Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism

Strange
Reading some of the comments. Its strange that people still think its an "attack page," a "criticism of" article, a "Godwin" and a "reductio ad Hitlerum" article all rolled into one, when in fact its simply covering the recent phenomenon of personal attacks against the President.

The most notable of these attacks is of course a reductio ad Hitlerum itself, put forth by both conservatids and libertudians, who base their "Godwin vio" largely on a wider deeper misconception about history that thinks that the Nazis were "left-wing socialists" just because they had "Socialism" in their name (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - NSDAP).

Just to clarify the historical dimensions, and thus the scope of the fallacy (itself perhaps called "reductio ad Nazium" ;-) ): The Nazi's were right-wing nationalist fascists - *not left-wing collectivist liberals - who only employed the word "socialism" because in early 20th century Europe it was a nice utopian and anti-monarchical buzzword that helped them attract a popular following. After they gained power, anyone of rank with even a tinge of liberal or even moderate sensibilities was killed and thus kicked out of the party back in the early 30's when they still called themselves "Brownshirts."

I just noticed that National Socialism is now a discrete article, not redirected to the NSDAP anymore. Does the term actually mean anything besides the NSDAP? I don't think so, and the article's sourcings are overwhelmingly about the NSDAP and Hitler. Some appear to deal with a more general ideology of "fascism" but there is no treatment in the article about the even more specious ad Naziam/reductum ad Socialism fallacy. Nobody takes the ad Hitlerum fallacy seriously. The ad Naziam not as humorously as it should be.

Back to this subpage. Granted, it might be better to deal with these points at a more general bio article, and refer there to other more generalized concepts like ad Hitlerum (which doesn't get into the National Socialism thing at all) "Godwin's" (Law? Conjecture, maybe) and to some article which deals with the National Socialism = Socialism = liberals fallacy.

In any case, I'm glad to see that its possible to keep a subspace page for more than forty minutes, so I can maybe work on it a little add some sources, get some help from other people, and consider if it might be an article or else just broken up into parts for different articles. I could then maybe take a break, take a shower, and give a shit. Regards -Stevertigo 00:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you answer me this question: where is the birth certificate "Bush and accusations of National Socialism" article that you should be working on for the purpose of neutrality? What's that? You're not working on it? Just admit you don't like Obama, so we can have another reason to delete the page (COI). Sceptre (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as a classic example of a What about X? argument (and severely lacking in good faith). I am not up on the ins and outs of American Politics (being British I think this is excusable), but it is clearly verifiable that people have compared Obama's policies to National Socialism (whether this is notable enough for an article/section is what this debate is about, and is not relevant to this specific point), but I am not aware (although I am willing to be corrected) that Bush's policies were likewise compared to those of the Nazis. If they weren't then a George W. Bush and accusations of National Socialism article would be just as unencyclopaedic as a George W. Bush and accusations of Hindu Fundamentalism would be - i.e. not at all. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I am not aware that Bush's policies were likewise compared to those of the Nazis"? Are you trolling or are you really that stupid? Being British is not an excuse for being that dense. Being under a rock in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears may be. But being British is not. Also: WAX may be a valid argument in deletion debates; and AGF is not a suicide pact. I assume that Stevertigo is writing a good-faith neutral article about Obama as much as I assume that an angry wasp will not sting me. Sceptre (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, yes Bush's policies were compared to Nazi policies, but not to National Socialism, which is not the same thing (I apologise for the poor wording in my previous comment). Unlike you I (and many other DRV commenters) completely fail to see what is suicidal about this unindexed userspace draft, perhaps that is why I believe that Stevertigo is neither an angry wasp nor an angry mastodon. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When people say "National Socialism", unless they're political scientists, they're always, with no exception, referring to the Nazi party. It's that much of a synechode, and to assume that said sources aren't making Hitler comparisons is naive. Sceptre (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To speak in such absolutes as "unless they're political scientists, they're always, with no exception" is silly and ignorant and an editor with your experience should not be using language like that. L0b0t (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it. You know as well as I do they're making Hitler comparisons. Sceptre (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. When you speak in absolutes, as you did above, you are just plain wrong.  There are, in fact, people who are not political scientists who can discriminate between the NSDAP (a political party that ceased to exist in 1945) and National Socialism (a collectivist, totalitarian ideology that unfortunately still haunts the Earth).  For you to claim otherwise is for you to run the risk that others will disregard the rest of your arguments as being equally baseless.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.  I don't know anything at all about the prior drama you have been involved in with the creator of this userspace draft and frankly I don't care to.  Both you and Steve have made your points well known and neither one of you are raising any issues that you haven't already.  The both of you should take a break from these pages, have a nice cup of tea and let the discussion run its course.  L0b0t (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are simply dealing with a stillborn article that discusses the comparison of the president to Nazi adherents. Whether the specific text used is "Nazis" or "National Socialism" (and the fact that Seve moved the page name without a significant change to the text...would seem to indicate that the difference is inconsequential.  Enough with the semantic masturbation, please. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but the type of people who are levelling the accusations are not the people who would discriminate towards national socialism and the NSDAP. To actually discriminate between the two requires a good knowledge of how politics actually work. Sceptre (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)