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

Why is this article entitled "Nazism?"

The actual "Nazis" called themselves "national socialists" and believed that that title was more representative of their actual ideology. To my understanding "Nazi" stemmed from a derogatory name applied to national socialists by people who were against national socialism. We don't call communists "commies" on this wiki, so why should this article be any different? Also, if this has been discussed before, I would like to be linked to that. It seems like a strange departure from Wikipedia's standards. Ryonne (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The relevant policy is "Use commonly recognizable names". More people know and use the term "Nazi" than "National Socialism." If you want to read previous discussions, look through the archives. TFD (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

TDF has the correct policy, yet the understanding of such could be expanded. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. The most common name is vulgar (meaning derogatory OR word malformation) and certainly has problems as it attempts to conflate the entire National Socialist ideology with Hitlerism. [1] Darkstar1st (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Vulgar of course can mean common as in the sense that people who are not aristocrats are vulgar. But it more often means offensive, such as the term "Teabagger," which is a vulgar term for a Tea Party supporter. TFD (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

no, it has nothing to do with aristocracy, instead the construction of the term "Nazi" which is either derogatory, or a malformation of National Socialism Darkstar1st (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have never heard the term "Tea Party supporter", but I have often come across the term "Teabagger" on online publications. They are the people blamed for the decline of the United States. Then again, I am not American and my reading has been on the various problems faced in the United States and why the country is in a state of prolonged crisis.

Anyway, National Socialist is rendered "Nationalsozialist" in German and "Nazi" was initially chosen as a short form of the term. Similarly, the term "Social Democrat" is rendered "Sozialdemokrat" and the short form is "Sozi". See the following source on the term: https://books.google.gr/books?id=rSDSBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=Sozi+social+democrat&source=bl&ots=cYCfjMm_u_&sig=mQ4SpVNIEGgXE3H5W9zvMl3pZyw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKyP_z68jRAhVLHxoKHZDdAzsQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=Sozi%20social%20democrat&f=false Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Teabagging" is a slang term for a sexual act that was picked up by critics of the Tea Party movement after a supporter said he would "teabag the Whitehouse." The term "teabagger" is therefore vulgar, unlike the term Nazi, which would preclude it from becoming the article title, although it is a re-direct. Germans use other contractions, such as Stasi and Gestapo, which have been adopted as article titles. TFD (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

TDF the definition of Vulgar is not limited to derogatory. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's right. As the link says, it can also refer to "common" or "ordinary people," i.e., people who are not aristocrats or at least not nobility. When a word has several meanings, competent and conscientious editors are able to determine in context which one is relevant. In this case, it means lewd, crude and socially unacceptable. TFD (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Again... this keeps coming up over and over again - and people are right. Seriously, this title isn't in accordance with WP:NAME. WP:POVNAME specifically exempts colloquialisms from WP:COMMONNAME. We should just move this thing to National Socialism and be done with it. "Nazism" is just an obvious colloquial, vulgar expression.

But of course, I remember... we can't have the word "socialism" up there because pompous American lefties will think it gives ammunition to US right-wing lunatics who consider Hitler a socialist or whatever, sorry... UGGHH. Its always politics on this damn project... -- Director (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a colloquialism but the term primarily used in academic sources. And you have the motivation wrong. The "the nazis were socialists" meme is orthodoxy among the fringe right. The reality is that more people recognize the term nazi and it is not the function of this article to correct them. That's what the echo chamber is for. TFD (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. This is another minor issue that has been done to death in the past, with statistics from Google Books etc to show how common and mainstream the term Nazi is in academic writing (as opposed to commie etc, which is a totally false parallel). It may once have been pejorative or slang, but guess what, words and how they are used change. In so far as it is pejorative now, that has more to do, one would have thought, with the substantive thing it refers to rather than the term itself. And even if we accept the anachronistic and/or misapplied argument that it is not a neutral term, what POVNAME actually says, as I am sure has been pointed out to everyone here now before, is that "Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words". This has nothing to do with politics or hiding things. People seem to be missing the fact that the very first words of the article, spectacularly unconcealed and right there in bold, are "National Socialism". Can we close this one (again) now? N-HH talk/edits 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:POVNAME is to discourage use of colloquialisms IF THEY'RE THE TERM PRIMARILY USED BY ACADEMIC SOURCES (notshouting). If a term is not "primarily used by academic sources" - why would you even bring it up as the COMMONNAME?? And being "used by academic sources" doesn't magically make a word any less of a colloquialism, as in a term that originated in vulgar conversation.

Bah, whatever... In 15-odd years on the project, I've learned not to try and push policy on any topic that touches American politics.. -- Director (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

1) No, that is not the "whole point" of povname; 2) the term Nazism *is* probably the primary one used in academic sources; 3) actually, yes, such use does very much stop something being a colloquialism; and 4) as noted, the basic logic here has nothing to do with American politics. But as you say, whatever. Perhaps there are other lessons to be learned here, which hopefully won't take 15 years to sink in (although, as the archives suggest, you have been going round in circles on this point for about five at least). N-HH talk/edits 13:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

1) Pedantry. 2) So what? That's the point of exceptions to COMMONNAME. 3) WP:OR No, it doesn't. You could probably find a couple thousand "academic sources" for every colloquialism in the English language nowadays. And in any case that's not an indicator of anything in and of itself. What you need is a source that actually says its no longer a colloquialism (its origin as such being indisputable). -- Director (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, give up. See above comment about going round in circles. N-HH talk/edits 13:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I was going to give up, but now that you asked me - I ain't gonna.

If you claim the term Nazism is no longer a colloquialism, present sources that at least vaguely corroborate that position. Concluding that usage by sources in and of itself supports you in that is spurious, and basically original research.

Those criteria could be applied to most (if not all) colloquialisms in the English language - and are basically a ready excuse to disregard the relevant policy recommendation whenever convenient. -- Director (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Please, listen to yourself. You're just arguing for the sake of it now, and that's a ridiculous request, as you surely know. Concluding the obvious on a talk page is not "original research". When academic and other sources use the term "Nazism", they are not discussing it as a term, they are using it to denote the thing being discussed. Why not look up "colloquialism" in a dictionary? And, to address one of your other daft points, if you really think my pointing out that you literally have the aim of a policy back to front (which you still appear to do) is "pedantry", I'd invest your energy in thinking a bit harder about that than carrying on here. Since I'm almost as guilty as you of dragging this out this time, I'll drop out now. Have fun, and don't take a lack of response as signifying agreement with whatever you come up with next. N-HH talk/edits 13:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A colloquialism "is a word, phrase, or other form used in informal language." Once terms become accepted in formal language, as evidenced by use in academic writing and broadsheet newspapers, they are no longer colloquialisms. Many people complain when previously colloquial terms enter formal language, but that is how language develops and why English today is very different from Anglo-Saxon or even Middle English. The proper forum for stopping what one may see as the degradation of the language of Shakespeare is to write a letter to the editor of The Telegraph. TFD (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I know what a colloquialism is, and how language develops - what I don't know is who died and made you Fuhrer of how and when it does. We have here a word that is indisputably a colloquialism - at least in origin - and if you claim it is no longer such, I personally regard it reasonable to require some kind of sources pointing to that conclusion (in some way at least). Its not like you couldn't build a small moon from the publications on this topic and the terminology thereof.

You claim its WP:BLUE that its no longer a colloquialism from its usage in sources. My answer to that is: then there's no colloquialisms! Name me a "colloquialism", and I will find you scholarly publications containing it. And further as I said: the fact that its commonly used in sources goes toward THE WHOLE POINT of why I cite WP:POVNAME: exceptions to COMMONNAME - are exceptions to the COMMONNAME.

Look, this is a really stupid title, and people will keep bringing it up until the end of time. For months in the past the article did not even contain the full name of the ideology because of the "socialism" bit. Fucksake its not socialism! Lets just move it and be done with it! -- Director (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"Ignore him and he'll go away"? :) -- Director (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with those who believe that slang versions of the term “Nazi” are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. British etymologist Mark Forsyth has explained the origin of “Nazi”:

"Nazi – an insult in use long before the rise of Adolf Hitler's party. It was a derogatory term for a backwards peasant – being a shortened version of Ignatius, a common name in Bavaria, the area from which the Nazis emerged. Opponents seized on this and shortened the party's title Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, to the dismissive ‘Nazi’."

An explanation of the origin of “Nazi” belongs in the entry. Nicmart (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It is included currently, here. As for appropriateness of its use for the title, if you're also raising that point again, as noted, slang or pejorative terms often become standard. Language evolves. N-HH talk/edits 08:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Nazism

as history and ALL DOCUMENTS AND SOURSES SHOW , NAZISM IS A LEFT SOCIALIST MOVMENT THAT GOT SRONGER THANKS TO LENIN. YOU HAVE TO FIX IT , BECAUSE YOU ARE POSTING FAKE INFORMATION WHEN SAID NAZISM IS FAR-RIGHT. NOT THAT I CARE , CAUSE EVERYBODY WITH A BIT OF BRAINS WOULD NEVER USE WIKI AS A SOURCE , CAUSE IS A JOKE AND FULL OF MASSIVE MISTAKES. JUST A HINT...FIX IT AND YOU GUYS LOOK LESS STUPID. REGARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.51.231 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I recommend you stop shouting and maybe read a book (or several). Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 05:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

So rude. Be nice and get to facts. Please6keep personal opions reframed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onealronn (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The article itself says that Hitler took what he was as the best of both the left and right, favoring neither, and criticizing both. That's pretty damn contradictory to the numerous parts of the article that say nazism is far right instead of authoritarian centralist. Get your shit together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.179.86 ( (talk) 31 March 2017)

Reality is contradictory, but in this case it's reconciled by the difference between political-economy, where the Nazi were centrists; and political orientation, in terms of antipathy to leftist ideas (here the Nazis were extreme-right). El_C 20:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition of course, political movements are categorised by real-world academic consensus, which generally places Nazism and other types of fascism on the right, not occasional (and rarely consistent in Hitler's case) statements about apparent self-identification. Most political ideas represent a synthesis to some extent of previous ideas and you can always say "this aspect of X is a bit like that aspect of Y". It doesn't make them the same kind of thing. Equally, factions in the same overall political area will often be rivals and criticise each other. And as for self-identification, however much he criticised the traditional right, Hitler always lined himself up alongside them when he needed allies or help: from Ludendorff in 1923 to Hugenberg in 1933. N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nazism is socialism is leftist. This is a no-brainer. -Michael Leahy Disciple4lif (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to make your point twice. I have replied to it below. Also, please don't be so hard on yourself. You don't have to introduce yourself as a "no-brainer". Instead, please just think of yourself as somebody who just has a lot to learn. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead - as well as other far-right groups

German groups or not only German? Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Not only German, otherwise it would say German. As noted above, fringe groups all over the world claim to be National Socialists. It's not clear what change, if any, you're suggesting for the page either. N-HH talk/edits 09:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

According to the page Nazism was German. Now some fringe groups declare to be National Socialist and they are regarded to be neo-Nazi. Am I right?Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the page does not say Nazism was exclusively German, but that it originated in Germany. And the section I pointed to you above lists both contemporaneous groups that existed alongside the NSDAP and modern or more recent neo-Nazi groups that say they're following the same ideals [sic]. I'm still struggling to see the point of this query per se, let alone in relation to any proposed changes to the page, so will probably leave it there. N-HH talk/edits 10:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The lead says, "German Nazi Party and Nazi Germany, as well as other far-right groups." So "not only German." TFD (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Nazism is left wing, not right wing.

Nazism is short for National Socialism. Socialism is leftist.

There was nothing about the Nazi party that was right wing.

This must be changed

Disciple4lif (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This is demonstrably incorrect. This has been explained 1000 times before. If you have not seen this then you can either check out the archive of discussion here or you can just look up the reference material that the article uses. Please do not demand that we "must" make incorrect changes to appease your lack of understanding. Even if you were correct your tone would be inappropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, but this issue has already been discussed in length and not likely to change on Wikipedia any time soon. For what it's worth though, National Socialism is, in my view (as well as for other American conservatives/classical liberals), a primarily "left-wing" ideology when concerning American definitions of right-wing versus left-wing politics. In Europe, however, definitions may vary. From an American perspective, Nazism has a mixture of far-right (implementation of nationalist agendas, anti-internationalism, etc.), and far-left (Socialism, anti-capitalism, some form of collectivism, one-party statism, government-controlled economy, etc.) politics. The article itself makes mention of such syncretism. -Ano-User (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

Despite the current leftist agenda to rewrite history and make the claim that Nazism is a far-right political ideology, it is not. Nazism and the Nazi Party were a Far-left political ideology encompassing Socialism, totalitarianism and fascism. As clearly stated in Britannica's online Encyclopedia, Socialism and Communism are both left political ideologies. This can be verified at the following URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/left. The political right and Conservatism encompass smaller government, invoking fewer regulations and laws, more private enterprise as opposed to public ownership and publicly governed organizations with the hope of reduced corruption, waste and personal responsibility. Nazism was, in every way, leftist in ideology. Nazism, in no way, encouraged or promoted fewer regulations, independent liberties or additional freedoms for its people. This blatantly biased and incorrect article is an example of the very nature of leftist ideologies forcing misinformation and bias in an effort to further tyranny and promote propaganda that is simply untrue. Allen4GG (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Allen Martin Allen4GG (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)