're wrong", is perhaps the most indicative of how far this article is in the hands of a Wikiclique. Since we're specuating here about each-other's motives, I have to say that to me it seems they "will not fly" because they do not chime with your narrative. -- Director  ( talk )  15:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But ok, N-HH. You have the benefit of the doubt, and are merely defending the scientific consensus. You claim the "standard" position of scholarship (whatever that is) disagrees with the contention that National Socialism had socialist elements? I.e. that these elements are indeed, "socialist" in that exact term. Fine and dandy. Let's see what you base that on? Lets see the piles of refs that say so, and that do not need any WP:OR interpretation from you. I'm certainly looking forward to the kind of verbal gymnastics that might justify mentioning what you yourself refer to as "socialist" aspects, but without calling them "socialist".


 * You also think there was no shift to the right at the end of the '20s. Lovely. The burden is on you. Show us your explicitly contradicting sources, which obviously deny all of this. All you have to do is present such sources, and you can be sure I'll shut up and go away. -- Director  ( talk )  16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mainstream accounts of nazism will mention socialist influences if they describe nazism in extensive detail, but it is just one of many influences and should not be provided undue emphasis. If you are fascinated by this particular influence, then perhaps you could start an article about it, but it has little significance here.  It is no more important than conservative, capitalism, conservative, and mystic influences.  TFD (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not prepared to subscribe on faith to any personal "estimates" you two express here regarding what is or is not "undue" emphasis. Nazi ideology should be briefly described in the lead - in all aspects (and by using accurate terms). Keeping things brief for the lead doesn't mean skipping on various (politically uncomfortable) elements of the ideology, it means mentioning all of them - but collectively in less detail. Claiming undue emphasis should not be an excuse to keep the article politically slanted. Its just too convenient.


 * What I'm fascinated with is not the issue here, nor are other articles (hypothetical or otherwise). Though I am fascinated with your suggesting a whole entire article instead of the main body of this one, which is what one might expect if you're concerned with undue emphasis in the lead.


 * Sixth source: Kinder p.823 (Making Europe: The Story of the West Since 1300). Sought this one specifically because it discusses the general history of Europe, and covers Nazism as such relatively briefly:


 * ""From an economic standpoint the Nazi regime turned out to be more capitalistic and less socialistic than it claimed at the beginning.""


 * Note again: ideology with socialistic aspects, the regime turning out less socialistic. That's a source discussing the matter in brief. This is NOT neocon propaganda. Its real. Honestly I could just keep posting these sort of sources 'til the cows come home, its not likely to make an impact. Goodness knows there's always some kind of excuse that could be used. -- Director  ( talk )  01:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You hate Glenn Beck, sure, I do too, the guy's a clown spinning ridiculous tall tales, but I don't base my position on whatever is opposite to his claptrap. Good propaganda always has facts behind it to some degree. I watch Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, they're hilarious and informative - but I don't base my views uncritically on anything they say. I read books, lots and lots of books. On WWI, WWII, Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Napoleon and his wars, Roman and Byzantine history, Greek history, etc. I do research - and its fun. Its a hobby.

Lets not get sidetracked here, though. Whether something is or isn't "undue" is in the end a matter of opinion. N-HH, please post the sources requested above if you have any. -- Director  ( talk )  01:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some New Right writers, especially in Eastern Europe, have attempted to bring the "Nazis were socialists" theory into the current debate. It's an argument ad hitlerum against universal health care, gun control and lots of other things.  In Eastern Europe, post-Communist parties accuse the Right of having collaborated with the nazis, and their comeback is that the nazis were really socialists hence the Communists are to blame for whatever they did.  I have nothing against reporting fringe theories, but they belong in their own articles.  TFD (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I know. Though this is the first time I've heard of the Eastern Europe phenomenon. Where I'm from the Nazi collaborators weren't really Nazis - they were Catholic ultraconservatives with a sprinkling of fascism (actually worse than the Nazis, by all accounts).


 * But my point is that "Nazism had socialist elements" is not a fringe theory - its a very well attested and, I dare say, a pretty much undeniable fact. Whether the new right says so or not. You don't just get to declare something is a "fringe theory", you need sources that say its a fringe theory (or something to that effect ofc). -- Director  ( talk )  03:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to answer briefly here, because this whole conversation, as so often, is just not going anywhere, hence why I'm kind of done with it. Part of the reason for that is because we are just talking past each other and I end up just having to repeat myself in a bid to get my original points understood. For example, Director, the finer points of the argument are just passing you by:
 * I have never said that the standard view of scholarship is that Nazism did not have socialist elements – I said the standard view is that it is not and never was a form of socialism, as that term is commonly used. The separate issue is that it is not easy to find a consensus view that, specifically, item A in the Nazi agenda was a manifestation of Nazism's socialist elements, item B of its conservative elements etc. Nor is it clear that such precise distinctions – as opposed to the more general observation about possible influences – are key to most analyses of Nazism. The overall balance of the representation is more fuzzy and we should be too.
 * I have never said there was no shift to the right – I just said there was definitely no shift to the right from the left; again, as mainstream scholarship sees it. I have offered no opinion as to whether there was a shift further to the right in the late 1920s, or in 1934 or whenever, although have pointed out that the lead already contains implicit reference to something that could be interpreted as such. Again, we can leave that more open and avoid any explicit labelling (and let's not forget that as far back as 1923, the Nazis chose to line up with this guy).
 * When there was confusion in my mind about what you were saying, eg about that latter point, I pushed you for clarification and got it. I accepted that, saying it was "fine". It might at least help focus things a bit if you could follow a similar process rather than just railing about how people are supposedly making outrageous claims and demanding "sources" from them either for things they haven't even said or when all they are doing is affirming mainstream and standard viewpoints, which you probably wouldn't yourself dispute are exactly that. The area of difference is actually far narrower, and ultimately about presentation and weight.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what you said, in fact I said that's what you said. However: it doesn't relate to my proposal, and you said it as if to counter some position of mine. The name they've got for that is "straw man argument". Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how it looked to me (e.g. your claims that I'm pushing for Nazism to be called "a form of socialism" or "left" - even though I explicitly pointed out several times, with emphasis, that this is not my proposal).
 * I'm generally agreed with both of your points, so what I'd like to know is - what exactly is this elusive problem then? My understanding is that you acknowledge there were "socialistic elements", but do not wish to refer to them in those terms? -- Director  ( talk )  15:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2
These back-and-forth accusations are not achieving anything, no progress is being made. Quite frankly from the back-and-forths it looks that neither "side" - Director or N-HH and TFD trusts each other enough for any further meaningful conversation to continue on this. I'm not fully familiar with Wikipedia's admin process here, but it looks like you need a resolution to this; because the language I see being used here is hostile and unhealthy. We should all try to take it easy here, and after-all remember with slight dark humour that we are talking about a failed form of political thought founded by a group of raving paranoids that met its end in a bunker in Berlin almost seventy years ago. Imagine if we all got worked up like this over the Flat-Earth society article, yeesh! :P --70.26.113.85 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It shouldn't be about trust. I posted a proposal, then provided several sources that directly support it. N-HH claims said proposal is against the "standard position" of scholarship - I requested sources that explicitly support said claim. The reason I expressed by doubts was that I heard such claims of overwhelming support before from the user, but rarely saw them vindicated. N-HH further claims that "socialist aspects" are already described in the article, but is apparently opposed to following the cited sources and referring to them as socialist. One wonders at how such a position could be logically maintained.


 * Four Deuces says that writing content based on the half-dozen sources in this article would be "undue weight", essentially also appealing to a phantom scientific consensus.


 * In short, I'm interested to see how these good folks arrived at their conclusions regarding what is or is not the scientific consensus. Based on my research I find it hard to believe the consensus (if any) is against the proposition that National Socialism had socialist elements. Or that there was a shift in Nazi ideology towards the right in the late '20s. I'd like to request evidence for claims to that effect. -- Director  ( talk )  03:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That someone has mentioned something is not sufficient reason to include it, let alone put it in the lead. The relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT.  You form your personal opinions based on what you have chosen to read, which is fine, but articles are supposed to reflect how topics are normally covered in mainstream sources.  Instead of saying to yourself, the nazis were socialists, let me find the sources, read the literature and ensure that the article reflects what they say.  If they give minimal coverage to something you consider absolutely vital to our understanding, then put that in another article.  TFD (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Try writing your first sentence again, but replace "someone has mentioned something" with "half a dozen published sources have attested to something".


 * The "relevant policy" is notorious for being abused. One does not arbitrarily "declare" something to be "fringe". Please demonstrate (without OR!) that the proposals are not in accord with the scientific consensus, and therefore represent a fringe view. -- Director  ( talk )  03:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will throw in my two cents on the issue of the weight of literature on addressing the ideology's connection with socialism. "World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia" on page 610 says the following:
 * "Classic histories of European socialism do not pay any attention to the possibility that there could have been any socialism in National Socialism."
 * That is from a source I've seen used in a few related articles here that is available to be viewed online.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The source essentially says that Nazism was socialism but that it wasn't regarded as (quote) "mainstream" socialist in "classic" histories because it wasn't internationalist - and generally devotes a lot of attention to the complex issue. It wouldn't be correct to say this article comes down strongly on one side of the question, because it completely excludes mention of it. Your quote is a bit out of context, like this one (from the same page):
 * ""The Nazi Party in Germany was unabashedly, openly, and proudly the National Socialist Party." [emphasis from the source]"


 * I certainly wouldn't object to incorporating the source in our coverage of the issue. The starting point, however, would be to allow the very mention of the word "socialist" in regard to National Socialism.


 * I'll also repeat that invocations of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE can't be based solely on statements of personal opinion. For my part, I've not gained the impression that such claims are valid. To me it does not seem an extreme or fringe view that National Socialism had "socialist" aspects. I request again to see what said invocations are based on. -- Director  ( talk )  12:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The source does not say that nazism was socialism, and your use of the word "essentially" shows that you are reading between the lines. That is synthesis.  TFD (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. The point of the word "essentially" in such a context is usually to indicate the following statement contains a certain amount of synthesis, i.e. that the source is not being quoted exactly. You got me. -- Director  ( talk )  21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving on. Should I introduce the changes..? I'm not about to start edit-warring on the Nazism article... -- Director  ( talk )  19:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @TFD. Can you directly justify your invocations of WP:WEIGHT/WP:FRINGE? Just to point out again, the contention is that the ideology of National Socialism included socialist elements.
 * @N-HH. What is your objection exactly?


 * See "Balancing aspects": "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."
 * That nazi ideology contained socialist elements is an aspect that receives little coverage in overviews of nazism. See for example "The Origins of the Nazi Ideology" in Nazi Ideology (M. Vasey, University Press of America, pp. 2-3).  The dominant features of nazism were the Volk, anti-Marxism, obedience to the Fuehrer, chauvinism, militarism.  The four basic points were anti-Semitism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-Communism.  As far as I know, the book does not even identify any socialist elements.  Of course some sources will, but none make it a major issue.  Since no mainstream source argues it was a form of socialism, the theory that it was is fringe.
 * On the other hand, many right-wing authors, particularly in the European New Right have attempted to link nazism and fascism to socialism, especially after 1989. This view distances the European Right, which collaborated with the nazis, from nazism and puts the blame on the socialists and sees the Communists as worse than nazis, hence the Resistance were actually traitors.  For some it even justifies the Holocaust, because the Jews supposedly supported Communism (Jewish Bolshevism}, hence justifying the Third Reich's reaction to them.
 * TFD (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The three central themes of National Socialism were collectivism, socialism, and nationalization.."
 * At this point you can probably stop repeating that this is a minority view, and provide sources that state its a minority view, or at least something to that general effect. See WP:WEIGHT. I can find you quite a bit of sources that state the Flat Earth theory is a minority view, I'm not reduced to saying it over and over again to convince others that it is such. I'm sorry, but I reject your personal estimates, and would like to see sources to the effect that the proposed notion is a minority view. One could quote 50 sources here, it wouldn't make a dent in the shield of impenetrable logic that is "he who is silent agrees with me"...


 * Also, can we please not talk about your perceptions of the "European right"? You're entering a subject far too complex for such generalizations, which is besides quite irrelevant to the matter at hand. If you're implying that every source that covers socialist(ic) elements of National Socialism is right-wing biased, then in all honesty I must suggest you seem to be here primarily to keep this article in accordance with non-right-wing views. The opposite could easily be claimed with equal verisimilitude: that "left-wing" authors are pushing their positions to distance the left from association with Nazism. After all, the Nazis and Soviets were on excellent terms for 2 out of the 6 years of WWII... -- Director  ( talk )  03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When I google, ""collectivism, socialism, and nationalization", then only hit I get is what you just posted. It is a fringe theory, and we cannot present it unless you can show that that is how it is normally understood.  TFD (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I also get just one result for "anti-Semitism, nationalism, militarism, and anti-Communism" . Naturally. I do however get 9,500 sources for "Nazism socialistic", which is probably an unrealistically low number seeing as how one has to exclude the words "socialist" "socialism" and "socialists", to avoid false hits for National Socialism and the like. Whatever that means...
 * I've posted half a dozen sources in support of both my points, and I could post more if I took the time - but as I said it wouldn't make a dent in your logic. Its up to you to show something is a fringe theory, if that is your position, rather than demanding that I prove its not. -- Director  ( talk )  04:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is not up to me to find a reliable source that says the theory of nazism you invented is fringe. First of all, I would need to find a reliable source that had even noticed your theory.  I doubt there are many sources that do not mention anti-Semitism or militarism.  Do you not think their those were important parts of their theory?  TFD (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your position is verging on absurd. The proposal is sourced. If you claim it is fringe - kindly go about supporting that position with more than your opinions. By the way, the reason you can't find any sources that are in opposition (I've no doubt you tried) is precisely because virtually none are. The proposed changes are mildly-worded, neutral, and practically unquestionable. It is not contended that Nazism is socialism or on "the left", merely that some of its aspects were socialist (or "socialistic", if you will). -- Director  ( talk )  05:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what is your source that says, "The three central themes of National Socialism were collectivism, socialism, and nationalization"? And are you sure that no thinks anti-Semitism was somehow significant to nazism?  TFD (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do I take it you don't read my posts? -- Director  ( talk )  11:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read your posts. You found some sources that mentioned socialist influences.  You also provided one source that picked the same three main points you did in a book by Byron Renz, a professor of mass media.  Instead of looking for sources that support your opinion, you should look for sources about Nazi ideology and reflect what they say.  TFD (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a source on Nazi ideology. A published, scholarly source; one of several that have been brought up here in support of the same position. Do you reject the source as unreliable? If so: on what grounds, if not - what's your point? (Its quoted above in a framed quote template, btw) -- Director  ( talk )  21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned above, my objection was weight, not rs. I have no doubt whatsoever that Renz expressed the opinion you like, but scholars of fascism have paid no attention to it.  The encyclopedia World Fascism for example does not mention him.  Their article on nazism does not even mention any of the three main principles of nazism he identifies.  And of course few scholars of nazism would fail to even mention anti-Semitism.  Incidentally, are you saying that anti-Semitism was not a core part of the ideology?  Why do you think that scholars of Nazism mention it?  TFD (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is a "scholar of fascism" by your definition, and how is Renz not such? Is there some club I'm unaware of?
 * This is really getting silly now.. Look, these are perfectly legitimate, scholarly sources, and your own personal criticism does not factor at all. We're veering off-topic. What is the basis for your invocations of WP:WEIGHT?? Do you have anything to bring forward besides your own esteemed opinion that indicates socialist aspects are a fringe view? -- Director  ( talk )  06:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Fascism studies is interdisciplinary and there is general agreement about who are the major scholars, texts and majority opinion. Standard textbooks identify the main scholars, such as Paxton and Griffin and the degree to which their views have been accepted. The same is true for all studies in the humanities. Different views are advanced and they receive varying degrees of acceptance and that in turn is reported in standard texts. Currently the "new consensus view of Roger Griffin and others is the most widely held view, while years ago it was the Marxist view. TFD (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So the only acceptable sources are those specializing in Fascism studies? Nonsense. That's an exclusionist view with no backing in Wikipedia policy. I am actually aware of Paxton and Griffin, but thanks anyway. Do Paxton and/or Griffin oppose the view that Nazism had socialist elements? If they don't (as I know they don't), if nobody does - then it isn't a separate view from their position, but simply an aspect of the subject covered in more depth by other authors. I.e. - you can't legitimately cite them in support.
 * The contention is not that socialist aspects are a "dominant" feature of Nazism, merely that they are a feature. It is imo absurd to suggest that's some kind of parallel WP:FRINGE theory that requires a separate article. That's a view based solely on you repeatedly expressing it here.
 * Perhaps it would be WP:UNDUE weight to have them right up there with things like anti-semitism, but they should be mentioned up there in some capacity. How can you even invoke "undue" weight when a specific edit hasn't been proposed?
 * Is there any point in continuing with this, d'you think we need to go through DR? -- Director  ( talk )  10:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * i suspect DR is necessary, i went thru this same debate from the same editor with the same result. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DIREKTOR, you are confusing rs and weight. The first policy relates to facts, while the second relates to opinions.  Sources do not have to be written by fascism experts.  However, weight "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."  Balancing aspects says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."  The policy does not say that a book about mass media that has received no attention in the literature on fascism should be used to identify the main points.  Nor does it say we should put in the lead something that most sources consider trivial.  TFD (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'm confused about is what you base your argument on (aside from these irritating straw men about "dominant" features, and Nazism being "on the left", or a "form of socialism", etc.).
 * "Weight requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Certainly. I ask you: how in the world do you imagine you have demonstrated the view in question is so non-prominent that it should be completely excluded from the article ?? All I've read from you thus far is "its undue weight". You vaguely cite two authors, and naturally one supposes you claim these somehow oppose the proposed statement, since who in their right mind would attempt to claim that they represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", and that all else is "trivial"? Even if these two sources do not cover socialist aspects at all (which I sincerely doubt), how does that exclude mention of said aspects as covered by numerous other sources??


 * I hope you realize this logic appears to be a full-proof defense against virtually any new edit, ready to be employed whenever said edit is not approved-of by yourself. It amounts to an arbitrary and extreme "raising of the bar" of the sort I've typically seen in conversation with creationists. -- Director  ( talk )  21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When you argue with creationists, I suggest you get a book on biology or religion that says something like, "While prior to Darwin, most people accepted the creation story, there is a consensus among modern scientists in support of the theory of evolution."  Then  if someone presents you with a mass communications expert's book that alludes to the Garden of Eden, and asks you how you know it is a fringe view, it was published in a peer-reviewed book, yada yada yada, show them your source.  Notice that a statement that scholars hold an opinion is a statement of fact, it is a fact about an opinion.
 * "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" says, "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others...." The most reliable tertiary source I have seen is the Blamires & Jackson's  fascism encyclopedia, which has noted fascism scholars including Roger Griffin, Robert O. Paxton and Stanley Payne as advisors, and a who's who of fascism scholars as contributors.
 * One can also pick up an historiography, such as Ian Kershaw's The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation. It explains the various approaches to nazi ideology taken by scholars.  Generally recent books on nazism will provide an overview of current thinking on the topic.
 * To answer your question, one does not need to demonstrate a view is non-prominent, one must show that it is prominent. If someone says something in a book and no one picks up on it, one can assume the view is not prominent.
 * TFD (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right - its up to me to source the proposed edit before you have to show it to be fringe. And I have. So I should ask again, I suppose...
 * Yup, tertiary sources are useful for summarizing topics. Your proposition that its ok to censor views not present in encyclopedias is something very new to me, however. Particularly if its just the one encyclopedia you happen to declare the Ultimate Source. The 2008 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences defines "Nazism" as "a convenient abbreviation for the ideology of National Socialism (...) In this context, National meant 'nationalist,' and ' Socialism ' a doctrine that preached equality between all members of the nation." So apparently there was a Nazi doctrine called "Socialism", which "preached equality between all members of the nation". I now propose that we exclude all other views besides these found in this specific encyclopedia. Obviously to present the others would be undue weight.
 * It would also be great if you stepped out of the parallel dimension where I've only presented one scholarly publication (and not a half-dozen) in support of the proposed edit. I could present more, but I'd first like to know how many sources need be quoted here before you personally judge that we're not talking about a fringe theory? Am I right in supposing that the number probably looks like "8" turned on its side?


 * What you fail to realize is that you're proposing to entirely exclude (!) what is at least a legitimate scholarly view (and is really a basic fact about Nazism nobody anywhere opposes). And I wonder: how can we even discuss WP:UNDUE when there are no specific article edits? Can you clarify, please: do you in fact oppose any mention of Nazism having "socialist" or "socialistic" aspects? In any formulation, anywhere in the article? -- Director  ( talk )  00:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We already say in the lead that Nazism stands for National Socialism. The International Encyclopedia  then says, "The Nazis synthesized a variety of strands of extremist political thought that had developed in Germany and Austria in the late nineteenth century. Racist anti-Semitism...extreme nationalists...Social Darwinists and eugenicists...“Aryan,” race."  In fact this brief article covers the same basic points that Nazi Ideology.  Notice it does not even mention nationalization and collectivism, and merely mentions socialism as part of the party's name.
 * I notice by the way that besides trying to equate nazism with socialism, you continually omit any mention of anti-Semitism. What do you think the lead should say about anti-Semitism or should it omit it?  Why?
 * TFD (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you're fully aware, mentioning the name of the ideology isn't the same as stating "Socialism" is its "doctrine" that "preaches equality between all members of a nation". I don't think that would be appropriate as a definition, not by a long shot - but I certainly won't exclude anything that isn't mentioned in that ecycolpedia entry. I cited the encyclopedia to illustrate that point.
 * I've not mentioned Adolf Hitler either. Perhaps I do not mention anti-semitism so much because its not the topic of discussion? Even so, I have already made it clear I do not consider socialist elements of Nazism to be an aspect on par in prominence with anti-semitism ("perhaps it would be WP:UNDUE to have them right up there with things like anti-semitism" ). I don't think you missed that, either, and are being deliberately disruptive. Be that as it may, please be advised I find such implications highly distasteful and offensive, and will bring them up with the community on next occurrence. I'm getting a bit tired of people being called "nazis" and "anti-semites" around here.. Alternatively, you could suggest a quota of how many times "anti-semitism" must be mentioned in any sentence?
 * Finally, I would like an answer please, since my question does actually relate to article content. Do you in fact oppose any mention of Nazism having "socialist" or "socialistic" aspects? In any formulation, anywhere in the article?
 * -- Director  ( talk )  02:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You said above, "The three central themes of National Socialism were collectivism, socialism, and nationalization...." Also, "I have already made it clear I do not consider socialist elements of Nazism to be an aspect on par in prominence with anti-semitism."  Sorry if I find that a contradiction.  The way forward, I believe is to identify a reliable secondary source that explains nazi ideology, then summarize it.  That is a better way than you and I discussing "what nazism means to me" and choosing what we consider important without reference to mainstream scholarship.
 * I remember btw that you were against treating Jewish Bolshevism as a fringe theory because it was based on "historical facts." How do you suggest we tackle the issue in this article?
 * TFD (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the business we call this sort of thing lacunar amnesia:
 * "You must differentiate between the conspiracy theory, and the events its based on. you must be careful not to present such facts as supposed evidence for the cockamamie theory that's been drawn from them" . My position on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism was in support of Producer's proposal to include actual information about Jewish representation in the Boshevik movement (in the "Jewish Bolshevism" article - I know, shocking). The nonsense above is either some convoluted misapprehension on your part, or is a deliberate lie. In light of the latter possibility I warn you again to stop with these sort of comments.
 * It was not me who "said" that "the three central themes of National Socialism were collectivism, socialism, and nationalization" - I was directly quoting a source to make a point. The quotation marks might've tipped you off. There are no contradictions in my above post.


 * You appear to be under the misapprehension that the goal is to provide a singular definition of Nazism, derived from a single source or whatnot? Have you forgotten your own quote of WP:WEIGHT? This is exclusively about the inclusion of the mention of "socialist(ic)" elements of Nazism. Not to say that these are fundamental to their ideology. -- Director  ( talk )  22:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think in this article too we should explain the "events" that the nazi theory of Jewish Bolshevism was based on? TFD (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What? That there were many Jews in Communist and Socialist movements? That's a fact, and in my book - its pretty much a compliment to Jewish people, making them all the more worthy of respect. But that's not the point is it? The point is that "the new right" needs to be countered by Wikipedia - and if they make a claim, Wikipedia must not present any facts that support it. Am I more-or-less near the mark? -- Director  ( talk )  06:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@TFD - If I were you, I would ignore the constant responses made here(some would call it trolling) and wait for a specific proposal. Which is what I believe NHH, Rjensen and others are doing. It's a waste of time and Talk page space to go around and around playing Fringe and Point. I can sympathize, but others don't want to read this giant wall of nonsense. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now just wait a second - that's not fair. Didn't I repeatedly say how silly it is to discuss WP:WEIGHT without a specific edit proposal? Did I bring up the policy? Didn't I request twice, without answer(!), to hear whether TFD opposes any kind of "socialistic" terminology with regard to Nazism, or whether he's open to moving on to specifics? What would be the point of posting a specific edit proposal with the only two users in this discussion categorically opposed to any edit of that sort? And on top of that - I did suggest a general outline of what I want to introduce (way up at the start). Did anyone deign to actually request a more specific proposal?


 * To top it all off, TFD continuously answers by implying I'm an anti-Semite(!) through blatantly misrepresenting my position, three times now - and I'm the "troll"?? Members of my family were killed in the Jasenovac concentration camp, these sort of things are not convenient debating tools where I come from. I find such behavior disgusting, and I ought to report him right now.


 * As for N-HH, he frankly talked himself into a corner, stated he has some vague undefined objection to the proposal, and then just didn't respond to requests for clarification from on high. To be sure, though, if we're at that stage - I'd be more than happy to present a specific proposal. I'll see if I can pick up one more publication and get back to you tomorrow. -- Director  ( talk )  05:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel your frustration. I've observed similar behaviour over at the Soviet Union article. Despite quoting source after source after source, they still apparently insist on denying consensus exists in reliable sources that the Baltic states were illegally annexed and thus are considered restored states identical with the pre-war republics rather than new secessor states of the USSR, and seemingly refuse to engage in any further discussion, apparently comfortable that a couple of evident sock puppets have edit warred in favour of their position. Shrug. --Nug (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I told all of you that the way you were talking at each other would accomplish nothing, I recommended for all of you to calm down and recommended that you seek assistance from an administrator. None of you listened, and thus you made the atmosphere here into a boxing ring rather than a discussion, I am going to report both of the primary instigators, Direktor and TFD for this for mishandling the issue and turning it into a fisticuffs. Both of you need to be more mature, when you know the conversation is going nowhere, say that it is going nowhere, and disengage, otherwise other people don't get an opportunity to put in a fresh thought inbetween people arguing with each other.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazism
I think the article should be entitled National Socialism not Nazism. The ideology itself was called National Socialism, the nickname was Nazi/sm. So why are we using the nickname as the official name and name of this page?

The intro should also be "National socialism or Nazism" not the other way around.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by216.246.232.41 (talk •contribs) 21:28, 10 January 2014


 * The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME. TFD (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another relevant policy is WP:POVNAME, which states that "notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name include colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". Below you praised encyclopedias as useful for summarizing issues, and I would add they are even more useful for determining encyclopedic terminology. The vast majority of encyclopedias refer to the subject as "National Socialism". -- Director ( talk )  21:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:POVNAME says, "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids.... In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." I do not see btw that the word is non-neutral.  Do you have any reliable sources that say it is?
 * Another issue is disambiguation. The term could mean other things.
 * TFD (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point, this isn't about neutrality. Its about using "a colloquialism where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". -- Director  ( talk )  22:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Odd that you would recommend the The International Encyclopedia article on "Nazism" then claim that the name is "unencyclopedic." RS use the term.  If you do not like it then publish an article complaining about the POV treatment, get the academic community to decide not to use the name, and come back to us.  TFD (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it odd? I did not cite the entry in relation to its title.
 * RS use the term "National Socialism" as well; the issue relates to whether the term is encyclopedic, not whether RS use it (that's the whole point of mentioning the exception to using common names from RS).
 * WP:DISAMBIG does not apply by a long shot: there is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the meaning of the term "National Socialism".
 * This is the umpteenth time random readers have suggested on this talkpage that the current title sounds unencyclopedic to them. -- Director  ( talk )  22:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to write to The International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences and complain? TFD (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask? -- Director  ( talk )  23:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you think the term is unencyclopedic, yet it is the term used in the encyclopedia you introduced. So write to them and tell them they do not meet your standards, just as you are telling editors here that this name does not meet your standards.  TFD (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the answer you're looking for is "to troll". -- Director ( talk )  00:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Writing to encyclopedias to correct their mistakes is not trolling. In fact that is what you are doing here, isn't it?  TFD (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's what you believe, and have thereby justified this slow descent into disruptive behavior. I have done nothing of the sort, however, I'm still discussing in good faith, hoping to arrive at some sort of understanding without blowing this out of proportion. My contention is (as you know full well) that most encyclopedias name this subject "National Socialism", and that therefore it is arguably more encyclopedic. To repeatedly bring up one particular encyclopedia I myself brought up in a completely unrelated discussion to illustrate a completely different point - is juvenile and disruptive. What possible effect can it have on the current argument? Suggesting I should "write to the encyclopedia" is just a provocation, which is a good word to describe several of your latest posts here. -- Director  ( talk )  05:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that "most encyclopedias name this subject "National Socialism""? Your encyclopedia, the 2008 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, calls it "Nazism". World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia calls it "Nazism". Wikipedia (this article) calls it "nazism". While I truly am interested in your views on Nazism and the other articles we discussed and why you hold them, none of this helps to advance the improvement of the article. We are not here to correct the biases in mainstream media and academia. They could all be run by the international conspiracy for all I know. TFD (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We were over this before, remember? I cited several encyclopedias... but nvm. This discussion is pointless since there will be no RMs, and I don't want to be called a "troll". -- Director  ( talk )  06:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The two of you (Director and TFD) need to STOP, you are not achieving anything, accept the obvious fact that neither of you are going to agree with each other, that neither of you are going to reach a conclusion, and leave this conversation as ended. It was obvious a while ago that you two needed to stop, you were already getting angry at each other. If neither of you can resolve a dispute, then someone else needs to step in to end it. If this is how you treat each other, you will discourage others from contributing, why will anyone new want to contribute here with these conditions.--70.26.113.85 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe I responded appropriately to what appeared to me as TFD's provocations. Imo he knows full well we had this discussion before, when I cited several encyclopedias. What I get from him, though, is some nonsense about writing to International Encyclopedia.. -- Director  ( talk )  01:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)