Talk:Nazism

Other countries

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

• Nicholas M. Nagy-Talavera(2001) The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gsKbQgAACAAJ&dq=nagy-Talavera&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zJ2UU5OaMYal8AHY-4GACA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 13:43, June 8, 2014

Edit request: CS and Hungary

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 (talk • contribs) 04:51, July 21, 2014

Right wing?

We have been over this far too many times! Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article takes the position that a socialist political party is right wing. This is factually wrong and can not stand. Someone appears to have deleted this criticism from the talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC) The issue has been brought up many times. Mainstream sources do not consider the Nazi party socialist. And even if it were, it would not preclude it from being right-wing. TFD (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC) This is incorrect and misleading WP:UNDUE "Mainstream sources do not consider the Nazi party socialist." More recent sources, on analysis of what the Nazi's actually did, are coming to the conclusion that they were left wing as their name suggests. The reason for this denial is modern political bias - there are few right wing dictators. The left do not want to acknowledge this. This section of the article concentrates on trivia mostly, he said that or they said this, statements by Hitler are quoted regularly but we all know politicians adapt their speeches for their audiences. It seems to avoid the main questions relevant to left and right definitions. The only one it refers to is genetics which is a minor differentiator between left and right. Syncretic is not helpful in defining left or right - it is a distraction from the thrust of the arguement and a minor point.wp:undue.WP:BALASPS. The statement that the majority of the literature states that Nazism is right wing is over 15 years old, and is misleading. Any analysis of the literature would be out of date by now. This needs to be corrected or removed. Some of the sources used to back up the right wing argument are obscure : Oliver H. Woshinsky. Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2008. p. 156. In 8 years it only had 26 official citations, it should have over 300 if it was a main stream source or respected source. "Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements". This is neither mainstream thinking or even correct. The left wing do exactly this not the right wing - look at Mao, Lenin, Stalin ???? I think this is article is misleading in many places. POV.WP:BESTSOURCES. I also note that most of these "Nazi are right-wing references" are not easily checkable ie not online. In its self this is fine, but given the obscurity of the example above, this article needs be be reviewed. Something on why the Nazi's are considered left wing would be more accurate and helpful. People1750 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC) The number of citations a book receives is irrelevant. Woshinsky's book is a standard textbook that explains politics drawing on the literature and therefore does not contain original research or theories that are not already available. If you think that recent literature has revised its views and now considers nazism socialist then please provide a source that says that, i.e., not an argument. TFD (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Hitler told Hermann Rauschning, a Prussian who briefly worked for the Nazis before rejecting them and fleeing the country, that he had admired much of the thinking of the revolutionaries he had known as a young man; but he felt that they had been talkers, not doers. “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun,” he boasted, adding that “the whole of National Socialism” was “based on Marx”. Marx’s error, Hitler believed, had been to foster class war instead of national unity – to set workers against industrialists instead of conscripting both groups into a corporatist order. His aim, he told his economic adviser, Otto Wagener, was to “convert the German Volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists” – by which he meant the bankers and factory owners who could, he thought, serve socialism better by generating revenue for the state. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish,” he told Wagener, “we shall be in a position to achieve.” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/ https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/the-nazi-party-a-left-wing-liberal-movement/ These points are valid and need to be incorporated in a new section on leftism and Nazism. People1750 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC) None of the sources are considered reliable per reliable sources policy, and drawing conclusions from them is not allowed under no original research policy. If you think the bulk of Nazism scholars are mistaken, then you need to submit your views for publication elsewhere and when you succeed in changing scholarly opinion, we can change the article to meet those views. TFD (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC) On this point there is no source for the first few paragraphs. Ie Not WP:V. I have checked the facts and many are correct but there are a few dubious words that are WP:NOR. + None of the sources are considered reliable per reliable sources policy, and drawing conclusions from them is not allowed under no original research policy. If you think the bulk of Nazism scholars are mistaken, then you need to submit your views for publication elsewhere and when you succeed in changing scholarly opinion, we can change the article to meet those views. TFD (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC) − The Telegraph is a reliable source. They are direct quotes from the sources. So can not be WP:NOR. "The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and businesses." The literature does not support the final clause..... "and sought to defend private property and businesses". The thrust of the article misses the point these and other sources make. I agree that there seems to be more articles which discuss the well known fact that Nazism was against communism. But this is a fallacy in the leftism argument - just because two parties are against each other does not mean they share some of the same characteristics. There has been no detailed comparison in the literature of the policies of the Nazi state in comparison to those of the left. For this reason I think we should allow some dissent as to the assumption that many articles make. As Jimmy Wales says - if its cited it can be included somewhere in the article - the question is where ? People1750 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As greater people than any of us have noted, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, but expecting different results." Please can we just stop this? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DanielRigal

The reason this keeps coming back is that a large number of people know that itis not correct. Despite all the good work done to date by many people the article still ddoes not represent a balanced view.

People1750 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Most people know"? Really? Got a source for that? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Pretty lame to change comments that have already been replied to. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources have been quoted but there is a reluctance to use any sources that argue that the Nazi party was left wing, or had policies in common with communists, even if they are legitimate sources. If there are two major views then both views should be represented in an article.

People1750 (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The article, as written, is dishonest and biased. It's part of the historical record that Hitler claimed that Nazism was a socialist movement that had its roots in Marxism. So, it's preposterous to claim that making that annotation to this Wiki article is somehow "vandalism". It's also preposterous to ignore that Engels called for the extirpation of the Slavs in his article "The Magyar Struggle," and how Stalin actually conducted pogroms against the Jews and Kulaks. Hence, it is substantively obvious that "ethnic cleansing" is not solely a tenet of right-wing movements as this article presently -- and lyingly -- states. Aspencork (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing from your personal opinion. That counts for nothing here. (Don't take that personally though, neither does anybody else's!) The key point here is that you can't make an argument out of bits that you feel fit together. That is original research and original synthesis. We can only include content that accurately reflects reliable sources which, for this subject, is mostly history books (by reputable historians). Your problem is that none of the reputable history books agree with your line. They all describe Nazism as a far-right movement. Sure, there are many excessively vocal presences on the internet who just want to rewrite history to suit their own political aims, irrespective of any facts that get in the way, but we are not obliged to give such fringe groups and opinions parity with mainstream sources. That is pretty much where the story ends. You can disagree with the reputable historians if you like but that is a story for you to tell on your own blog or website, not on Wikipedia.

As for Stalin and his cronies, you will find their crimes adequately covered in the various articles about them. We don't need to cover them here as well. To do so would be to distract from the crimes of the Nazis (which is what we are meant to be writing about in this article) and to have a hand in minimising their significance. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No. The problem is that this article pretends that only Nazis promoted racist, genocidal policies, when it's a well established fact that Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao also promoted racist, genocidal programs, and that they argued that only a certain elite -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- could properly rule for an indeterminate period over the masses for their own good. Stalin was purging "undesirables" before the Nazis fielded a single death squad or built a single one their infamous death camps. The Katyn massacre in Poland predates Babi Yar. So, it's pure equivocation on your part to argue that one need only read additional Wiki articles to realize the truth. That you prefer to edit this article in such a manner as to require one to read additional articles to learn the truth reveals that you are consciously aware that you are actively engaging in obfuscation. Hitler bragged that he was a genuine student of Marx, and Goebbels wrote in his diary, in 1941, that "genuine socialism" would replace Soviet Bolshevism in Russia. Even the astute observer George Orwell noted that Nazism and Soviet style communism had much more in common with each other than either do with western democracies; hence, one must wonder why you are afraid for other people to learn that. "The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power," 1984. Aspencork (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of presenting theories you need to show that they are supported in reliable sources, that is policy. TFD (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that, considering how Germans into Nazis by Peter Fritzsche is misused to support the current "theory" advocated in this article, as presently written, when Fritzsche, according to another reviewer, actually "rebuffs the assumption that the Nazis represented the reactionary, elitist authoritarianism of the German middle class. The Nazi party drew voters from every corner of German society with a program for national reform, not a plan to return to a stratified world" (review).Aspencork (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

His book is used as one of several sources that the Nazis were right-wing, which he calls them in his book. It could be that he should have concluded, based on his analysis, that they were left-wing, but he did not. TFD (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you've been so quick to discount a professional reviewer's comments about Fritzsche's book, perhaps you would be kind enough to take the time to edit and annotate the footnotes citing Fritzsche's book and post the page numbers wherein Fritzsche claims that "genocide" is solely the provenance of "right-wing groups" -- as is fallaciously stated in this article. Aspencork (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not discount them, they did not support your theory that Fritzsche called Nazism left-wing. And nowhere in this article does it say genocide is solely the provenance of right-wing groups. TFD (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong! This is what the article says: "Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements." Engels advocated genocide for the Slavs. Stalin advocated genocide for the Kulaks. Etc., etc., etc. Hence, genocide is not solely a "far-right theme" as stated in this article. And please do edit the footnotes and insert the applicable page numbers to support your claim so that you can be verified.Aspencork (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That statement is not sourced to Fritsche's book. Also, can you please read "No original research." While your argument is easily refuted, the discussion page does not exist to discuss your theories. TFD (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So, you're admitting that the statement is in the text of the article. Furthermore, you claim to be citing Fritzche's book, and I'm citing George Watson's book wherein he recounts what socialists actually wrote, said and did. That includes Hitler's remark: "I have learnt a great deal from Marxism ... as I do not hesitate to admit." So who do you propose is guilty of "using original research"? BTW, I've requested Fritzche's book, which I expect to receive in about a week; so, the page numbers are still necessary to properly support the remark cited in this article. Aspencork (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Watson's book is fringe. He was an expert on Victorian literature and did not publish this book in the academic press and it went unnoticed. Have you read the book or just snippets? Or do you collect all these snippets from a website? Please stick with mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, "Victorian literature" includes Marx and Engels (who lived and wrote in Victorian England) and other socialist works of the 19th century. I own and read the Watson's book. There is, btw, more literary comment about Watson and his works than there is about Oliver H. Woshinsky, and his work, Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior, who is passing as a so-called "qualified expert" cited in this article. Beyond the blurb at Amazon, there almost nothing about Woshinsky that makes him remarkable, or less "fringe." A nearby flagship university doesn't even stock Woshinky's book on its shelves. Aspencork (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have a copy of Watson's book, you will notice that he does not contain this Hitler quote, which turns out was bogus. And being in a library has nothing to do with reliability. And Watson thought that both Nazism and socialism were conservative, which contradicts the theme of this thread. Also, I imagine you never took a course in Victorian literature. They do not cover German political journals. TFD (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong when you claim the Hitler quote is bogus. You are wrong when you claim that Watson didn't include that quote in his book, because an educated and knowledgeable reader can find the Hitler quote on page 72 of Watson's book. You are also wrong when you claim that Hitler's remarks regarding the origins of Nazism can be found in Marx and other socialists' works have nothing to do with the theme of this thread. You are superciliously wrong when you pretend to judge Watson's expertise on 19th century Victorian literature -- including Engels and Marx who lived and wrote in Victorian England. Watson's expertise trumps your predisposed, wrongheaded and biased opinion. And like your opinion, you 'imagine' wrong. Now that we've established your credibility, please do edit to add the missing page numbers in the citation. Then let us discuss the absolutes in this article that can be proven demonstrably wrong with but a single exception. Genocide is not solely a "far-right theme" as this article fallaciously states. Let's start with:

"Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements."

Which, in the interest of disseminating the truth within the next twenty-four hours, should read something like:

"Nazi doctrine included the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements." Aspencork (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a link to the chapter that contains page 72 and as you can see the quote does not appear. The quote is from Hitler Speaks. Anyway lots of fun to discuss obscure books and dubious quotes, but we need to be guided by the mainstream literature and its interpretations. TFD (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should try page 72 of the 1998 edition in Chapter 7 entitled "Adolph Hitler." Perhaps you should consider how you're the one promoting "obscure books with dubious quotes" by continuing to promote Woshinsky as your font of all knowledge and interpretation in this matter. Furthermore, Watson's authorship and his credentials at St John's College at Cambridge University are, and will remain, better than yours. BTW, you still haven't provided the page number(s) from Fritzsche's book you claim repudiates the comments -- "rebuffs the assumption that the Nazis represented the reactionary, elitist authoritarianism" -- by a professional reviewer. Aspencork (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to rely on standard textbooks published by the academic press than books written by people with no relevant credentials published by the popular press. Further I prefer secondary sources that explain general consensus in the social sciences to books promoting conspiracy theories. That is what the policies of reliable sources and weight require. Lots of editors think it is wrong because it keeps out the truth, for example about 9/11 and where Obama was really born. But the place to argue is at the policy pages. TFD (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, Watson's academic credentials as a published author on politics and literature and his Fellowship at the prestigious St John's College at Cambridge University speak for themselves and are superior to Woshinsky's and yours. The only "conspiracy theory" is the one promoted by those who actively reject Hitler's ascribing to Marxism the origins of Nazism. And your notion that you only rely on "standard textbooks published by the academic press" is overshadowed by the fact that many of the books and all of the newspapers cited and used to support your point of view in this Wiki article do not meet that standard you are 'conveniently' imposing on Watson. BTW, you have yet to properly source and provide the page number(s) from Fritzsche's book you claim repudiates the comments -- "rebuffs the assumption that the Nazis represented the reactionary, elitist authoritarianism" -- by a professional reviewer. Likewise, you still choose to ignore that some of the 'absolutes' stated in this article are easily proven false by some of the historical facts Watson addresses in his book, e.g., Engels' call for the extirpation of the Slavs and Stalin's pogroms against Jews and kulaks, and there is Mao's persecution of the intelligentsia, Pol Pot's liquidation of ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese, etc., etc., etc. Aspencork (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is possible that a Victorian English literature professor has found a connection between "lost" articles written by Marx for German newspapers and secret conversations of Adolph Hitler, which fascism scholars have ignored. But you do not have to persuade me, you need to persuade fascism scholars. TFD (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Watson is a subject matter expert on Marx and other socialist and communist literary works, and Watson's position is that the works of Marx and Engels weren't actually "lost." Rather, Watson's concern relates to how the works of Marx and Engels have been wholly ignored in the intervening decades by posers who pretend to have some prescient knowledge of Marx and Engels without reading what they actually wrote ... much like some people here pretend to know what Hitler said while wholly ignoring what he is on record as saying. BTW, it must be horribly inconvenient for you to admit that several scholars -- scholars who need no persuasion -- still believe that Hermann Rauschning is a credible source, and that the man maligning him has in turn been discredited for poor scholarship. Regarding "poor scholarship" -- it's poor scholarship to cite a book without referencing the page numbers, and it's poor scholarship to advance easily discredited absolutes as facts. When are you going to agree to post the page numbers and intelligently admit that genocide isn't solely a 'far-right theme'? Aspencork (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

History is written by the posers and they control the media and promote global warming theory, relativity and evolution. And Wikipedia articles reflect their bias. If you want to change that, you need to argue your point at the policy pages. TFD (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you now saying you're not and have not been defending this article as written, and that you have no problem eliminating some of the fallacious absolutes? Aspencork (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No. TFD (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So you admit that you support fallacious and unnecessarily biased absolutes that are easily repudiated. Aspencork (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No. TFD (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, but you are supporting a fallacious, biased, and easily repudiated absolute when you continue to defend the statement: "Far-right themes ... include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements." Pol Pot wasn't 'right-wing'; in fact, Pol Pot "planned to create a form of agrarian 'socialism' which was founded on the ideals of Stalinism and Maoism." Pol Pot perpetrated genocide in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 wherein an estimated one and a half to three million people were killed for the stated purpose of 'purification of the populace'. Your biased absolute is repudiated by that one example alone; hence, the biased absolute in the article needs to be changed to a more neutral tone -- as required by Wiki -- that doesn't impute a fallacious bias. Only certain kind of people blindly support blatant lies. Aspencork (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the conversation has gone on long enough and further discussion would be wasteful. I would point out too that your discussion about Pol Pot is synthesis which is specifically not allowed in determining article content. It says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." So unless you have a source that says Pol Pot is relevant to the definition of Nazism, then leave it out. I did not write the rules, but endeavor to follow them. IF you disagree with them then please raise the issues at the policy pages, but not here please. TFD (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You'd be the one in violation one of Wiki's five pillars: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Despite your weak attempt at deflection, my example remains quite relevant to this discussion since it factually demonstrates how your biased absolutes in the article are nonsensical lies. Per your argument, Pol Pot must have committed genocide employing a 'right-wing theme' of 'purifying the populace' of undesirables, but since Pol Pot was a communist -- he was in no manner, in today's parlance, 'right-wing': ipso facto your claim that all who perpetrate genocide in the name racial purification are 'right-wing' is a lie. The Wiki pillar states that Wiki articles are to be written in a neutral tone and show no bias. This article, as written, reeks of bias in violation of that Wiki pillar. Until that bias is removed from this article, this discussion will not end, and that's evident in how this subject has repeatedly come up for discussion. I am not the first editor to address this issue, and I certainly won't be the last. Rather than you, and others like you, keep offering weak and nonsubstantive excuses, this article needs to be revised to remove that bias. Aspencork (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Neutral point of view "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We do that by consulting books such as Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, which received essays from most of the leading fascism scholars and you dismissed as "a single source [that] does not prove anything conclusive," before producing "[your] understanding." If you think your Pol Pot theory has validity, get it published, because "Wikipedia does not publish original thought.' TFD (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. We've already established that you are not being truthful and presenting a view "without editorial bias." A cursory check of Websters for the definitions of 'racism' and 'genocide' shows that those terms are not described as being either 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' themes, as you so wrongly and with bias do here, and the preponderance of respectable authors likewise do not make such assertions. It's also notable how you are hanging your hat on a "single source" as you argue that "a single source does not prove anything conclusive." Aspencork (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox, under related topics, contains two curious entries:

• Nazi punk
• National Socialist black metal

Do they belong in the infobox? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition of words : No source. Vandalism ?

DD2K  : Please provide sources for "privately owned" as incorrect according to literature. Thank you. See below.

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and privately owned businesses.

People1750 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would add also that it contradicts the text in the article when talking about Nazism as a regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by People1750 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the text says what the differences are compared to communism but not the simularities. Early in his career Hitler worked for the communist part and derived his concept of state from the communists. As the text says there was no class struggle element in The Third Reich.

This needs some sort of balancing. People1750 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no sourcing for the text, so it is hard to discuss it. I would not object to removing the paragraph, but if you want to put something in its place you would need sources. TFD (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces|TFD]

"After taking power the Nazi party introduced a series of laws in October 1937 that immediatily closed 20% of all small buinsesses in Germany."

The Nazi party cannnot have defended privately owned businesses if they closed 20% of them down in 1937. The remaining companies were then forced under the control of the state.

"The Nazi party appointed The Reich Economic Chamber to control all the nations business interests. National Socialism divided up industry and business into seven national economic groups, twenty-three economic chambers, one hundred chambers of industry and commerce and the seventy chambers of handicrafts."

RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer, People1750 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When researching for an article, you should not use a book written by a journalist over fifty years ago, but consult modern academic writing. Also, you should not provide evidence and state your conclusions, you need to find the conclusions in reliable sources, otherwise it is original research and inadmissable. Anyway, you took the first quote out of context: "The little businessmen, who had been one of the party's chief supports and who expected great things from Chancellor Hitler, some found themselves, many of them, being exterminated and forced back into the ranks of wage earners. Laws decreed in October 1937 simply dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000. This quickly disposed of one fifth of all small business firms. On the other hand the great cartels, which even the Republic had favored, were further strengthened by the Nazis."[1] That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back. TFD (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:The Four Deuces

RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer,

People1750 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all thank you Four Deuces for your views. I'll deal with them one point at a time :

"1. When researching for an article, you should not use a book written by a journalist over fifty years ago, but consult modern academic writing.

2. Also, you should not provide evidence and state your conclusions, you need to find the conclusions in reliable sources, otherwise it is original research and inadmissable.

3. Anyway, you took the first quote out of context: "The little businessmen, who had been one of the party's chief supports and who expected great things from Chancellor Hitler, some found themselves, many of them, being exterminated and forced back into the ranks of wage earners. Laws decreed in October 1937 simply dissolved all corporations with a capital under $40,000 and forbade the establishment of new ones with a capital less than $200,000. This quickly disposed of one fifth of all small business firms. On the other hand the great cartels, which even the Republic had favored, were further strengthened by the Nazis."[2]

4. That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back. TFD (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)"

RESPONSE from People1750 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

1. a. A book has more weight than one article in a journal. b. Being written historically closer to the time the events occurred it is more likely to be factually balanced, less likely to be revisionary, and less likely to be influenced by the fashions of today. c. The book its self was very successful in its time and many copies were published, more than most articles quoted in the sources. d. The book meeting WP:V and WP:R standards. e. To clarify and misunderstanding old does not imply 'wrong', in this case where the issues resolve around historical events, the sources written closest to those events in time have the greater WP:R and WP: f. It is a history book.

2. This classic history text refers to a statement of fact that contradicts the Wikipedia lead text and nothing else. Secondary sources cannot be original research.

3. I have compared the meaning of the history book with the meaning of the text in the lead. " It is not out of context but a summary of a longer passage. If you read beyond your quote you will see that the great cartels were divided up into economic groups so they could be controlled by the state. This again supports my position that the text clearly states the opposite of what is written on the Wikipedia website that “Nazism protected private business.”

4. " That's typical right wing demagogy - appeal to the lower middle class then stab them in the back" a. You might be correct, but it is not the point here. ( As an aside I am sure many left and right leaning individuals have been dishonest - not us, we are better than that.) b. The text clearly states the fact that Hitler destroyed many private businesses, this is in direct conflict with what is written on the Wikipedia website that “Nazism protected private business.”

5. Finally there is no source quoted for the current text, WP:PROVEIT.

People1750 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote Hitler

User : DKK

This supports the text on Hitlers views, so it is relevant to the text.

Hitler’s speech on May 1, 1927

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions”

Please explain why this should not be included. Thank you.

People1750 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

References

If you check back here and on other pages you will find multiple discussions on this. You are trying to make a point through that quotation which is not supported by the third party material on Nazism. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the policies of no original research forbids us from developing our own theories based on our analysis of primary sources. Instead, we let experts do that for us. Anyway, your source is wrong about the attribution. It was actually made by Strasser in 1926.[3] Toland is the only mainstream writer who has ever attributed the passage to Hitler. TFD (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This guy is just pushing a fringe POV, but I removed the 'quote' in part because it's already in the article here. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be removed since it is wrongly attributed. TFD (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. Both looking at the Gregor Strasser wikiquote page, and this source Nazi Ideology Before 1933: by Barbara Miller Lane, Leila J. Rupp. Dave Dial (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User : DKK. Ok, thankyou for the reply.

People1750 (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1945 Nazism

The article describes sources and developed Nazism. What about the last months of the war? Hitler wasn't nationalistic, he didn't care about the Germans, regarded them as loosers.Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Xx236

Hitler considered that the German people had let him down by losing the war. He argued, from inside his bunker, that any left alive at the end were not worth keeping alive, as all good Germans would have died.

People1750 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Something like this should be written in the article. See e.g. Black Earth by Snyder.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Where does Snyder say Hitler was not nationalistic? TFD (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead is misleading ! Nazism same ideology "as well as other far-right groups"

This is a fallacy argument:

1. Far-right groups are not neccessarily Nazi or Facist. 2. "Other" is not a helpful descriptive term in defining Nazism. 3. There are better alternatives that define Nazism : National Socialism rejected rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes.

I propose removing the text refering to far right groups because 1. There is no reference. 2. Reasons stated above. Point 3. I propose incorporating this explanantion of Nazism in the lead, after line three.

Thank you.

People1750 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Nazi party only existed in Germany but there were far right groups outside Germany that held the same ideology, for example the German American Bund. If you want to recommend changes you need to provide sources. I and most other editors are well aware of the "They were socialists!" argument originally developed by Cleon Skousen, but you need to show it is a consensus view in mainstream sources before the article can be changed to say that. TFD (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And there are those that to do this day call themselves "National Socialists", and express sympathy for Hitler and his ideas, who are pretty much always classified and identified as being on the far right of the political spectrum. A page listing such groups past and present is linked via the hatnote of this page. The "far right" terminology is accurate and does not preclude the inclusion of more specific detail on the characteristic features of Nazi beliefs and practice. N-HH talk/edits 10:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:N-HH

User:The Four Deuces|TFD

Yes, I agree with you, but I am making a different point that this article is not about far right groups. It is misleading because the link takes you to all modern far right groups, and many object to the policies espoused by the Nazi party.

In addition quote " Mudde adds: "the terms neo-Nazism and to a lesser extent neo-Fascism are now used exclusively for parties and groups that explicitly state a desire to restore the Third Reich (in the case of neo-Fascism the Italian Social Republic) or quote historical National Socialism (fascism) as their ideological influence" " Mudde, Cas. (2000). The ideology of the extreme right. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 12-13

As of then, many of the policies espoused by the Nazi party were similar to policies espoused by left wing parties. WP:WEIGHT !

It is POV/imprecise generalisation, rather than a clear undisputed fact.

So it is misleading to have it in the lead. What I'm also saying is the lead should be as non-controversial and factual as possible.

I was not aware Cleon Skousen espoused that view, I am not aware of any evidence that he origionally developed the argument that the Nazis were leftwing WP:PROVEIT.

People1750 (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:N-HH

Refering to your comment "A page listing such groups past and present is linked via the hatnote of this page." did you mean this page ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_%28disambiguation%29 ?

People1750 (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with People1750 because as written it unnecessarily imputes a bias. Aspencork (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph 3 - Contradictory

Lead Paragraph 3 - Contradictory

TEXT : The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. The Nazis sought to achieve this by a "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft) with the aim of uniting all Germans as national comrades, whilst excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or "foreign peoples" (Fremdvölkische). It rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of class equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property and privately owned businesses. The third sentence seems to have been added in because the third sentance is contridicted by the second : the whole notion of Volksgemeinschaft implied that every German had some claim to equality, regardless of social background or occupational position.

Rejected sounds too strong a word. Fascism was based to a large degree on communism.

THE THIRD REICH, Politics and Propaganda by David Welch

The differences between the Communism and Nazi Germany were of degree, not kind. Ruud van Dijk, "Bracher, Karl Dietrich," in Kelly Boyd, ed., The Encyclopaedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Vol. 1, London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999, pp. 111-112.

I would delete the final sentence of Para 3 because it seems invented. WP:proveit

People1750 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

First, Bracher's view represents a tiny minority. Second, his comparison with Communism is on the basis of totalitarianism, not socialism. We can all find snippets to support anything we want. TFD (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces|TFD

1. "Bracher's view represents a tiny minority"; WP;PROVEIT, he is a highly respected professor at the University of Bonn, has editorial roles on many main stream and important historical and scientific journals, has written and published extensively about Nazi Germany. An Alma Mater of Harvard. You couldn't get more main stream and respected than that.

Herausgeberschaft

Nach 25 Jahren, Eine Deutschlandbilanz. Mitherausgeberschaft

Staat u. Politik, m. Ernst Fraenkel (Fischerlex. II) 57, Neubearb. 64; Bonner Histor. Forsch, seit 60; Schr.-R. Staat u. Polit. seit 62; Die mod. Demokratie u. ihr Recht 66 II; Intern. Beziehungen 69; Bonner Sehr. z. Politik u. Zeitgesch. seit 70; Dokumente z. Deutschlandpolitik seit 71; Gesch. der Bdesrep. Dtld 81-87 VI: Nationalsoz. Diktatur 83; Die Weimarer Republik 1918-1933 87; Quellen z. Gesch. des Parlamentarismus u. d. Polit. Parteien, Reihen 3 u. 4; Schr.-R. der Vjh. f. Zeitgesch. seit 78; Deutschland zwischen Krieg u. Frieden 90; Staat u. Parteien 92; Deutschland 1933-1945 92. Mitherausgeberschaft von wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften

Neue Polit. Lit. seit 59; Polit. Vjschr. 60-69; Dt. Rdsch. 63-64; J. of Contemporary Hist. seit 65; Government a. Opposition seit 65 (Ed. Board); Journal of Contemporary History seit 69 (Ed. Board); Vjh. f. Zeitgesch. seit 69 u. 78; Societas seit 71; Zs. f. Politik seit 74 (Ed. Board); Tempo presente seit 80; Risorgimento seit 80; Europ. J. of Intern. Affairs seit 88. Veröffentlichungen über Karl Dietrich Bracher

Demokratie u. Diktatur. Geist u. Gestalt polit. Herrschaft in Dtld u. Europa., Festschrift f. K.D. B. 87; Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 82, 92; Zeitschrift für Politik 87.

Honors

   Emeritus of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
   Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy.
   Member of the American Philosophical Society.
   Member of the Historische Kommission zu Berlin.
   Member of the Deutsche Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung.
   Member of the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie.

2. "his comparison with Communism is on the basis of totalitarianism" This is quite reasonable and correct for Prof. (em.) Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Karl Dietrich Bracher to use totalitarianism as a form of comparison for communism and Nazi Germany, it is semantically correct.

People1750 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not have to prove that a theory has little support, you need to prove it has support. With a quick google books search I find that "the totalitarian approach came earlier to gain general acceptance as an 'established' and 'establishment' theory before being subjected to a damaging challenge in the 1960s."[4] As Stanley Payne explains, the new consensus is in support of the generic theory of fascism[5] which, according to his Wikipedia article at least, Bracher opposed. Before making recommendations, you should be aware of things like that.

Incidentally, the totalitarian theory is explained in the article and it does not unfortunately defend your "they're socialists!" thesis.

TFD (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The google book search or a single source does not prove anything conclusive. It is my understanding that the consensus among historians and economists is that nazism represented a variation of socialism and not capitalism. People1750 had provided numerous sources to substantiate this and I also feel that the third paragraph's highlighted sentence is contradictory. 147.129.149.251 (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"It is my understanding" Well ok let's all just take your word for it then. --JBL (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Dubious source

An editor added a paragraph entirely sourced to an opinion piece in American Thinker.[6] that magazine publishes fringe theories, and is therefore not a reliable source. Nor are their opinions viewed with any credence by academics. For example, it has articles that say things like, "Is Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate a forgery? Definitely yes...."[7] I have reversed it. TFD (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Socialism

It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate to make the point that the “Socialism” in “National Socialism” was about social welfare for Aryans, NOT Soviet style socialism, and to make this point in a subsection called 'Socialism' in the 'Ideology' section. DD2K reverted my edit (shown below) on the grounds that "100%" of what I had written was already in the article, and Nazism has "nothing to so with 'socialism'".

Socialism

The “Socialism” aspect of "National Socialism" meant social welfare for Aryans, not the nationalization of German industry as in the Soviet Union.[cite] However, the radical left wing of the Nazi Party (see Strasserism) largely rejected capitalism (which they associated with Jews) and pushed for the nationalization of major industrial firms, the expansion of worker control, the confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocracy, and social equality.[cite]

After Hitler came to power in 1933 the radical leader of the SA, Ernst Röhm, pushed for a "second revolution" (the "first revolution" being the Nazis’ seizure of power and purging of the far-left communists and socialists) and organized attacks against individuals deemed to be associated with conservative reaction without Hitler’s authorisation.[cite] Hitler considered Röhm’s independent actions a threat to his leadership which jeopardised the Nazi regime by alienating the conservative President Paul von Hindenburg and the conservative-oriented army that Hitler needed to consolidate power.[cite] This resulted in Hitler purging Röhm and other radical SA members in July 1934 (about 200 were murdered) in what came to be known as the Night of the Long Knives.[cite] After this purge the SA was no longer a major force in German politics.[cite]

Much of what I wrote was already in the article but if one is going to have an ideology section it needs to be stated in this section what the word "Socialism" in "National Socialism" means and expand on it, while my edit made the point that Nazism was NOT socialist so DD2K was wrong to suggest that I was saying it was. My edit also included a link to Strasserism whose supporters (radical left wing of the Nazi Party) wanted Nazism to incorporate elements of socialism - the first time this link was used in this article. So I had hoped other editors would be supportive of the inclusion of this subsection or give a good reason for opposing it. CodeBadger (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be using a section heading to make a point which has already been rejected by many editors over the years. What you have written is a mix of synthesis and original research and the second paragraph really has little to do with the section. Overall it is no improvement to the article ----Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever they mean by "socialist," I do not think anyone has suggested it meant social welfare. It is clear though, whatever they called themselves, they were not socialists or a labour party or that matter. TFD (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I thank Snowded and TFD for taking the time to comment, which caused me to do some more research. I found that Hitler said equality of opportunity for all racially sound German males was the meaning of the “socialism” in National Socialism (on the Völkisch equality page); while it seems appropriate to make the point that the left wing of the Nazi Party supported socialist-like policies including the nationalization of major industrial firms but was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives. Thus I will rewrite the proposed subsection with sourced information from the Ernst Röhm page, Nazi Party page, Strasserism page, and Völkisch equality page; and would appreciate comments from editors. CodeBadger (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read up on original research and synthesis. Your proposed edit seems to be in breech of both ----Snowded ^TALK 12:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I thank Snowded for his comment. It seems to me that it is not original research as I provided credible sources for the small amount of information in the subsection which has been accepted on other Wikipedia pages and is non-controversial in my opinion. Likewise, I don’t believe it is synthesis as all the information is widely accepted as fact and is not promoting a minority/radical viewpoint. That said, if other editors don’t like what I have written so be it. CodeBadger (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If "Nazism=socialism" is "widely accepted as fact" then you should be able to provide a reliable source that says that. Instead, it is just your opinion based on your analysis of the material. TFD (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I did not say "Nazism=Socialism", only that Hitler said the "socialism" in National Socialism meant "equality of opportunity for all racially sound German males", and that there was a left wing of the Nazi Party that had socialist tendencies but it was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives. CodeBadger (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That's cherry-picking: choosing sources to support what you think the article should say. Equality of opportunity is a liberal concept, so you would need to explain what Hitler meant. Did he even use that term? TFD (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. According to MacGregor Knox, the author of ‘Common destiny: dictatorship, foreign policy, and war in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany' (Macmillan, 2008, p.208), that is what Hitler claimed. This source was accepted by editors of the Völkisch equality Wikipedia page for this claim. Thus Hitler clearly did not mean socialism in the true sense of the term which primarily means social ownership and control of the means of production. Thus Hitler meant that Aryans should view each other as equals but treat everyone else as inferior to a greater or lesser extent.

Whether Hitler believed that or not is another thing. He was clearly someone who sought power and did not much care about anyone else including fellow Aryans (the Aryan race was a social construct based on pseudoscience) if his actions are any guide. It seems entirely appropriate to include this comment on the Nazism page and does not strike me as being a minority/radical view as I am not saying that Hitler was a socialist or supported socialism in the true meaning of the word, only that he said that the "socialism" in National Socialism meant equality for Aryans. Hitler also supported the old age pension for Germans of the Aryan race, but that does not make him a liberal as discriminating against people who were of another race was inherently illiberal and racist. CodeBadger (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What another Wikipedia article says is irrelevant. Cherry-picking means looking for sources to back up what you want the article to say rather than identifying the best sources and reflecting what they say. And before you add anything to an article, you need to be familiar (i.e., have read) the source. If you can provide a cite for the words that your source interprets, then we can determine whether other authors have formed the same conclusion. Most sources I have read say that the Nazis had no definition for what the socialism in National Socialism meant, although there were some ex post facto explanations, often contradictory. The most likely explanation is that they adopted the name of an Austrian party which had been formed as a workers' party in the 19th century that was virulently nationalistic. They seem to have copied their ideology, although the Nazis were not (despite their name) a workers' party. TFD (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll track down a copy of MacGregor Knox's book for more detail. CodeBadger (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, that is cherry-picking. You are looking for sources that support your views rather than allowing the article to reflect mainstream views. If an opinion is widely held, then it will appear in the majority of sources. If you think that most sources have failed to mention some aspect of Nazism, this article is not the place to correct the record. TFD (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI, a parallel discussion has opened up on this here ----Snowded ^TALK 22:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This is profoundly depressing but thanks for drawing our attention to this none the less. It seems that this is one stick that refuses to be dropped even though the horse is not merely dead but long decomposed. I feel that this nonsense is becoming more than just a timesink. It is an attack on Wikipedia and on history itself. People can't just change history by repeated assertions. We have indulged this long enough. I'd be inclined to recommend that we just deem the question answered and roll up any further repetitions with a polite but terse comment suggesting to see the established consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Trying it on elsewhere was my view. It may be time to get a community restriction on this? ----Snowded ^TALK 02:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Socialism

Hitler said equality of opportunity for all racially sound German males (see Völkisch equality) was the meaning of the “socialism” of National Socialism.[1] However, the radical left wing of the Nazi Party (see Strasserism) largely rejected capitalism (which they associated with Jews) and pushed for the nationalization of major industrial firms, the expansion of worker control, the confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocracy, and social equality.[2]

After Hitler came to power in 1933 the left-wing leader of the SA, Ernst Rohm, pushed for a "second revolution" (the "first revolution" being the Nazis’ seizure of power and purging of communists and socialists) and organized attacks against people deemed to be associated with conservative reaction without Hitler’s authorisation.[3] This led to the left wing of the party being eliminated by Hitler in July 1934 in what became known as the Night of the Long Knives.[4]

[1] MacGregor Knox, ‘Common destiny: dictatorship, foreign policy, and war in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany’, Macmillan, 2008, p.208. [2] Eleanor Hancock, ‘Ernst Röhm: Hitler’s SA Chief of Staff’, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. [3] Joseph W. Bendersky, ‘A Concise History of Nazi Germany’, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2007, p.96. [4] Joseph Nyomarkay, ‘Charisma and Factionalism in the Nazi Party’, Minnesota University Press, 1967, p.133.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2016

Request to replace the inaccurate use of the term "far right groups" on the third line, with much more accurate and descriptive term "authoritarian" or "statist" groups. Watticus (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree This has been discussed already. TFD (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Watticus

This is agreed. It is discussed above and needs to be implemented.

People1750 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)