Jump to content

Talk:Nazism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mtarini (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 9 October 2007 (→‎Page protected, again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Controversial (history)

Former featured article candidateNazism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 6, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 11, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Template:FAOL

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
Archive
Archives

Revolutionary not Reactionary Talk:Nazism and socialism

  1. 2002 – 2004
  2. Aug 2004 – Sep 2004
  3. Oct 2004 – Apr 2006
  4. roughly through July 2006
  5. Talk page 5

Nazism vs. National Socialism

Shouldn't this article be called the latter? I mean, Nazism, is an informal abbreviation. Hitler and the rest of his party, never called themselves "Nazis". It was a pejorative slang used by the allies. The title of this article, is obviously wrong and misleading. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:00 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

See the move discussion above. The outcome was 25 to 5 against moving to National Socialism. --mav 15:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really matter the least as far as I'm concerned. The proper name for this ideology, is not Nazism. Its actual name, is National Socialism. Just to take an example here, Mohammedan is a name many Muslims are called, based on their religion, being followers of Muhammad. Yet, despite this, the article is called Muslim. The same rules should apply on this article. Be that as it may, that Nazism is colloquially more common in the English language, that is beside the point. We are trying to be encyclopaedic here, and we should call the ideology by its proper name, not after informal slang. Britannica Encyclopaedia calls it National Socialism.[1] You know my point is valid here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:48 03 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
The example you note, Muslim, follows our common names naming convention while this proposed move would not follow that convention. Exceptions are granted, but on a case-by-case basis that requires consensus building. So far, the consensus here is to not allow for an exception. I'm now off to other things. --mav 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will not find one single political party, calling itself "Nazi". They are all called National Socialist. Basing the title of this article on the most common name in Hollywood films, is not encyclopaedic. The title of this article, clearly has NPOV issues, seeing as how many of the votes who opposed the National Socialism term in that vote for discussion, claimed that National Socialism has nothing to do with Socialism. Yeah right. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:35 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article's name must be changed. "See the move discussion above. The outcome was 25 to 5 against moving to National Socialism". WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Mitsos 09:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a support for a move to "National Socialism", for the reasons cited below (in favor of support). Should be "National Socialism", not the sensationalistic "Nazism", which carries a negative connotation on behalf of those using "Nazi", implying biased POV. --Sasoriza 04:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosities sake, in your opinion should the word Nazism or National Socialism not carry a "negative connotation." We are talking about imperialistic, militaristic, murderous racists. --Anymouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.192.65.5 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism → National Socialism — National Socialism is the accurate name, using an informal slang as the title of this article, is not Encyclopaedic. Britannica, a fairly respected Encyclopaedia, calls it National Socialism. Hitler himself, called it National Socialism. All Nazi parties, call themselves National Socialist. —EliasAlucard 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose

Support

  • Strong Support - Per WP:ENC, we are trying to be encyclopaedic here. That means, we have encyclopaedic standards to follow. Nazism, is what you call it on forums. On encyclopaedias, you call it National Socialism. Examples: [2][3] Also, National Socialism is more frequent amongst academic scholars.[4][5] — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:48 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons given by EliasAlucard|Talk 03:48 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC). Here's another example of correct encyclopedia naming of this subject Britannica National Socialism article.--Paul 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per >EliasAlucard|Talk. Mitsos 10:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I used to be opposed to this, but I now think it should be National Socialism, partly because Wikipedia should use terms accurately when there is dispute, partly because "Nazi" is too informal and widely used in other contexts (eg, pejorative remarks, etc) to be really encyclopedic in this specific context. Note also that the German Wikipedia calls it Nationalsozialismus [6] and I think we could take the German view on what it should be called as reasonably definitive. All with the caveat that Nazi redirect to it. MarkThomas 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is immoral. We should really use a proper name, not the pejorative name (popularized by the enemies just before or during the war). --Kubanczyk 22:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Nazi" has entered the English vernacular, pejorative or not, and it is not necessarily used only by the "allies" either. Reginmund 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have no knowledge as to whther the term "Nazi" is perjorative or not, however while studying in Germany I have never seen a historical document from WWII era Germany referring to istelf as "Nazi". It is always written NS or NSDAP, when "National Socialist" is not used. Seems to be the proper name.--Patrick80639 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Comment - Anti-Slavism must be removed from the list of key elements, Nazi Germany didn't actually have the hatred of Slavs that people said they did. The Soviet government was detested, because of being "Jewish" Communism, however Nazi Germany did ally with Slavic countries, and there were even Ukrainian and Russian (later "Russian Liberation Army") divisions of the SS. Even though Poland was attacked it was only Jews and protesters who were persecuted, not collaborators. Himmler can even be quoted as saying "This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race". For this reason I believe it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.114.8 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and what does WP:ENC have to do with this? Nazism is not slang in English. It is the most widely accepted term of use in the English lexicon for this ideology and not just by forums.[7][8] Reginmund 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Nazism" is the original National Socialism. It is not Nazism, it is National Socialism. Nazism is not its official name and never was. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:46 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Nazism" is used more often in English, not only vernaculary, but by Anglophonic nazi parties also. Vol. IV of the Author's Works Including Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts, by Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and Then a Captain of Several Ships is an official name also. It was originally published and written that way until it was shortened by further generations. The same applies to "Nazism". Reginmund 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe term is relative to time, to usage, and to cultures. There should be a more clear differientiation between this. The ideals of the socilistic party, and the corruption of it, as denoted by North American reference to the term. ie Nazi, feminazi,...--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - An editor has pointed out that "Nazism isn't the only type of National Socialism" which is true, but it is not an argument for having to disambiguate to "National Socialism (Nazism)." The Nazi version was the original, and is the most widely known, thus the other versions of National Socialism should be disambiguated, but not the original. Besides, this is more of a theoretical argument than a real one, as the only other "National Socialism" article is Austrian National Socialism. This article should be named "National Socialism" and "Nazism" should redirect here. I'm all for using the common names of things for article titles, but that suggestion most commonly pertains to scientific vs. common names, which is not the case here. In the name of common usage, do we want to perpetuate the erroneous notion that the name of this movement was not "National Socialism"? What is an encyclopedia for, if not to get things right? For an example more pertinent to this discussion: we don't have a Car article, but we do have an article about the Automobile. I urge the editors who oppose this move to carefully reconsider. --Paul 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do the opposing side have any other argument than WP:COMMONNAME? Because really, that doesn't apply in this situation. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:14 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That doesn't apply in this situation? If you are going to make a subtle point, you can't ignore Wikipedia's policy just because you are biased. The common name rule is perfectly legitimate in this argument. Besides that, the article also discusses the evolution of Nazism today which is referred to by many neo-nazi parties as "nazism" and not only by them but it is a generic term. More common than National Socialism. It should also be consistent with Nazi Party. Reginmund 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Excuse me, biased? What are you trying to insinuate here? This is ad populum arguments. In colloquial speech, you call it Nazism. But Nazism is an abbreviation, not a title of an ideology. The official name of this ideology, has always been National Socialism. It doesn't matter if Neo-Nazis are being called Nazis by the media. They are also being called "right-wing extremist," yet there's nothing right-wing about their political ideology (Nazism is anti-Capitalism, anti-Liberalism, anti-Christianity, anti-Democracy, etcetera). Oh and by the way, "Nazi Party" should be called National Socialist German Workers Party. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:18 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply. Other arguments have been lifted before, see archive 5#Requested move. When I read historians, not only media, they use as much if not more Nazism than "National Socialism". Perhaps we don't read the same books, nor the same newspapers... Tazmaniacs 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - Disregarding an official policy on Wikipedia because it contradicts your views is biased. FYI "Nazi" is not an abbreviation. It is a contraction. Nor it is a colloquialism. When it is used in formal writing such as by the BBC, it is not a colloquialism. Reginmund 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply An offical policy on Wikipedia, is just a guideline. It is not the LAW. Exceptions are possible. We are after all going to provide information and knowledge to the world, not adjust Wikipedia articles (and title of the articles) by what it is called by people who know nothing about the subject. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:03 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment - ...and that guideline instructs us on how to name the article correctly. I don't see how that is relevant to a comic book. Or how it makes a difference that we are going to provide knowledge to the world. Do you have any arguments for proving an exception on this article? Reginmund 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply The "LAW" reference was just sarcasm meant to ridicule your blind fanaticism to WP:COMMONNAME (I take it you haven't seen Judge Dredd (film)). Look, this is clearly a case where an exception must be made. Proper and official names, are preferable, rather than common names. For instance, we have, PS1, PS2 and PS3 all redirecting to PlayStation 1/2/3 because it's the OFFICIAL NAME. Contraction, abbreviation, whatever, doesn't matter. If it's an official name, then the official name has precedence over an informal slang. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:23 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
                • Comment - This is not the place for ridicule or sarcasm. That borders on civility. If you have a point, post it. Don't ridicule other users. You won't be taken seriously. Now your comparison to the game console is irrelevant because truely "Nazism" has no official name. It is a generic ideology. PlayStation however does. That is why it is where it is. Again, there is no incorporated organisation that names the ideology. When names become generic, we don't go by their "official" names. That is why we don't name Shakespeare's plays by their preambles but how they are generically known. FYI again "Nazism" is not informal. I have already proven that to you. Reginmund 04:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ridicule borders on civility. If you want to make jokes, go to a message board. FYI Just because many organisations use "National Socialism" doesn't make it an official name. There are other organisations that use "Nazism" such as the American Nazi Party. There is no official entity that defines "Nazism". That is why it isn't an official name and no organisation monitors the English language. Reginmund 14:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply So you can't take a joke. Anyway, National Socialism is the official name. You were only capable of finding one defunct group, that uses Nazi. Look, do you know ANYTHING at all about this ideology? If you do, you will understand that it is a nationalistic version of socialism. "Nazism," did not come before National Socialism. You are desperately grasping for straws here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:51 11 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The English language does not have an academy and nor can you prove that Nazism has an "official" name. Nazism doesn't have an "official" website or an "official" headquarters. The American Nazi Party, defunct or not just goes to prove that "National Socialism" is not used exclusively by neo-Nazis. This is the last filibuster that I am posting unless you cease that incivil tripe of yours or I will report you to an admin for incivility.

You are desperately grasping for straws here

Reginmund 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)[reply]

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. — 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)[reply]

Can you please knock this off? Here's a scholarly source corroborating the fact that Hitler admired Sparta. — 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)[reply]
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. — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Mokru, care to explain what you're trying to insinuate by "darker"? Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:27 06 Oct, 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. — 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)[reply]

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 {{cite web}} 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. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:14 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you can stop writing User:EliasAlucard every time you mention my nick. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:21 19 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:CITE#HOW: 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)[reply]
This is getting lame. Look here: [9] 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. — 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. — 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)[reply]
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? — 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)[reply]
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. — 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)[reply]
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. — 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:

  • No more edit warring. I'm serious — 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 — get some outside views here on the inclusion, and quickly. Abide by consensus, when it's reached.
  • 'Stop edit warring.

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. --Haemo 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. — 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)[reply]
This is totally uncalled for; be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors. --Haemo 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please do us a favour and stop calling children "deformed" on this page, thanks.--Schwalker 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? — 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#This article must not rely on primary nazi sources. Tazmaniacs 15:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — 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)[reply]

This source confirms that Spartans were practising eugenics. — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazism&oldid=163380677"