Talk:Nazism/Archive 7

Sentence about Sparta removed
I've removed a sentence which used an anonymous web-site as its source. This article should cite what renowned historians have to say about Nazism, rather than let Hitler present his (in this case unpublished during Nazi-Germany) views in wikipedia.

--Schwalker 07:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just re-added it with a better source: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1484488 This is hardly an anonymous website. So give me another one. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:49 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give nazis a stage by quoting them directly in the article; cite what renowned historians say about Nazism; if and only if the historians use a nazi-quote to prove a point, than wikipedia can document this. Also please don't format my contributions on the talk-page.

--Schwalker 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please knock this off? Here's a scholarly source corroborating the fact that Hitler admired Sparta. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:45 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be polite. Hitler may, or may not, have admired Sparta, that is not the matter at discussion here. It is simply not a relevant add to an article about Nazism in general, not about Nazi eugenics. Furthermore, if you do add it to the latter entry, please change the formulation as it currently lead one to think that Sparta was indeed following eugenics policy, which can only be an anachronism. Finally, please review Primary sources, secondary sources & tertiary sources. Thanks, Tazmaniacs 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What Sparta did, was in fact, eugenics. Hitler, regarded it very accurately, as eugenics. It was an early form of eugenics, simple as that. By the way, it's just a one line sentence, it's not like it's three sections about Hitler's view of Sparta. That said, it belongs here. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 17:02 12 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. And you might want to keep your anachronist interpretation of Sparta out of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is now already included in Nazi eugenics, that's enough. Tazmaniacs 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I took Evola out from the Exoteric Hitlerist, because he never was one. His philosophical thought is better described as Traditionalist or Perennialist. He was not "fascinated" by National Socialism, he more properly appreciated some aspects of National Socialism. Andrea Virga 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protected
I've protected this page for 1 week, or until you achieve some kind of consensus. This is not an endorsement of the current version, nor does it mean you should stop the lively discussion you have going on. Discuss, don't edit war. --Haemo 18:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please keep it protected. The actual argument between the sides makes me wonder if something darker is going on here.--Mokru 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mokru, care to explain what you're trying to insinuate by "darker"? Thanks. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 04:27 06 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * Walk up to any U.S. citizen and ask them "What do you think about the German National Socialist movement?" They won't know you're asking them about Nazism under Hitler.  This might reflect poorly on U.S. citizens, but you'll atleast get something back if you ask about "Nazism."  So if both terms are accurate and one has greater recognition, it should be generally acceptible, right?  Unless there is a desire to obscure the history and past, and there is a desire to uplift the perception of nazism...  Someone interested in pure history would accept either or both labels, but someone rejecting the more recognizable form seems worthy of scrutiny. Mokru (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point, Mokru. Of course, Wikipedia can't be based on what the average American knows (I hear some of them don't even know where to place Iraq on the map). I'm personally Someone interested in pure history would accept either or both labels, I don't reject the more recognizable form, which is Nazism, but I am of the opinion that the article should state very clearly, that National Socialism is the ideology's name in the lead, just as it highlights Nazism as its more common name in the lead. Here's a good example of how it should be done: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/National_Socialism &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 12:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally uncalled for
I honestly don't know what Schwalker's problem is, but he seems to have NPOV-issues as far as this topic goes. He removed the quote becase he thought the website was some kind of anonymous blog. I subsequently provided two other websites, one of which is a governmental one, where the quote is listed, which to me, complies with WP:RS. Why Schwalker wants the quote removed, is totally beyond me, but banning me from editing the article when I've done nothing wrong, seems like a very severe approach. Look, it's a Hitler quote, all right? If you can disprove this quote's validity, then it has nothing to do in the article (perhaps it should be in Adolf Hitler's Wikiquote misquoted section). However, so far, you haven't proven jackshit (excuse my French) as far as this quote being false goes. Why are you opposed to including this quote in the article? I just don't get it. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:55 18 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is there a problem with this quote? It seems a fundamentally neutral thing to say that does not present any real problems of undue weight or POV. Hitler liked the Spartans. And? There shouldn't be one, unless you're an ardent Greek nationalist (general comment, not a personal attack). Moreschi Talk 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First, because in accordance to Cite sources, the one legitimate source used is not "Hitler, Adolf (1961). Hitler's Secret Book (1961)", as User:EliasAlucard claims, but Dónal P O'Mathúna in "Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics", published in BMC Med Ethics 2006; on-line on March 14, 2006), who cites Hitler.
 * Second, because User:EliasAlucard has deformed Dónal P O'Mathúna's citation of Hitler, not only by claiming immediate access and references to Hitler, but also by claiming Hitler had said that Sparta was the first National-Socialist State. If you verify this source, you will only read that Hitler said: "Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state."
 * Third, because on all there is to say about Nazi eugenics, this quote, deformed by User:EliasAlucard, is given undue weight. If that subsection should be enlarged, than it would be more important to speak about the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, Action T4 (euthanasia program) and Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics. Tazmaniacs 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs, now you're completely making things up and this is basically slander. I did not deform anything, nor did I misattribute any quotes. I cited the sources verbatim in the and gave my own completely NPOV summary of that quote. If you have a problem with the quote, take it up with the book. And yes, if it's a genuine Hitler quote, then it should be attributed to Hitler, because he said it. Doesn't matter if it's published in a book. If the originating source is reliable, then it should be attributed to Hitler. Period. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:14 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, you can stop writing User:EliasAlucard every time you mention my nick. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 16:21 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:CITE: Say where you got it: It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear.. Tazmaniacs 14:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting lame. Look here: It's in the actual book, alright? I am not going to waste hours by going to the library and search for a quote. You can find this on the internet if you want it verified. Do you have something else to pester me about this? The quote is valid, and a genuine Hitler quote, as far as I'm concerned. The quote, should stay in the article because it's only a sentence. &mdash;  EliasAlucard|Talk 20:26 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Taz, do you have any actual reason to remove this sentence? It seems you're removing it because you dislike it. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:02 26 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons have been exposed before. Your formulation is incorrect, one of the source used is not reliable for this matter (New Republic) and you do not attribute to the original article, claiming you directly read Hitler. Finally, this is giving undue weight to a detail about Nazi eugenics, and the only relevant entry for this "quote" is Nazi eugenics, not Nazism nor Eugenics. Tazmaniacs 20:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is: Hitler's Secret Book, page 8-9 and 17-18, also confirmed by this source. Adolf Hitler himself, wrote this stuff. And my summary of it is correct. It's even written in the book Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945 that it was Eugenics in Sparta. Your attribution to "quoted by Dónal P O'Mathúna in "Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics", published in BMC Med Ethics 2006" is a joke; where are you getting this from? Also, have you even looked at how you've messed up that article? Two references sections? Do you have any idea of how Wikipedia works? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:57 26 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop personal attacks and do not reverse history. Your first source was Dónal P O'Mathúna in "Human dignity in the Nazi era: implications for contemporary bioethics", published in BMC Med Ethics 2006, this is easy to verify by looking on history of the article (your dif). Do not change the debate on content on attacks against me, thank you. Tazmaniacs 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, now you're making up lies. I have never cited any "Dónal P O'Mathúna." I cited from the very beginning, Hitler's Secret Book. As for you, it's a fact, you have screwed up the Nazi eugenics article by making two reflists on it. You are not cooperating here. You are doing things your way without even knowing what you're doing. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 23:20 26 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is precisely this: you claimed to cite Hitler when you were actually refering to Mathuna's article. Please remain civil. Tazmaniacs 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I referred to this source from the very beginning. After constant complaining from you and Schwalker, about it not being a reliable source (needless to say, that first source is very reliable), I subsequently provided a link to Mathuna's article where this quote was listed as something published by Hitler. After that, I decided to cite directly from the original source, because that's even more reliable. It never was about some obscure dude named "Mathuna", it was Hitler who said it from the very beginning. And by the way, when you attribute this quote to Mathuna, you are spreading lies. This quote, did not originate from Mathuna. And other editors agree that this quote is relevant, so please, leave it there. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 00:12 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Page protected, again
Okay, that's enough of this. I protected this, and immediately another edit war started up as soon as it was over. I'm tired of seeing this show up on my watchlist, and the fallout on WP:ANI, so I'm going rouge and putting some guidelines down for all of you: Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. --Haemo 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No more edit warring. I'm serious &mdash; it's totally unacceptable, and repeated page protections don't seem to be encouraging you to discuss, rather than edit war.  As such, I'm imposing a 1 revert rule on this page; if you see an edit you disagree with, remove it once.  If they user re-inserts it, then discuss, don't edit war.  I will block you if you don't heed this warning.
 * File a request for comment. I'm serious &mdash; get some outside views here on the inclusion, and quickly.  Abide by consensus, when it's reached.
 * 'Stop edit warring.
 * I totally agree that it's getting ridiculous. To understand the Nazi ideology, you have to understand its Indo-European roots. The sentence about Sparta, is just about that: the Indo-European roots of Nazism. The Eugenics section, needs to be expanded upon; the part about Sparta is in my honest opinion, an important part of the Nazi eugenics, and the tiny excerpt about Sparta should be here as well. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 01:50 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Indo-European roots of Nazism". Sic. And you claim to make Wikipedia NPOV? Tazmaniacs 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is totally uncalled for; be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors. --Haemo 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with including the information about Adolf Hitlers views on Sparta, it is totally relevant to this article, by the way, killing deformed children was probably common in other ancient cultures, but it's a fact Hitler admired sparta in particular. Atomsgive 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do us a favour and stop calling children "deformed" on this page, thanks.--Schwalker 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you believe the term is offensive because it is analytically correct, maybe it could be reworded to disabled children, the only reason someone would have to keep this information out of this article is either they like Hitler so much as not to want to associate infanticide with him or they are somewhat ignorant supporters of ancient sparta Atomsgive 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Indo-European roots. I have to ask, since this is becoming more and more blatantly obvious: do you know anything at all about Nazism? What do you think Hitler based his ideology on? Why do you think they call it Aryan race? Why do you think Hitler praised Sparta and the use of the Swastika? Unbelievable. Perhaps you shouldn't try to be an expert on this topic when you have no clue or knowledge about it? &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 04:29 06 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your history lessons, Elias. Again, this is given undue weight, and should only be stated, in an appropriate manner (i.e. without claiming that Sparta was really following eugenic policies, an obvious anachronism), in the entry Nazi eugenics. The debate concerning the relevancy, or not, of citing Hitler and his (mis)interpretation of Sparta can be continued on Talk:Nazi eugenics. Tazmaniacs 15:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Spartans killing and sacrificing deformed/disabled infants is an accepted fact is indeed a form of eugenics, it's not undue weight unless you can find some spartans that spoke out against the practice, and it is a fact that Adolf Hitler justified the later nazi practise of killing the old and disabled by saying the spartans had done the same. The information EliasAlucard added should be in this article, and we need more information like this, not less.  Atomsgive 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tazmaniacs, since it's clear now that you know NOTHING at all about Nazism, let me teach you one or two things about this ideology: it is an ideology more or less entirely based on the "Aryan race", which in this case, is the German people. This ideology, puts all the focus on improving the Aryan race. One way of doing that according to the Nazis, is eugenics. The section about Sparta is not given "undue weight", in fact, it belongs here because it's a crucial part of this ideology. Your last censorship of the quote on Nazi eugenics is just a way of trying to hide for the casual user what Hitler said about Sparta. You have basically everyone against you about this on the talk pages (except of course, Schwalker), and now you're resorting to just putting it in the footnotes because you don't want people to read what Hitler wrote. It seems like you two have some sort of POV-agenda behind this. I'm not the only one pointing this out. Dachannien and Atomsgive are also concerned about this. With good reason. This quote by Hitler, is obviously, offending you for some reason, only God knows why. I just cannot comprehend how and why this quote is so objectionable to you two. Hitler is dead and Nazism is defeated, get over it. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 03:52 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * Tazmaniacs, your well indented efforts are appreciated, but, please, help us converge here. Concede that the quote about Sparta (while possibly disturbing) is accurate and relevant. Also, everybody: please make an even bigger effort to keep calm. Mtarini 18:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This source confirms that Spartans were practising eugenics. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 04:34 07 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

The quote about Sparta is highly relevant and should remain. It is not being given undue weight, eugenics was a strong component of the nazi ideology, anyone who denies this is simply being ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.106.7 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, particularly when participating in such a heated debate - you run the risk of making it look like "EliasAlucard" is logging out to support himself anonymously. Drewson99 17:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What is all the ‘passionate debate’ about? The city-state of Sparta indeed left newborn children failing their physical standards for infants to die. This is documented in plenty of places to settle this debate. (Please go Google as I won’t introduce more debate fodder.) Many other cultures did the exact same with newborns (kindly Google again). It’s been put forth here that Hitler admired the Spartan culture, including the policies regarding (excuse the term) substandard Spartan children and sources have been cited. Perhaps someone can educate me as to why this hasn’t satisfied the needed criteria and halted the apparent editwar. Thanks in advance. Joliver375 (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondary and primary sources
There has been back and forth editing recently in this article concerning the use and inclusion of some quotes from primary sources by J. Goebbels and A. Hitler. In order to describe and explain the ideology and politics of National Socialism, should primary source texts by Nazi politicians be used for the article, or should the article rely on scholary secondary sources on the subject? 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the light of rules such as WP:RS, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion this article should use "established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers", but (when possible) avoid to take quotes directly from primary Nazi sources. --Schwalker 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends on what the quotes are used for. If they are used illustratively, that is, to provide color and further detail for factual claims that are also cited to secondary sources, then they're fine. If they are used to establish facts that are not documented in secondary sources, then the interpretation of those quotes may be an original research problem.


 * In short: If a scholar says "The Nazis did thus-and-so" and we quote Hitler as saying "Thus-and-so is good for the Volk!" then that's fine. But if our only evidence of a more subtle or disputed proposition is a quote from Hitler, that's not so fine. --FOo 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good arguments. I agree. Hitler's words should not be used to establish facts. That being said, Hitler can be quoted.EconomistBR 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well put. While Hitler's words should never be used to establish facts, they can be efficaciously used to establish what nazism said about itself and what it meant to the nazists (however much this wicked theory goes against our principles). Am I right?


 * For example: if the Nazism took (imagined or factual) Sparta eugenetic practices as a model, quoting Hitler saying so can be used, not to say anything about Sparta, but to inform the reader about one (horrible) aspect of nazism. Mtarini 12:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article deals not just with material actions, but also with the ideology of nazism. So the ideology itself belongs to the facts, too. The ideology of Nazism is not just what the one man Hitler said, but also includes what the different parts of the German population, and what the precursors of Nazism thought. Thus I think, the article can't leave it to Hitler to explain "what nazism said about itself and what it meant to the nazists", but has to go back to scholary sources.

I think I can agree with FOo's interpretation of the thus-and-so example, but only if there really is a causal relationship between what Hitler said and what the Nazis did. The problem with the Second Book is, that it was kept secret during Nazi-Germany. Thus nobody except Hitler himself could know its contents. So wouldn't it (to say the least) be misleading to use this book as a primary source in this article?

--Schwalker 18:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments about conservatism
I had removed two sentences which had been inserted and now have been re-inserted by IP 69.137.184.101 (this page's rules don't allow me an immediate revert): These are political attacks on modern conservative parties. There is no source given for who makes these claims. --Schwalker 11:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It (Nazism) is certainly anti-liberal and pro-conservative in modern politics.
 * The strong sense of nationalism (of historical fascists) can now be found in the Republican Party and other conservative parties in the world.
 * Anyone who knows anything about National Socialism, knows that it is anti-liberal, and pro-conservative. I wouldn't call the Republican Party nationalist though. Schwalker, your POV is getting more and more obvious. You consider it an attack if someone points that that there is a correlation between Nazism's conservative and anti-liberal features, and the conservative features found in "Right-Wing" parties. You are not being NPOV here. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:49 17 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * Two leading scholars on fascism (in which they include Nazism) Roger Griffin and Stanley Payne see it as an anti-conservative movement. -- Vision Thing -- 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Source please? By the way, Fascism and Nazism, are not the same thing. Nazism, is not a subcategory of Fascism. If these so called scholars are of the opinion that Nazism is a type of Fascism, then we should disregard their opinion altogether. However, if you by "conservative" mean right-wing, then yes, these scholars are right about that. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:44 18 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Project
Hi! The LGBTProject banner was removed with the edit summary "this has nothing to do with Nazism". The contrary viewpoint is that the article is in the Category:Homophobia, and there's even a section of the article titled Homosexuality. I'm re-adding the banner, but welcome comments on the subject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to RfC
Just a quick comment on your RfC about primary and secondary sources. There is an abundance of scholarly material on Nazism, so in this case it really should not be necessary to go beyond that. Couldn't you just cite the primary sources as examples when a secondary source cites them? You might want to have a look at the article Islam, where some editors could not understand that there was a problem with quoting the Qu'ran directly. The article is now written up from a variety of secondary sources and has reached FA status. HTH. Itsmejudith 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just undid a three word bit of vandalism. I don't understand why people do these things. Wowest 06:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. We have vandalism and counter-vandalism now. Pro-Nazi, Anti-Nazi. I don't know how to revert this that many revisions. Would someone who knows how to please handle it? Wowest 07:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I had this article added to my watchlist two weeks ago and the Vandalism is terrible. Has it always been this way? To handle those amounts of Vandalism one has to look through the edit history and find the last correct version, revert to that and add all honest changes that were done later back in. But I don't have the time to do this now, probably tomorrow. If this vandalism continues, I will ask this article to be semi-protected, see: Protection policy. Zara1709 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)