Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazi Philosophers


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.  MBisanz  talk 03:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Philosophers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason: I would like wider consideration on this article. Does the grouping and title amount to original research? Are these philosophers who were members of the Nazi party? It's unreferenced so I'm not sure about an article on "nazi philosophers". If people think it's legitimate I'm happy to respect that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – surprisingly, I know I shouldn’t be, there is a genre in the scholarly area dealing with this specific subject as shown here . Likewise, the article does have room for expansion, based on the above references.  This brings us to the area of the lack of references in the piece right now.  I do not see that as an issue in that as the article is currently represented as a list of individuals already included here on Wikipedia, other than one, whose own articles are well referenced and cited.  As for original research, I would say no, in that these individuals have been grouped with the Nazi’s through second and third party reliable – verifiable and creditable sources.  Hence not OR  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nazism was a philosophy, and these were its thinkers. If the list of names can be verified (and i'm sure it can) then it's OK. needs flashing out from a list though. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not original research (OR) anymore than wikipedia itself is, since it is just a list or gathering point (like a disambiguation?) which takes only one click to verify. One risk is that it may be open to name-calling, so I think it is best to keep the list quite conservative or lock it, otherwise who knows what names might appear on it!  I can see at least that those claimed on the page to have been members of the Nazi party were in fact members.  I can't find such a useful collection of dodgy philosophers elsewhere, though of course one might suggest another page with leftist philosophers connected with Stalinism -- a number of 30s 40s philosophers were Stalinist -- or connected with Maoism -- of whom there were quite a few in the 60s; though they usually merely approved of it without actually forming it from the inside, as for example the Biologistic race "theorists", or the New Christianity "theologians" did for Nazism.  Thanks.84.203.39.11 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay. Sounds reasonable. Although I suspect (without being well schooled on the subject) that these pholosphers and other thinkers and writers were not exclusively "Nazi philosophers" or advocates only of that way of thinking. I should have mentioned that I tried to move the article to German philosphers during World War 2, but got reverted. On the one hand the title I tried doesn't focus as much on the nazi aspect, which seems to be the article's focus. But on the other hand I'm not sure it's accurate to call philosophers who professed support for aspects of nazism Nazi philosophers. Did they always support nazism? What about after the war? Should Ezra Pound be on the list? Henry Ford (assuming he espoused philosophical support for the cause which I think is right)? Other thinkers who support some, most or all of the nazi ideologies? I guess better sourcing of the article would help.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Reply There were lots of German philosophers during WWII that were not Nazis! WWII is not the issue but membership of the Nazi party or being an ideologue for it.  As to accuracy, yes we should be careful to check that they were, unlike Ford, actually intelligent or intellectual level thinkers who fell for the Nazi ideology and joined the party or helped create racist ideology.  If in doubt I would say leave Ezra Pound or others you seem to be thinking about off the list.  No point talking about details such as what happened to them later, they signed up, lots of others didn't, and that's the simple point of it, those details can be checked on the individual's page. 84.203.39.11 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and explanation. I think the title itself is a bit ambiguous and the article being unsourced doesn't help matters. Are you saying this is a list of Philosophers who joined the Nazi party? Or is it philosophers who advocated Nazism? It's still not clear to me what the article is about exactly. What are the criteria for inclusion and exclusion? Can a non-German be on it? What about a philosopher who didn't espouse Nazism but joined the party out of expediency. I suppose it might have been difficult not to show support for a fascist regime (not to excuse the behavior) but does this still make them nazi philosophers? And by moving it to German philosophers during World War II, I was certainly not intending to imply that all German philosophers at that time were Nazis (although I think life would have been made difficult for those who refused to show support), but to broaden the topic to an inclusion criteria that made sense to me. I'm just not clear on what is meant by "Nazi philosopher". Fascist? National socialist party? People actually involved in Nazism? What about philosophers who advocated some of the ideologies that make up Nazism before or after World War II? Are they excluded because they weren't part of the Nazi party or included because they support some of the same ideas? And if someone renounced the ideology after the war are they still a "Nazi philosopher"?ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok let us agree to keep the criteria tight, and the criteria are: philosophers or intellectuals who were members of the Nazi party in Germany at some point during its existence, ie, 1920-1945 or provided ideology, chiefly racist ideology, for that regime and was explicitly taken up by that regime. Membership of the party is a crition and regardless of excuses or other subjective pleas: it was not quite that difficult to remain a non-member of the party itself in Germany.  Those intellectuals who advocated fasicsm or nazism but were not members nor provided ideological support (other than their virtual vote) should not be included.  There have been right wing advocates throughout history they are excluded from this list unless their ideology was explicitly taken up by the Nazi party that existed between 1920 and 1945 in Germany. I think you would need to give an example of such confusion before assuming it, are you thinking of someone in particular who was forced to join the party? 84.203.39.11 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One issue is that the article doesn't follow standard article format on Wikipedia (see wp: lead). The introduction needs to introduce the whole article. The way it's structured is more like a disambiguation page of different topics. That's why I made the edits I did, not to nationalize the subject matter.
 * Secondly, to avoid being original research, the article needs sources that demonstrate the topic itself is notable. The sources should also establish the inclusion exclusion criteria. If, as everyone seems to agree, it's a notable subject, then the sources for it will show who is on the established list of "nazi philosophers". The list needs to be cited or the individual names need to be cited to reliable sources where the term "nazi philosopher" or words to that effect are included. I'm left guessing what "nazi philosopher" means and who it does and doesn't include, because there is no explanation and no sources in the article. The article's intro says "may refer to" (which is unclear) actual party members, and then later it starts bringing up other groups of people. So it's not clear to me what the article is about or where it came from. That's what I tried to fix and what I'm trying to addressed. I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to explain my perspective and how I think the article needs to be fixed.ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – I hear what you are saying, and I am in agreement with the points you are trying to make. However, I believe these topics are better discussed on the article’s talk page rather than the AFD.  The Afd is to gather consensus on whether the article is notable – verifiable – creditable and finally  hand and hand with verifiable, sourceablefor inclusion here on Wikipedia.  I believe, all the criteria have been proven and we do have a viable article.  Now comes the hard part, written – formatting and editing.  That is what I believe your questions are addressed too.  Hence, let’s discuss over at the articles talk page.  I’ll start given you a hand next week.  Take care. ShoesssS Talk 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but the contents of the article aren't as promised. In actuality it is a bit of an indiscriminate list. Some entries are philosophers who were Nazis (e.g. Martin Heidegger); others are apologists for Nazism (e.g. Julius Rosenberg); still others aren't in any sense philosophers (e.g. Julius Streicher). If kept it needs to be ruthlessly pruned. Mangoe (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Reply Philosophers or Intellectuals are covered, but perhaps its debatable if the founder of a newspaper (Streicher) was intellectual, remove him if you like. Julius Rosenberg is not on the page, if you meant Alfred Rosenberg, then as one of the most influential intellectuals in the Nazi movement, I would think he couldn't be removed.84.203.39.11 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think it has potential, although it needs to be tightened up a bit; e.g, only people who particularly contributed to the ideologies of the party or what not; an encyclopedic topic, though, to be sure. Celarnor Talk to me  07:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from the article mainly being just being a list, the terminology isn't verified. Nobody in the second list is explicitly associated with Nazism, and the third list is mostly a scattershot listing of people who followed some Nazi ideology. In addition, "intellectual" is grouped into the description which is a vague term. Perhaps this should be recreated as a category with a better definition of the term. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but get sources and rewrite (and change the name to Nazi philosophers). This is a valid category in academic research.  But the article sucks; there are only two names on it, and some of the most well known (e.g. Martin Heidegger) are not even listed.  And this should not be just a list of philosophers who some think are Nazis as others suggest; it should only include those who willingly provided intellectual support and justification for the Nazi regime.  csloat (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete In practice, I don't think this article as a list is salvageable. Looking at the way it is being defended, it is always going to be indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I am trying to improve the article, in particular trying to sort out some of the willy-nilly inclusions in it. I am dubious that it can be saved, however. Mangoe (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not an OR. It is supported by numerous reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.