Talk:Nazism/Archive 6

Socialist or Conservative
That the Nazis resemble party X is not a question that can be addressed in an encyclopedia. What can be addressed is how parties and politicians in the Weimar Republic perceived themselves and each other, or claimed to perceive themselves and each other. The Nazis believed themselves socialists and revolutionaries. The conservative parties did not believe the Nazis to be conservatives. If you want to associate the Nazis with party X, find a Weimar Republic politician or think tank associating the Nazis with party X - not as evidence that they really were like party X, but as evidence of the politics happening at the time.

If we are going to revisit the edit war as to whether the Nazis supported capitalism or socialism, let us at least quote communists of the Weimar Republic calling them supporters of capitalism, and capitalists of the Weimar Republic calling them supporters of socialism - inserting actual evidence that tends to support the conclusions we desire, while leaving the conclusions unstated. James A. Donald 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Godwin's Law" and "Godwin's Tarpit"
Does this article breach godwin's law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbrownmonster (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! Duh. 24.223.151.194 (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What IS "Godwin's Law"??? I read Mike Godwin's article online (see summary in Wikipedia article) re his "Godwin's Law" which I understand to be Godwin's observation about dialogue: if differing people blog long enough about a controversial subject, someone will call someone else a "Nazi".

Thus, people NOW have this "magic phrase" to counter the 4-letter "N" word. You call me "Nazi" or my ideas "nazi like". Well, I need not refute you point by point. I merely speak BACK the new magic phrase "Godwin's Law'. The implication seems to be that it is NEVER fair to use the term "Nazi" or "Nazilike". Thus, true scholarly analysis is short circuited into name calling.

Also, some of the editorial battles over this article on Nazis/National Socialists reflect the societal ongoing battle to tar and feather one's opponents with any aspect (however individually harmless or tangential) with any portion of the word Nazi.

A kind of Godwin's Tar Pit, so to speak.

This article's discussions are interesting to read as a summary of the ideology wars on the 4 letter "N" word; but I would NOT use this article on National Socialists / Nazis as a solid major source. Because - I'm not sure how much of this article is truly objective scholarship and how much is part of "who can I tar - however lightly - with the 4-letter N word".Victorianezine (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazism vs. National Socialism
Shouldn't this article be called the latter? I mean, Nazism, is an informal abbreviation. Hitler and the rest of his party, never called themselves "Nazis". It was a pejorative slang used by the allies. The title of this article, is obviously wrong and misleading. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:00 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * See the move discussion above. The outcome was 25 to 5 against moving to National Socialism. --mav 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really matter the least as far as I'm concerned. The proper name for this ideology, is not Nazism. Its actual name, is National Socialism. Just to take an example here, Mohammedan is a name many Muslims are called, based on their religion, being followers of Muhammad. Yet, despite this, the article is called Muslim. The same rules should apply on this article. Be that as it may, that Nazism is colloquially more common in the English language, that is beside the point. We are trying to be encyclopaedic here, and we should call the ideology by its proper name, not after informal slang. Britannica Encyclopaedia calls it National Socialism. You know my point is valid here. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:48 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * The example you note, Muslim, follows our common names naming convention while this proposed move would not follow that convention. Exceptions are granted, but on a case-by-case basis that requires consensus building. So far, the consensus here is to not allow for an exception. I'm now off to other things. --mav 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You will not find one single political party, calling itself "Nazi". They are all called National Socialist. Basing the title of this article on the most common name in Hollywood films, is not encyclopaedic. The title of this article, clearly has NPOV issues, seeing as how many of the votes who opposed the National Socialism term in that vote for discussion, claimed that National Socialism has nothing to do with Socialism. Yeah right. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 07:35 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)


 * National Socialism and Nazism are not the same. National Socialism is a political ideology with nationalism and socialism as major principles, among others.  Nazism is a specific incarnation of National Socialism (i.e. the incarnation that governed Germany from 1933-1945).  This is obvious in the name itself, as the term “Nazi” and its derivatives (Nazism) stem from the formal German name “National Socialist German Workers Party” (NSDAP) – “German Workers Party”, obviously, indicating the specificity.  To use an analogy, Volkswagen is to car as Nazism is to National Socialism.  Not all cars are Volkswagens, not all National Socialists are Nazis.  A National Socialist would be expected to believe that their nation/culture/race is superior to others, but that nation/culture/race need not be Germanic, as it would be with a Nazi.


 * That being said, however, this article should indeed be titled “Nazism”, as it is currently written about the aforementioned specific incarnation. It seems to me that this discussion should really be about whether a new article on “generic” National Socialism, so to speak, is needed.  Given sparse historical examples, there would be obvious challenges to striping away uniquely NSDAP elements to describe “generic” National Socialism. Elcobbola 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article's name must be changed. "See the move discussion above. The outcome was 25 to 5 against moving to National Socialism". '''WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Mitsos 09:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a support for a move to "National Socialism", for the reasons cited below (in favor of support). Should be "National Socialism", not the sensationalistic "Nazism", which carries a negative connotation on behalf of those using "Nazi", implying biased POV. --Sasoriza 04:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe some historical movements deserve sensational appellation because they were, in fact, rather sensational. Nazism is one of them. There's no reason their own name for themselves is automatically any more appropriate or less POV than the name used by the Allies. You might as well change the title of an article on serial killers to reflect the fact that they prefer to be called "purveyors of the cool-aid."0nullbinary0 (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosities sake, in your opinion should the word Nazism or National Socialism not carry a "negative connotation." We are talking about imperialistic, militaristic, murderous racists. --Anymouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.192.65.5 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are talking about imperialistic, militaristic, murderous racists &mdash; Yes, and the same applies on Islam, but its main article Islam doesn't have a slang title despite that. Why the double standard? Also, Nazism is not an NPOV title. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:38 26 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Semantics-- Most of the argument I see is centered around semantics. I think we can all agree on some basic premises: The NSDAP was a reaction to what it perceived as the failure of Weimar, the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, and the plight of the German economy during the Great Depression. I think a more relevant debate would focus less on what an individual chooses to call the movement (Nazism v. National Socialism), and more on the underpinnings of the movement itself. I am not a professional historian, but I recall as a history major in college seeing the terms used almost interchangeably, with very little attention paid to any distinction between the two. Just one opinion here. Wildcarrde (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt the name should be changed to "National Socialism". The most condemning evidence is the fact that the regime itself, (Third Reich per say) never called itself "Nazis" or referred to their policies as "Nazism". It was always referred to as the "National Socialist Party". "Nazi" is political shorthand and not the proper term. I believe it is safe to say that any learned individual with familiarity on the issue, would undoubtedly agree. If someone continues to disagree I challenge you to pour through records and speeches and find evidence that the regime ever referred to itself as "Nazis". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apazdon (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed that they didn't call themselves Nazis, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't. We can't call them the National-Socialists either, because national-socialism evidently originated in Austro-Hungary in the 1890s and developed into both Czech and Austrian-German versions which coexisted for two entire decades before Adolf Hitler joined the Bavarian imitation. There was also the Black Front, a breakaway party within German national-socialism that opposed Hitler's NSDAP from a radically socialist position. I have no enthusiasm for the term "Nazi", but I concur with Elcobbola's observations above. We stand in need of some terminology &mdash; however artificial or unhistoric &mdash; which will differentiate Hitler's national-socialism from other sorts of national-socialism, and "Nazism" seems to be the available (and familiar) candidate. Gnostrat (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"National Socialist" has the appropriate negative connotations associated with that party's philosophies. "Nazism" is pejorative. There's a difference. Insistence on using a pejorative term over a historical term is one of the things that hurts Wikipedia's credibility in the eyes of many. Warren Dew (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Preferring a pejorative (but now more common) name over the self-chosen name isn't really the issue. We've discussed this further down the page &mdash; many times over &mdash; and with a consistent outcome. Wikipedia's credibility would also be hurt by the historical inaccuracy of naming this ideology National Socialism in a way which privileges it as the National Socialism, over and above all the others which have called themselves by that name, some of which have an earlier, more original (and arguably more accurate) claim to it. Gnostrat (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When there is a well established primary meaning of some term then the custom is to use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. -- Vision Thing -- 16:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That would apply only if there were no common(er) synonym for the term in its primary meaning. In this case the alternative, "Nazism", is the readily available, familiar way of differentiating Hitlerism from other national-socialisms. Why resort to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when WP:COMMONNAME gives us the simpler, unambiguous and straightforward solution? Put it another way: what you suggest would be like reserving Dinosaur for the primary, but incorrect, narrow usage (excluding birds) and relegating the scientifically correct broad usage (including birds) to Dinosaur (disambiguation). Gnostrat (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We can save a lot of time if we acknowledge that the term "National Socialism" is used by people promoting right-wing politics in the United States. Many people promote the term online. Having it here lends them the credibility they desire. 90.135.239.234 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Nazism → National Socialism — National Socialism is the accurate name, using an informal slang as the title of this article, is not Encyclopaedic. Britannica, a fairly respected Encyclopaedia, calls it National Socialism. Hitler himself, called it National Socialism. All Nazi parties, call themselves National Socialist. —EliasAlucard 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Precedent discussion concerning an identical requested move made in April 2005. Tazmaniacs 01:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose

 * Strong Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME Reginmund 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose : if moved, it would have to be disambiguated to National Socialism (Nazism) or something similar anyways since Nazism isn't the only type of National Socialism. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rich Uncle Skelton just adds another layer to the problem; he's quite right, there have been several National Socialisms. But this name is unambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- JHunterJ 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Tazmaniacs 11:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, also this article is more about the Nazis in Germany than National Socialism in my opinion. Tarret ''talk 20:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The content of this article is about the German Nazi Party. The generic National Socialist Party should be distinguished. --Voidvector 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose : That Nazism is a form of National Socialism does not mean they're the same thing. Exactly as described in the wikipedia list of National Socialist parties. TerminusEst (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this could go either way but I'm more opposed. If this does happen, I'd like the echo the comment below and please name it the REAL correct name "The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" and have Nazism direct to it. National Socialist is translated to english and overgeneralizes what the topic is actually referencing. "National Socialist" is a misleading translation to english. We can be more accurate then even brittanica.

Support

 * Strong Support - Per WP:ENC, we are trying to be encyclopaedic here. That means, we have encyclopaedic standards to follow. Nazism, is what you call it on forums. On encyclopaedias, you call it National Socialism. Examples: Also, National Socialism is more frequent amongst academic scholars. &mdash;  EliasAlucard|Talk 03:48 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per reasons given by EliasAlucard|Talk 03:48 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)  . Here's another example of correct encyclopedia naming of this subject Britannica National Socialism article.--Paul 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per >EliasAlucard|Talk. Mitsos 10:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I used to be opposed to this, but I now think it should be National Socialism, partly because Wikipedia should use terms accurately when there is dispute, partly because "Nazi" is too informal and widely used in other contexts (eg, pejorative remarks, etc) to be really encyclopedic in this specific context. Note also that the German Wikipedia calls it Nationalsozialismus and I think we could take the German view on what it should be called as reasonably definitive. All with the caveat that Nazi redirect to it. MarkThomas 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This is immoral. We should really use a proper name, not the pejorative name (popularized by the enemies just before or during the war). --Kubanczyk 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Nazi" has entered the English vernacular, pejorative or not, and it is not necessarily used only by the "allies" either. Reginmund 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I have no knowledge as to whther the term "Nazi" is perjorative or not, however while studying in Germany I have never seen a historical document from WWII era Germany referring to istelf as "Nazi". It is always written NS or NSDAP, when "National Socialist" is not used. Seems to be the proper name.--Patrick80639 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support i got this straight from wikipeida ""The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP), also known as the Nazi Party," —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machetero150 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment - Anti-Slavism must be removed from the list of key elements, Nazi Germany didn't actually have the hatred of Slavs that people said they did. The Soviet government was detested, because of being "Jewish" Communism, however Nazi Germany did ally with Slavic countries, and there were even Ukrainian and Russian (later "Russian Liberation Army") divisions of the SS. Even though Poland was attacked it was only Jews and protesters who were persecuted, not collaborators. Himmler can even be quoted as saying "This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race". For this reason I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.114.8 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply Wrong, as outlined in Mein Kampf Hitler wished for NAZISM to be strongly anti-slavic, in Mein Kampf Hitler proposes that the slavic race are either exterminated or used for slave labour for the Arayans, he describes them as Untersmench, as he does the Jews.... Himmler was not Hitler, and that quote was probably him being purposfully diplomatic in trying to placate slavic supporters.172.213.23.217 14:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - and what does WP:ENC have to do with this? Nazism is not slang in English. It is the most widely accepted term of use in the English lexicon for this ideology and not just by forums. Reginmund 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Nazism" is the original National Socialism. It is not Nazism, it is National Socialism. Nazism is not its official name and never was. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 13:46 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Nazism" is used more often in English, not only vernaculary, but by Anglophonic nazi parties also. Vol. IV of the Author's Works Including Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts, by Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and Then a Captain of Several Ships is an official name also. It was originally published and written that way until it was shortened by further generations. The same applies to "Nazism". Reginmund 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentThe term is relative to time, to usage, and to cultures. There should be a more clear differientiation between this.    The ideals of the  socilistic party, and the corruption of it, as denoted by North American reference to the term.  ie Nazi, feminazi,...--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - An editor has pointed out that "Nazism isn't the only type of National Socialism" which is true, but it is not an argument for having to disambiguate to "National Socialism (Nazism)." The Nazi version was the original, and is the most widely known, thus the other versions of National Socialism should be disambiguated, but not the original.  Besides, this is more of a theoretical argument than a real one, as the only other "National Socialism" article is Austrian National Socialism. This article should be named "National Socialism" and "Nazism" should redirect here. I'm all for using the common names of things for article titles, but that suggestion most commonly pertains to scientific vs. common names, which is not the case here. In the name of common usage, do we want to perpetuate the erroneous notion that the name of this movement was not "National Socialism"? What is an encyclopedia for, if not to get things right? For an example more pertinent to this discussion: we don't have a Car article, but we do have an article about the Automobile. I urge the editors who oppose this move to carefully reconsider. --Paul 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Do the opposing side have any other argument than WP:COMMONNAME? Because really, that doesn't apply in this situation. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:14 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That doesn't apply in this situation? If you are going to make a subtle point, you can't ignore Wikipedia's policy just because you are biased. The common name rule is perfectly legitimate in this argument. Besides that, the article also discusses the evolution of Nazism today which is referred to by many neo-nazi parties as "nazism" and not only by them but it is a generic term. More common than National Socialism. It should also be consistent with Nazi Party. Reginmund 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Excuse me, biased? What are you trying to insinuate here? This is ad populum arguments. In colloquial speech, you call it Nazism. But Nazism is an abbreviation, not a title of an ideology. The official name of this ideology, has always been National Socialism. It doesn't matter if Neo-Nazis are being called Nazis by the media. They are also being called "right-wing extremist," yet there's nothing right-wing about their political ideology (Nazism is anti-Capitalism, anti-Liberalism, anti-Christianity, anti-Democracy, etcetera). Oh and by the way, "Nazi Party" should be called National Socialist German Workers Party. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 02:18 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Other arguments have been lifted before, see archive 5#Requested move. When I read historians, not only media, they use as much if not more Nazism than "National Socialism". Perhaps we don't read the same books, nor the same newspapers... Tazmaniacs 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Disregarding an official policy on Wikipedia because it contradicts your views is biased. FYI "Nazi" is not an abbreviation. It is a contraction. Nor it is a colloquialism. When it is used in formal writing such as by the BBC, it is not a colloquialism. Reginmund 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply An offical policy on Wikipedia, is just a guideline. It is not the LAW. Exceptions are possible. We are after all going to provide information and knowledge to the world, not adjust Wikipedia articles (and title of the articles) by what it is called by people who know nothing about the subject. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 04:03 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - ...and that guideline instructs us on how to name the article correctly. I don't see how that is relevant to a comic book. Or how it makes a difference that we are going to provide knowledge to the world. Do you have any arguments for proving an exception on this article? Reginmund 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply The "LAW" reference was just sarcasm meant to ridicule your blind fanaticism to WP:COMMONNAME (I take it you haven't seen Judge Dredd (film)). Look, this is clearly a case where an exception must be made. Proper and official names, are preferable, rather than common names. For instance, we have, PS1, PS2 and PS3 all redirecting to PlayStation 1/2/3 because it's the OFFICIAL NAME. Contraction, abbreviation, whatever, doesn't matter. If it's an official name, then the official name has precedence over an informal slang. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 05:23 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not the place for ridicule or sarcasm. That borders on civility. If you have a point, post it. Don't ridicule other users. You won't be taken seriously. Now your comparison to the game console is irrelevant because truely "Nazism" has no official name. It is a generic ideology. PlayStation however does. That is why it is where it is. Again, there is no incorporated organisation that names the ideology. When names become generic, we don't go by their "official" names. That is why we don't name Shakespeare's plays by their preambles but how they are generically known. FYI again "Nazism" is not informal. I have already proven that to you. Reginmund 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply What's the matter, can't take a joke? Nazism, has an official name. It has always been called Nationa Socialism. Why do you think the "Neo-Nazi" parties are all called National Socialist? Examples: National Socialist Front, National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party, National Socialist Party of America, Russian National Socialist Party, National Socialist Vanguard, etcetera. I know this is extremely difficult to understand, but this ideology's official name, is National Socialism. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 13:03 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ridicule borders on civility. If you want to make jokes, go to a message board. FYI Just because many organisations use "National Socialism" doesn't make it an official name. There are other organisations that use "Nazism" such as the American Nazi Party. There is no official entity that defines "Nazism". That is why it isn't an official name and no organisation monitors the English language. Reginmund 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply So you can't take a joke. Anyway, National Socialism is the official name. You were only capable of finding one defunct group, that uses Nazi. Look, do you know ANYTHING at all about this ideology? If you do, you will understand that it is a nationalistic version of socialism. "Nazism," did not come before National Socialism. You are desperately grasping for straws here. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:51 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The English language does not have an academy and nor can you prove that Nazism has an "official" name. Nazism doesn't have an "official" website or an "official" headquarters. The American Nazi Party, defunct or not just goes to prove that "National Socialism" is not used exclusively by neo-Nazis. This is the last filibuster that I am posting unless you cease that incivil tripe of yours or I will report you to an admin for incivility.

You are desperately grasping for straws here

Reginmund 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)