Talk:National Socialism (disambiguation)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

According to Europe, a History by Norman Davis Jews suffered 6 million death in the Holocaust. In otherwords, where does the 20 million figure come from?

From the other 14 million people who were murdered, the ones who weren't Jews. For details, see Rummel's page at - Tim

I will be gone till Monday. I hope and pray this stays.WHEELER 17:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do there really need to be separate articles on Nazism and National Socialism?The only thing new here is info on Austrian National Socialism which could easily be put in the Nazism article. AndyL 02:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, there's no justification for having separate articles on Nazism and National Socialism. I've moved your info on Austria to the Nazism article. AndyL 02:54, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AndyL, the article was not finished. I just got it started when you moved it and redirected it. Michael Barres coined the term. Not Hitler Not mussolini. There needs to be a seperate pre-history of the creation of it and all the different developments that made it. The Nazi article is already to long.WHEELER 19:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps your material should be something like Origins of National Socialism then? It would be good to slim Nazism down, but if even if there were a meaningful distinction between "National Socialism" and "Nazism" it would be an uphill battle to try to maintain the apparent synonyms as separate articles - better to divide up the topic by time periods, nationalities, theory vs practice, etc. Stan 22:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

National Socialism is an ideology. Hitler never coined the term nor created the concept. Neither did Mussolini. AndyL is confusing the subject because Nazism is so overwhelming in people's minds. There was a French party called the "National Socialist Party" before Hitler was ever around. National socialism should stand by itself just Like Marxism does. Does marxism talk about solely what happened in Russia. Is Marxism defined by the Russian esperience? Are the rules being applied the same? We have an article about Marxism and another about Russian communism. They are two seperate articles. Why are the rules different for national socialism?????WHEELER 14:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But if "Nazism" is a shorter spelling of "Nazionalsocialismus", the German word for "National Socialism", then the two terms are synonyms. It would be like insisting on different articles for "it's" and "it is". If there is a French National Socialism, call it that. Stan 17:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see that Andy is at it again. He deletes my stuff, attacks me for writing garbage and then uses my stuff to come back again and create anew the stuff. Wow what a guy.WHEELER 15:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is another factor of why Andy likes Wikipedia. Check this out: "almost always refers to Nazism and, in particular, the Nazi Party as well as derivatives such as modern neo-Nazism." He likes to tell other people what to think about things. But when I add things, It's always reverted by ANDY because it is POV. Yet he is made an administrator. He likes to tell people what to think. I just present the facts. When I added commentary to the National Socialist Program. He deletes it as POV. Yet He can add his remarks such as "almost always refers to Nazism". Is this your POV ANDY? This is allowed but I am not allowed to make any comment whatsoever. So long as you get to control what is said and you are the perfect voice of the MOB.WHEELER 15:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again I want to point out the "Academic Professionalism"" of one of our illustrous administrators. He doesn't put things in Chronological Order but in ways that further his propaganda needs. He places propaganda before academic professionalism. He also steals work from other contributors while he votes to delete their material. This is the standards that Colleges produce today. WHEELER 15:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disambig pages usually have items listed in order of prominence. Obviously most people associate National Socialism with Nazism so that should be listed first. As for miscellenia and bibliography - this is a disambig page, not an article. AndyL 18:11, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Where else does that information go to Andy. That article is just as good a place for that information. Censorhip behooves you.WHEELER 18:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If I want all the information on National Socialism where does one go? HUH...To you Andy you want all this information to disappear altogether. WHEELER 18:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, this is a disambig page *not* an article. Your Early National Socialism/draft is about to be deleted. DO NOT try to duplicate the work that's been rejected on that page by trying to move it over here. Now leave this page alone. AndyL 19:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"National Socialism almost always refers to Nazism and, in particular, the Nazi Party as well as derivatives such as modern neo-Nazism."

Do you seriously deny that this is the case? I suspect fhat 99% of all references to "national socialism" made since the Second World War are to Nazism or neo-nazism. This isn't "propaganda" it's simple reality. Perhaps you should get out more? AndyL 20:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, this page has been protected due to your insistence on reworking it into an article. Considering that the early national socialism/draft article is on the verge of being deleted your attempt is completely inappropriate.

As for your claim that the most common meaning of "national socialism" being "nazism" does not belong as the first reference your proposal is contrary to the practice with disambig pages which is not to list usages in chronological order but in the order of most common usage to least common. The guidlines for diambiguation pages state:

"primary topic" disambiguation: if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains at "Mercury", the general title. The top of the article is given links to the other meanings, or if there are many, to a page named "Mercury (disambiguation)". For example: the page Rome has a link at the top to a page named "Rome (disambiguation)" which lists other cities named Rome. The page Cream has a link to the page Cream (band) at the top.

This page is organised according to this standard. Your claims that this is "unacademic" should be taken to an appropriate page debating wikipolicy but until that policy changes then this standard for organisation should remain on this page. AndyL 00:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy, this is a free online encyclopedia. Should not ALL Facts pertaining to National Socialism be in here. This is CENSORSHIP. Protecting your turf are you? It is clear that the community has voted the draft down, but the FACTS are to be moved. It is clear that conservatives are not allowed commentary but you are able to comment all you want to. At least the presentation of all facts pertaining to National Socialism like who used the word first, etc. George Valios and others. These are facts. This is censorship!!! WHEELER 13:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The draft got voted down. Yes. But to transfer the facts to this page. So somebody doing work can do research. You didn't like my comments, so well and good, but the facts are to be moved here.WHEELER 14:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, the page is protected (and no, I didn't protect it, another admin did) so nothing is being changed for the time being. Your article is being voted down for a reason, you can't just circumvent that by posting the same material somewhere else. That would be an abuse of the wiki rules and I think you're in enough trouble as it is without your adding oil to the fire. AndyL 14:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy, if someone wanted ALL the information on National Socialism the history and the words coined. This is the article, Andy. National Socialism existed before Hitler and Mussolini ever did. This is not abuse. You can't argue with facts of history Andy.

I go with one good law Andy, "Thou shalt not bear false witness". God hates liars. And I am afraid you are bearing false witness. You people judge me, but there is a higher judge, and you will have to answer to him. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."WHEELER 14:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think God has better things to do than to worry about wikipedia articles. 14:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And you relinked the word "National Socialist Party" that Bietry formed yet the link does not go the history of that particular party but to all National Socialist parties. That is not right. That is not professional at all. Just because you want to keep National Socialism as a Disambig page and you do not want a related topics as there should be on the page refering to all the national socialist parties. You don't decieve me. You may decieve other people but you don't decieve me. And the degree of PROFESSIONALISM of you all is shown here. Your double standards. George Orwell, Alduos Huxley wrote of you people. If you were HONEST people the party of Beitry would be linked to the history of THAT PARTICULAR PARTY. But I am not dealing with honest people here. It is people who want to perpetuate a lie and protect their prejudice and their propaganda.WHEELER 14:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Truth, Truth Truth Truth. Socrates complained also in his own time. No respect for the truth.WHEELER 14:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, are you going to spend the rest of your life homeless, sitting in a library and arguing over a computer you don't own with people you will never meet over things no one but you think are important? Is this how you derive your sense of meaning and importance out of what must seem to be a failued life? For heaven's sake shut off the computer, go outside, and do something REAL before it's too late. Go to school. Get a job. Make some friends. Do SOMETHING. I'm sick of wasting my time arguing with you. AndyL 14:57, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have you considered seeing a psychiatrist? I'm not saying this to be mean but I honestly think seeing a psychiatrist could be of help to you. AndyL 15:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I will not change because of the distortion out there. The classic definition of a republic is a good example of why I am here. Because the original wikipedian article was totally wrong. And without my input, that information would never have come to light. It says in scripture, "My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge". I am damned and determined to get the truth out there. Because it is certain that the truth will not come out otherwise. All the stuff I have uploaded other people have not consisdered and did not know before. You know, not in a million years, will any American Academic, read von kuehnelts book and use the knowledge in it and certainly you won't either in just a matter of weeks, people's knowledge of German National Socialism has increased. Nobody has written on Rudolf Jung. but von Kuehnelt has. You have all learned something new.

And that link needs to be corrected. Andy. And no I will not give up, that is not what a Spartan does.WHEELER 16:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy, you delete my original material, incorporate it into the Nazism article. Then you take the material and form a new article from it without referencing me, talking to me. YOU did nothing like this. You stole material. You vote to delte the material and take 3'4 of it and make an article with it. This is why I am mad. You do things, and then you act all innocent like I am the instigator of this. I do not believe that you vote the material down, take it then and place it elsewhere. My dander is up. You never talked, you just revert and make me do all the talking. You never talk first, you delete and then make me do all the talking.WHEELER 16:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigh - WHEELER, I was trying to salvage some useful material so you wouldn't feel like you'd completely wasted your time. Sorry I didn't say "moved from WHEELER" but it didnt' occur to me that anyone would care who posted what since articles are collectively written. But you're getting really silly now. First of all you're not a Spartan. Secondly, I haven't even looked at your Early National Socialism/draft page since the deletion vote started so I'm hardly looking for things to "steal". You're driving us all crazy because you insist on imposing your own peculiar POV on everything and you refuse to learn anything about NPOV or how to write a proper article. If I try to clean something you've written up and make it NPOV you accuse me of stealing. If it's deleted because its NPOV you throw a fit but you refuse to accept any sort of correction or modification. Sorry WHEELER but Wikipedia policies aren't going to change to fit your peculiar obsessions. If you want to go write whatever you want without anyone else complaining about POV then go to wikinfo. This has been suggested several times but you refuse and insist on continuing the way you've been acting. Why? Are you a sucker for punishment? Do you enjoy people constantly telling you you're wrong? Have you no sense of self-worth at all that you insist on staying somewhere where most people actively disrespect you and put you down?

You expect everyone to acquiesce to you and if we don't you throw a temper tantrum like a litle boy. It's quite tiresome. I didn't take 3/4 of anything, I took one paragraph and moved it to Austrian National Socialism so that you'd feel something useful was done and you just go to show that if someone gives you an inch you'll try to take a mile. WHEELER, do yourself a favour. Take a few days off and go do something else. 17:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From the text just below the 'Save page' button whenever you submit an edit: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." Shuffling stuff around from page to page, particularly from bad page to good page, is why we use the GFDL. I repeat: you have greatly misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. - David Gerard 18:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, does your library have Ian Kershaw's biography Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris? If so please read it and then come back here. User:AndyL:AndyL10:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, does your library have Ian Kershaw's biography Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris? If so please read it and then come back here. AndyL10:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • In 1903, a former socialist, Pierre Biétry formed a National Socialist Party in France. A year later, it was succeeded by the "Fédération Nationale des Jaunes de France". It was referred to as "Yellow" socialism as opposed to "Red" Socialism or revolutionary socialism (ie Marxism).

Need more info on above re actual name of party formed in 1903 - if party name had "national socialist" in it then will citation to National Socialist PartyAndyL 17:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please leave the above edit until the revert war seems likely to calm down. I suggest a few days should be fine :-) - David Gerard 21:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can we have some intellectual honesty here and some academic professionalism here?

  1. Again, the party Bietry started should be linked like this [National Socialist Party (Fr)] instead of to all of the National Socialist parties as is now.
  2. The link [National Socialist Parties] should be in a =Related Topics= section.
  3. The factoid of Maurice Barres who said, that was the first to say "national Socialism" as a phrase go into the article!
  4. If this statement is allowed: In the mid to late 1920s the term national socialism was occasionally used by Trotsky as an epithet to describe Stalin and Bukharin's theory of socialism in one country.
    1. How come this statement is edited out: "Otto Strasser and Joseph Goebbels interpreted Stalinism as a Russian form of National Socialism and therefore postulated a German foreign policy conducted in alliance with, rather than against, the Soviet Union." (2) If the first one is in the second should be allowed.
  5. The two above statements need to be in a Miscellania section.
  6. All I am doing is moving the facts over. Why isn't this allowed?WHEELER 15:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  1. Again, the party Bietry started should be linked like this [National Socialist Party (Fr)] instead of to all of the National Socialist parties as is now.

No such article exists so there is nothing to link to.You have not even provided the proper name of the party.

  1. The link [National Socialist Parties] should be in a =Related Topics= section.
  2. The factoid of Maurice Barres who said, that was the first to say "national Socialism" as a phrase go into the article!

This is not an article, this is a disambiguation page.

  1. If this statement is allowed: In the mid to late 1920s the term national socialism was occasionally used by Trotsky as an epithet to describe Stalin and Bukharin's theory of socialism in one country.
    1. How come this statement is edited out: "Otto Strasser and Joseph Goebbels interpreted Stalinism as a Russian form of National Socialism and therefore postulated a German foreign policy conducted in alliance with, rather than against, the Soviet Union." (2) If the first one is in the second should be allowed.

Because the first is a fact related to disambiguation (ie alternate meanings of a phrase) the second is not.

  1. The two above statements need to be in a Miscellania section.

Disambig pages do not have "miscellania sections"

  1. All I am doing is moving the facts over. Why isn't this allowed?

Because this is a disambig page and *not* an article. AndyL 15:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it needs to end as a disambig page. And references need to be added. And again, you are stealing info from me and not referencing it to me.WHEELER 15:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don't put references on a disambig page. Disambig pages are just a series of links to other articles. If references are needed then they should be in those articles, not on the disambig page which is not a place for "factoids", "miscellania" or information that does not already appear in a separate article. And please stop it with your absurd claims about "stealing" how can I steal when I'm not taking credit and when the "theft" consists of links to other articles? If you want to get along with people you have to stop throwing out accusations like that, particularly on a non-proprietary medium such as wikipedia. If you want ownership over what you write then get your own website (plenty of free ones available, just go to geocities) post your articles and claim copyright. Otherwise give it up because particularly with an article that has been edited and reedited by different people there's no way to tell who "owns" what and no one is going to bother going all through the edit history to try to figure out who wrote what.AndyL 15:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do we have double standards in someone can add Trotsky's comment, but I can not add my comment? If it is a disambig page then why is trotsky's comment in there? How about intellectual honesty and academic professionalism? WHEELER 15:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you not understand that the Trotsky reference is to a *different and alternative* meaning of the word "national socialism" where the Strasser comment is not? The Strasser comment applies the concept of Nazism to Stalinism, put it in the article on Strasser, Nazism or Stalinism if you like, but it is not a disambiguation issue. AndyL 15:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, read this sentence carefully: "This is a disambiguation page; that is, one that points to other pages that might otherwise have the same name. "

That's IT. No more, no less. No trivia, no factoids, no miscellania, no references. The Trotsky bullet belongs because "socialism in one country" has sometimes been referred to as "national socialism". Do you understand that? Same with the other references, they are to *alternate* meanings of the word "national socialism". AndyL 16:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title.

AndyL 16:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Andy I disagree, so where do we go from here because you are using this as censorship.WHEELER 17:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How can you disagree? The policy on disambiguation pages is quite clear. If you don't like the policy you can try to have it changed but until then your arguments are baseless. You lost the vote on the Early National Socialism page and its not acceptable for you to try to revive that page under another name so just accept it. AndyL 17:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well Andy, So what is next?. Facts are facts Andy. You can not dispute the facts. And this is very wrong that you have Beitry starting all the national socialist parties in all the world. This is super silly. Your intranesgence is not academic professionalism nor truthful at all. WHEELER 18:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All I want to do is add all the facts dealing with national socialism on one page. Just the facts and history. That is all.WHEELER 18:26, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, Andy is right about Wikipedia policy regarding disambiguation pages. Continuing to say "what's next" and "where do we go from here" disregards that fact. Where we go from here is to a place where you agree that Andy is right about policy. You can believe the policy is wrong, but it's supported by community consensus and will be upheld. His suggestion of creating your own web site is a good one, and one I hadn't considered before -- with your own web site, you could write all you wanted to, and no one would get in your way. Here, it's Wikipedia's site, and there are policies established that all must adhere to. You seem to dislike a number of the site's policies. That's a good reason, I think, to try something else. Keep editing here, of course, but where your disagreement with site policy will prevent an action you want to take, write things up elsewhere on your own. Take a look at and see if it appeals to you. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "disambig" message can be deleted. This is a free online OPEN CONTENT encyclopedia. What you are trying to do is to "CONTROL" content of this article. This is not the truth. This is being duplicitous.

  1. Is it not wrong for the party of Beitry to come up all showing all world national socialist parties? This is not right at all. What is right is that there is a related topics section. This is right. It is wrong to continue that link in the sentence of Beitry. And you know it.
  2. The comment of Otto Strasser and Goebbels is an historical fact. NOT OPINION. To deny the entry of this fact is censorship.
  3. To deny the entry of Maurice on coining the term national socialism is also censorship.
    to deny otherwise these glaring facts of history is only showing glaring censorship.
    The disambig page can be ended and needs to end.WHEELER 18:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The "disambig" message can be deleted.

There was a community consensus that National Socialism should redirect to Nazism. Creating a disambig page was a *concession* to you. There would be absolutely no consensus to have a separate National Socialism article in fact I suspect you would be in a minority of one (possibly two if Sam Spade sides with you) to do so. But frankly the article you propose if the disambig were removed was the article that has already been deleted by an overwhelming (and rare) consensus. You can't just create another version of a deleted article.

Well Andy, So what is next?. Facts are facts Andy. You can not dispute the facts. And this is very wrong that you have Beitry starting all the national socialist parties in all the world. This is super silly. Your intranesgence is not academic professionalism nor truthful at all.

Fine, given that we both agree (see my comments from the weekend) I'll remove the Beitry reference and substitute something like

  • See [[List of National Socialist [arties]] for links to various parties that used the National Socialist name. Then, if there's ever an article on Bietry and his party we can put that link there.

As for "facts are facts" the fact is you lost the vote on Early National Socialism, something you fail to mention here. You can't just move an article that the community has voted to delete to another location. That's a fact, accept it. AndyL 18:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know the article was voted down. I have said many times already, all I want to do is to have the facts be moved over. Don't confuse the subject. You all objected to the origins and my definition. Fine by me. End the disambig page, and move the facts over with the quotes and the parties started and a related topics page. That is not hard at all. I am not an idiot and I will not put any of my comments in there. All I want is the facts put in.WHEELER 18:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time on arguing with you any longer. Make a proposal on Wikipedia:Requests for comment that this page be changed from a disambig page to a full-fledged article. If you get community support so be it, if you don't then accept it and move on. AndyL 19:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW WHEELER, the "yellow socialists" don't seem to have had any relationship whatsoever with what became "National Socialism" in Austria and Germany. See Berne Conference (of Yellow Socialists) for instance. Rather they just seem to have been moderate social democrats in the mould of Eduard Bernstein. AndyL 19:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andy I think you are confusing things a little. In the original post, if you read carefully, national socialism is not *doctrinaire* like it is for Marxism. National Socialism took many forms and went in many directions. It was a *spontaneous* generation. How else do you eplain Maurice Barres coining the term in France in 1898 and the Czechs using it as the title to their political party in 1898? Nazism or more appropriately be called Hitlerism is just one variant of the national socialism. I am trying to make this clear and to differentiate it. How do you explain that this name erupted in two different countries in the same year of 1898. I think we are doing a great disservice if this is not pointed out and made clear and presented as facts. Clear your mindset. you are still trying to make Hitler's national socialism into everybody elses national socialism. Hilter came after everybody. not before. So his form is a VARIANT and not the foundation. I believe your mindset and prejudice is blinding you to this sophisticated differentiation which is very important. Just like in biology, characteritics and naming properties is based on clear obedience to accuracy.

Yellow socialists were still called right wing socialists if you notice in the article. Mussolini was saying that in his statement of the "right". Fascism and all national socialism is right-wing socialism of the one big socialist camp. The socialist camp is split in two. between the revolutionaries and the revisionists and between the internationalists socialists and the nationalist socialists.WHEELER 14:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wish somebody will take a decisision here. Andy and others keep on refusing to make this a page making a national socialism inquires go to the Nazism article. Yet, trying to make a coherent history of the DAP in Austria, Sudetenland, and other places is getting hard to do. And powers that be are preventing this from happening because they have to protect their propaganda. Where is the academic professionalism and honesty here? I have to deal with name changes and country name changes and a constant flux broken over many pages because damned if we are going to form a seperate National socialism page from the Nazi article.WHEELER 16:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me where Do I write a history of the DAP and where I put it all.WHEELER 16:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not here. This is a diambiguation page only. It's not an article. AndyL

Would a history of the DAP not belong in an article titled DAP or rather German Workers Party (Austria)? Name changes would not be a barrier to putting all the information in an article on the most commonly known name of the party. AndyL

Andy Why do you need to control information? This is not commentary Andy It is information that you seek to censor. We are writing hopefully for high school students. This information is very confusing unless it is made to be simple. You are making it more difficult. If I want to understand all there is to now about National Socialism and get the big picture Where do I go? But you are censoring things around here.WHEELER 13:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you're becoming boring. This is a disambiguation page, not an article The name of the page is National Socialism (disambiguation). From Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title.

If you want to write an article go somewhere else. AndyL 16:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ongoing Dispute

We are having an ongoing dispute of National Socialism and its disambiguation page. You take out much material from the disambig page and say it doesn't belong. Yet I have found a page that shows otherwise. Am I being unfairly treated? Is there one rule for me and another for somebody else. I would like for you to look at Holocaust (disambiguation) and notice that this doesn't follow your rules. WHEELER 15:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'll notice that Holocaust (disambiguation) is primarily a list of links to other pages. The page is *not* sectioned off, there is no "miscellenia" section, no references etc. It is not an article. If you want to know "the rules" go to Wikipedia:Disambiguation. AndyL 16:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Socialism and National Socialism

Does anyone have any information on whether Nazism is a type of socialism? Who says it was, and who says it wasn't? What reasons has either side in this dispute given?

All I know is that Hitler denounced Marxism. Does this mean he can't be a socialist? If a Christian denounces Soviet-style Communism, which is totalitarian, has a command economy and suppresses freedom of religion) does this automatically mean that this Christian is against Christian communism or against all forms of Socialism?

Apart form its name, National Socialism is connected with Socialism because of its program which has many socialist traits. See also Nazi policy Gleichschaltung. There were previous discussions about this subject, maybe you will find them helpful: [1] [2]

As for Marxism, Marxism-Leninism was official ideology of Soviet Union which, by some authors, had many similarities with Nazi Germany. So many socialist point out that Hitler denounced Marxism. -- Vision Thing -- 07:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Best book about this is The Road to Serfdom. It convincingly demonstrates the socialist roots of Nazism. Besides, I must strongly disagree that National socialism is restricted to the Nazi experience. The Quebec sovereignty movement is oftenly considered to be national socialist, without being close to nazism. --Childhood's End 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


There is no need for any description of Nazism longer than one sentence, because National Socialism leads to Nazism, so anybody that comes to this page obviously isn't interested in that topic, or already knows enough about it. -- Vision Thing -- 14:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point - I never thought about it that way. I agree with your most recent version. There is one other issue, however: The assertion about Trotsky's use of the term "national socialism" seems rather dubious, and all the other instances of "national socialism" listed on this page are cases of self-description. I think it is a bad idea to list cases of "national socialism" used as an epithet (especially unsourced ones at that). -- Nikodemos 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I found this Trotsky's work [3], in which he uses "national socialism" to describe Stalin's theory of socialism in one country as national socialism. Btw, this use it is also listed at German Wikipedia [4]. Do you know anything about Honecker's national socialism? -- Vision Thing -- 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I still have misgivings about listing epithets on this page, simply because it might spiral out of control (I'm sure the number of political leaders that have been called "national socialists" by their opponents is somewhere in the thousands). But now that we have a source, I agree to keep Trotsky's use of the term here. However, I reserve the right to remove it if this page turns into a long list of people and ideas that have been called "national socialist" by someone somewhere. Self-description is a much better way to go about it. -- Nikodemos 01:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

National Socialism

We need to have a discussion about the continuous redirect of National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism instead of National Socialism (disambiguation); and the continuous insertion of claims concerning the term and its use, especially in the lead, but also elsewhere. This discussion is best held at Nazism so we can all, literally, be on the same page. Thanks. --Cberlet 14:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Debate:Misconception "Nazi" believes are different to "National Socialist" views.

Guys you’ve argued for pages about what title to put stuff under but you are missing the main point. National Socialism is a view or political area. Yea the Nazis were national socialist but not all National Socialists are Nazis. They should be split just because you are extremely patriotic and prefer a hierarchal social system doesn’t mean u hate Jews or any religion for that mater! Don’t tarnish everyone with the same brush.Im interested to see what people think so please comment. If you arnt going to say anything usefull dont bother.


Vison_Thing. Your edits here seem to be imposing your own narrow POV on what should be a page that directs readers to various uses of the term "national socialism," rather than the specific use you favor. After your repeaed edits against consensus (which is well-established), why should I not report your reverts as vandalism or edit warring?--Cberlet (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You are free to take any action you want. However, can you explain what makes current version POV in relation to this version established by you in November 2007? -- Vision Thing -- 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It is a red herring. Sometimes new ideas lead to new edits. Sometimes compromises are temporary based on changing consensus.--Cberlet (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
So now we have temporary compromises and changing consensus. And all that without any new discussions. Interesting. :) But even if we leave that aside, in your edit summaries and here you are accusing me of violating WP:NPOV. How am I and how were you violating NPOV here? -- Vision Thing -- 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the various discussion page votes you lost, page discussions where a majority of editors disagreed with you, and the mediation. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems like nothing has changed, you continue to accuse me for breaking Wikipedia policies every chance you get and when I ask for evidence you provide no clear answer. -- Vision Thing -- 16:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested information

Vision_Thing (above): "when I ask for evidence you provide no clear answer": Here is the information requested by Vision_Thing relating to a pattern of edit-warring, POV vandalism, and refusal to follow consensus:

Pages where definitions of Fascism and Nazism are involved

National Socialism
National socialism
National Socialism (disambiguation)


Fascism and ideology
Economics of fascism
New Deal
The New Deal and corporatism

Among others.

Past debates and votes

There is a contentious debate that has rolled across many pages for many months. No matter how many times these issues are thoroughly discussed and temporarily resolved by a majority of editors, after a few weeks the issues returns with text being inserted that opens up the debate once again.

Here is the most recent poll:

Here is a debate from 2004: Talk:Socialism/Socialism_and_Nazism

More attempts to find consensus


The majority of editors have repeatedly made it clear that they reject equating "National Socialism" with just "Nazism." Please see in chronological order:

  • This discussion, 14 May 2005: [5]
  • This discussion: [6]
  • This discussion, 21 February 2006: [7]
  • This discussion: [8]
  • This discussion: [9]
  • This discussion: [10]
  • This discussion: [11]
  • This discussion: [12]
  • This discussion, 16 October 2006: [13]
  • This discussion: [14]
  • This discussion: [15]
  • This discussion: [16]
  • This discussion: [17]
  • This discussion: [18]
  • This discussion: [19]
  • This discussion: [20]
  • This discussion, 3 September 2007: [21]
  • This discussion: [22]
  • This discussion: [23]
  • This discussion: [24]
  • This discussion: [25]

Attempt at Mediation

In December 2007 I created a Neo-Nazism RFM involving the following editors:

User:Billy Ego (Longstanding sockpuppet) (now blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia)
User:EliasAlucard (now blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia)
User: Smerdyakoff (now blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia)

As noted above, most of the editors involved were either sockpuppets of banned users or quickly became banned users.

Note that two other editors, Forrest_Johnson, and Ron_Pistol, who have supported User:Vision_Thing in the past magically appeared with new accounts just for that discussion and then vanished:

Forrest Johnson; and
Ron Pistol.

Another editor who backed similar edits as was User:Cold_Porcelain, now blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia as sockpuppet of banned editor Billy Ego.

Another editor who tried to build consensus

“This was a tabulation of two votes on this topic:”

poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.”

The editor compiled this list:

(talk) Second Poll - Oppose both First Poll - oppose First Poll - oppose

Billy Ego First Poll - support Billy Ego Second Poll - Support > Nazism

Cberlet First Poll - oppose Cberlet Second Poll - Support > DAB

Chris First Poll - oppose Chris Second Poll - Support > DAB

Dahn First Poll - oppose Dahn Second Poll - Support > DAB

DickClarkMises Second Poll - Oppose both

DNewhall First Poll - oppose

DpotopFirst Poll - support

FCYTravis First Poll - oppose

Gene Nygaard First Poll - oppose Gene Nygaard Second Poll - Support > DAB

User:HIZKIAH First Poll - oppose

Intangible2.0 First Poll - support Intangible2.0 Second Poll - Oppose both

Jmabel First Poll - oppose

JoeCarson First Poll - support JoeCarson Second Poll - Support > DAB

user:lygophile Second Poll - Support > Nazism

MarkThomas Second Poll - Support > DAB

Mitsos Second Poll - Oppose both

User:Nichalp First Poll - oppose

Nikodemos First Poll - oppose

Norvo First Poll - oppose

Petri Krohn First Poll - oppose

Psychonaut First Poll - oppose

rewinn First Poll - oppose rewinn First Poll - support rewinn Second Poll - Support > DAB

Slrubenstein First Poll - oppose

User:SwitChar First Poll - oppose User:SwitChar Second Poll - Support > DAB

Tazmaniacs First Poll - oppose Tazmaniacs Second Poll - Support > DAB

Trovatore Second Poll - Oppose both Trovatore Second Poll - Support > Nazism

-- Vision Thing -- First Poll - support

WGee First Poll - oppose

User:Wirbelwind First Poll - oppose

User:Zleitzen First Poll - oppose

I hope this answers your question, Vision_Thing. --Cberlet (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A few questions

Before I start, let me first state I am not trying to overturn previous consensus, I am just trying to get a better handle on what the consensus is and why.

My first impression is that the DAB page, with Nazism as the first entry, is almost certainly the correct solution. When I hear National Socialism, that's what comes to mind, and I think that would be true for most people. However, given the nature of this association, I can understand why it would be problematic for other organizations with a similar name to be initially redirected to Nazism. So the DAB page seems like the right compromise.

I was wondering, what is the problem with this phrase: "Since World War II, the term "National Socialism" (capitalized) is almost always used to refer to German Nazism in the context of Western political or historical discussions."? I see Vision_thing added it and Cberlet removed it. I suppose one could argue that this is a pov push, but on the other hand it does seem to give context, and it is useful in the sense that it advises people that if they say "National Socialism," that's what is going to come to mind for most Westerners. I'm not saying the sentence belongs in the dab page, I just want to understand the objection better.

I definitely think Cberlet's wording on the "several political parties" phrase is better than Vision_thing's. For one thing, it is just more clear.

What other areas are disputed? I see DAB vs. redir as one issue, which appears to have already been decided (though the past poll doesn't show an overwhelming consensus, it seems like this is okay with most folks). The wording on the DAB page appears to be an open issue. What else? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording of the DAB page has ranged from more detailed to less detailed over time:
I found this detailed one very informative: [26]
Vision_Thing cut all the details except for his favorite topic [27]
I argued that either we have a full DAB with details or treat all the entries the same way. [28]
personally I prefer the more detailed one: [29].
As for remaining issues, I am concerned that Vision_Thing will, as in the past, wait a few weeks or months, and then start the same practice of reverting, deleting, revising, and adding to numerous pages to restore a specific narrow POV about "national socialism" against the consensus of other editors--a consensus that has been well-documented over several years.--Cberlet (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see the issue. This is a bit of a tricky one. In general, DAB pages should be pretty terse, so that seems to argue for the brief one ([30]). This is a topic that is both sensitive and confusing, however, so I could see a case being made for the detailed one in this particular circumstance. It's a tough call, let me see if I can find any relevant guidelines...
As far as Vision_Thing returning and making controversial edits, all we can do is wait and see if it happens, and then address it at that point. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh hey, and you referred to a Mediation case earlier involving your and Vision_Thing, that led to a number of blocks on users for sockpuppetry -- however, I did not see the link the the actual case. Do you have it? It would be very valuable to see what came from that. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
mediation --Cberlet (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Phrase: "Since World War II, the term "National Socialism" (capitalized) is almost always used to refer to German Nazism in the context of Western political or historical discussions." was added by Nikodemos in this edit 22:20, 9 June 2008. I kept that phrase in this edit 16:59, 10 June 2008 but I removed mentions of Sudeten German National Socialist Party, Czech National Social Party and National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party. As you can see on National Socialist Party page, there are number of National Socialist parties and I don't think it's appropriate to mention just a few. This is a disambiguation page so either all should be mentioned or none at all. I prefer mentioning none (since National Socialism refers primarily to ideology) and having a link to National Socialist Party page.

What I find interesting is that Cberlet still hasn't explained how I violated NPOV. -- Vision Thing -- 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had amply documented it. That's at the core of the problem. I see it--you don't.  :-) --Cberlet (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears the mediation never got off the ground due to the initial mediator who accepted it going AWOL, and then a number of participants being blocked before another mediator took over. Really doesn't inspire much faith in the process, heh...
I would suggest that if you still can't agree, open a Request for Comment. You can point to the aborted mediation attempt for evidence, but unfortunately I think the Cabal really screwed the pooch on that one and it may do more harm than good :( It seems the edit war has died down for now, so I'd be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie, unless/until it becomes an issue again. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the silly edit. That was just a mistake. I have trouble reading discussion pages when everything is run together.--Cberlet (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Real National Socialism

Bold text

I'm logged in for the very first time, so i will keep it simple and short.

What i personally think is the real meaning of national socialism is the education, no political ideology, of social awareness. Think about a country or republic which was educated on the awareness of their country and things happened around them. People who are educated to stand up and stand out for what is right and face terrors without fears. People who are willing to protect the soil that nurture them instead of casting a shadow over it. This is the real national socialism.

Frankchongszehong (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)