Talk:Nazism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Nazism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 6, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
July 11, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Other countries[edit]

Nazism had a powerful influence on neighboring European countries. It seems to me to be appropriate to include some reference to this such as: It was also contemporaneous or promoted in other European countries, particularly those with large ethnic German communities such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia


Edit request: CS and Hungary[edit]

I don't think it's appropriate to equate Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the lede as countries where Nazism took hold. Hungary as a nation fell to Nazi governance in its entirety and conducted itself as a Nazi state, whereas Czechoslovakia only did so after German invasion. An element (the German minority) within Czechoslovakia supported Nazism, but the same could be said for the United Kingdom. Czechoslovakia should be removed from the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talkcontribs) 04:51, July 21, 2014

Etymology is not correct.[edit]

This (http://www.webarchiv-server.de/pin/archiv01/0401ob26.htm) is a source about the etymology of Nazi and how it applied to the NSDAP. I believe that the etymology section is in error in suggesting that


1) the NDSAP did not refer to itself as the Nazi Partei

2) that in the context of the NSDAP, Nazi was a derogatory term


I believe the section is drawing on sources that have confounded the abbreviation from Ignaz -> Nazi with the abbreviation from NSDAP-> Nazi. The source I provided, although in German, seems to break down the multitude of different ways the abbreviation Nazi sprang into existence and also highlights the application of Nazi to the NSDAP first by Josef Goebbels.

It's an interesting source, and the source is pretty good. (Oddly, it would be better if it were ten years older - Franz W. Seidler's reputation has suffered quite a bit in his retirement.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪz(ə)m/, alternatively spelled Naziism),[1] or National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice of the German Nazi Party and state. It is sometimes applied to other far-right groups.

the last sentence, "It is sometimes applied to other far-right groups", infers that National Socialism is on the far right of the political system, when in fact it is aligned with Communism, which of course is on the far left.

The last sentence should be omitted. --209.105.126.210 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a fringe view similar to claiming the moon-landing was faked and therefore omitted from the article per content policy. TFD (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Derogatory Term[edit]

I am not sure if this is the exact right place for this discussion (it is sort of bigger than this one article), but to the point. I just found out that, as this article itself states, Nazi is a slang, or at least semi-slang, derogatory term. It was coined as a derogatory word, it is based on a derogatory word, and the original Nazis considered it a derogatory term. There is no way it meets general "Neutral point of view" guidelines. Wouldn't this article/other articles currently using the world appear more neutral if we used a more neutral, less slang-y, word to describe them? Wisnoskij (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean we give equal weight to Nazi and non-Nazi views, just that we represent sources in proportion to their acceptance in reliable sources. Reliable sources use the term "Nazi." "Neutral point of view" btw is a policy, not a guideline. TFD (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand that. We cannot give equal voice to Nazi ideas, at the very least because they are widely disagreed with by the vast majority. But we are still supposed to appear neutral, and use neutral language. Right? So assuming you agree with my assessment of the term, we are not doing that by using the word "Nazi". Now I completely see your point about that is just the term people use, even respected academics writing papers. So there is a conflict in the policies/guidelines, unless we disagree that "Nazi" is a derogatory term. But there is an argument to be made that we can take teh general consensus of what Nazism is, and filter the language to be more neutral sounding. Note: this does not mean changing the ideas or giving more room for pro-Nazism, just white-washing the language. Which is my eminently uninformed opinion would better follow Wikipedia policy. But as I just found out looking at the rules, Wikipedia does not have hard and fast rules. So there might very well be a good case to ignore the letter of the policy. I just thought I would start the discussion and let more informed people than me come to their own opinion on that matter. Wisnoskij (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no conflict in the policies, but if yoiu disagree with them, you need to discuss it on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well if you are not even going to address my point, I do not see any point in continuing. I did not mean to say that policies were in essence flawed or in conflict. But that in this instance consensus was in conflict with neutrality. That because Nazism is so universally loathed that we do not even really have proper neutral language in which to speak about it/even academic papers use derogatory language. Wisnoskij (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, please direct your comments to the policy pages. If Nazism is so universally loathed that we do not even really have proper neutral language in which to speak about it, then Wikipedia policy requires us to use that language, particularly if even academic papers use derogatory language. TFD (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)