Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Nazi Germany. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Designation consistency
Quite a few articles, categories, templates etc. across Wikipedia contains inconcistency in terms of designating things "Nazi German" and "German", in cases when both pertain to Nazi Germany. Would it be an idea to try to tidy that up a little for WP:PRECISION reasons etc.? PPEMES (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- No. WP:PRECISION is in regards to article titles. Other names my be more appropriate in other context. That is the reason for redirects and pipes. For example to distinguish between Nazi Germany and Germany may introduce a bias implying that the Hitler's Germany was not the same state of the usual good Germany. For exampe it is a POV to write "In 1940 Nazi Germany invaded France". It is better to write "In 1940 Germany invaded France". The alternative is "In 1940 the army of Nazi Germany invaded the territory of the Third French Republic" which although accurate is stilted prose. -- PBS (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- The army of Nazi Germany has its own article: German Army (1935–1945). Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why should the use be different from that of Soviet Union instead of Russia for appropriate time period? PPEMES (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Soviet Union was the successor state to the Russian Empire, as is the current Russian Federation. Germany remained the same state from 1871 until at the debellation in 1945—This is sort of explained in the lead paragraph of the article Weimar Republic. Hitler combined the head of state with the chancellorship into a post he called führer (leader) and did not bother with parliaments, but, as I understand it there was no new constitution. For example in 1945 in his last will and testament he appointed Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz to the posts of head of state and Dr. Joseph Goebbels to the office of chancellor, indicating that the title of führer was not part of a constitutional change. -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why should the use be different from that of Soviet Union instead of Russia for appropriate time period? PPEMES (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- The army of Nazi Germany has its own article: German Army (1935–1945). Dimadick (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
| Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The underlying questions seem to be: Are we authors in agreement that distinguishing between Nazi Germany and Germany does not "introduce a bias"? Are we in agreement that "Hitler's Germany" as a totalitarian dictatorship (starting on 250k sq mi and later growing) was neither identical with the preceding democratic republic ("Weimarer Republik"), nor later states on that territory like the democratic republic in West Germany on 100k sq mi (“Bundesrepublik Deutschland”), the communist East Germany on 40k sq mi (“DDR”) , and parts of various other European nations? The Nazis introduced a completely different flag, as a symbol of its "new state". Probably not everybody has the detailed knowledge how Hitler managed to start a totalitarian dictatorship in a former democratic republic even though his party NSDAP wasn’t even able to win a majority (they failed even though they terrorized already during elections): Directly after being elected as Chancellor, Hitler convinced President Hindenburg to issue a decree (“Reichstagsbrandverordnung”) that suspended most citizen rights. Thereby Hitler eliminated any opposition to his “minority rule”. He could then ban the other parties and his party, i.e. him, could take over all institutions.HistoryTransparent (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
As the discussion focuses on whether there was (internal or external) continuity or disruption between the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, following some comments: Internally: suddenly one party rule, no opposition; personification of loyalty to dictator “Hitler” (you had to great others with “Heil Hitler” if you didn’t want to land in prison); “Nazification” of all important institutions; no free speech; no free press; no free elections; no independent judiciary; secret trials; denunciations as instrument to destroy whoever you wanted; prison, torture, executions, asset confiscation for deviators and their families. The change in daily life was quite excessive and there was no feeling of a “sense of continuity”. Concerning “external continuity”, the case remains less clear: Hitler’s and Nazi’s point of view was that the new “Grossdeutsches Reich” was not identical to the Weimar Republic as the latter was rejected. They changed the name, the territory (union with Austria and so on), the national flag, leading contact persons for communication to other countries, also the army’s loyalty oath was changed to Hitler personally. The Nazis also regarded former contracts like Versailles non-binding. Other nations didn’t want to accept a Nazi Germany not adhering to former contracts. History didn’t allow the time to solve these issues as Nazi Germany decided to go to war instead of following the path of diplomacy. HistoryTransparent (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
the talk page is not a WP:FORUMJack90s15 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC) |
"Seized Austria and Czechoslovakia"?
| Block evasion by banned User:HarveyCarter. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Anchluss was a political union, overwhelmingly supported in Austria. And Poland also invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. (86.154.234.183 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC))
|
" Nazism was the most important, of a number of similar-looking fascist movements"
Diff of Nazi Germany: I've twice removed this addition: Jackson J. Spielvogel states that, " Nazism was only one, although the most important, of a number of similar-looking fascist movements in Europe between World War I and World War II.""Nazism was only one, although the most important, of a number of similar-looking fascist movements in Europe between World War I and World War II."[1][2][3][4]
because I don't think this is a very enlightening addition, and we're still quite a bit over the 10,000 word limit in this article. What do other editors think? Comments welcome. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Jackson J. Spielvogel, Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History (2010) p 1.
- ^ See also Dietrich Orlow, The Lure of Fascism in Western Europe: German Nazis, Dutch and French Fascists, 1933-1939 (2000) pp 6,9. excerpt
- ^ Geoff Eley, Nazism as Fascism: Violence, Ideology, and the Ground of Consent in Germany 1930-1945 (2013).
- ^ Steffen Kailitz and Andreas Umland. "Why fascists took over the Reichstag but have not captured the Kremlin: a comparison of Weimar Germany and post-Soviet Russia." Nationalities Papers 45.2 (2017): 206-221. online
- It's astonishing to me that the word "fascism" does not appear in the article. Yet my addition of one 25-word sentence with multiple citations to leading scholars gets immediately rejected. If you go to Google scholar, you'll find 17,000+ references to scholarly books and articles] published since 2010 that link to [fascism "Nazi Germany"]. The word "Fascist" appears only once in our article (" Fascist Italy") but does appear in the categories. Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have re-added my full post, which you altered. Please do not alter other peoples' talk page posts. Nazism is a form of fascism. Perhaps there's a better way or briefer way to inform the reader of that than with the above quotation and its four citations? We can simply re-word the opening sentence of the section to include the word "fascist" by stating "The NSDAP was a far-right fascist political party which arose during the social and financial upheavals that occurred following the end of World War I." I've gone ahead and done that, using for the citation the first of your cites, which when properly formatted and with all of its data looks like this:
{{cite book | last = Spielvogel | first = Jackson J. | authorlink = Jackson J. Spielvogel | title = Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History | year = 2016 | orig-year = 2005 | publisher = Taylor & Francis | location = Abingdon; New York | isbn = 978-0-205-84678-8 | ref = harv}}— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have re-added my full post, which you altered. Please do not alter other peoples' talk page posts. Nazism is a form of fascism. Perhaps there's a better way or briefer way to inform the reader of that than with the above quotation and its four citations? We can simply re-word the opening sentence of the section to include the word "fascist" by stating "The NSDAP was a far-right fascist political party which arose during the social and financial upheavals that occurred following the end of World War I." I've gone ahead and done that, using for the citation the first of your cites, which when properly formatted and with all of its data looks like this:
- What does it tell us about NAzi Germany?Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's astonishing to me that the word "fascism" does not appear in the article. Yet my addition of one 25-word sentence with multiple citations to leading scholars gets immediately rejected. If you go to Google scholar, you'll find 17,000+ references to scholarly books and articles] published since 2010 that link to [fascism "Nazi Germany"]. The word "Fascist" appears only once in our article (" Fascist Italy") but does appear in the categories. Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Fiction
"Nazi Germany" is not the common English term for Germany 1933-45. Constantly repeating something does not make it true. It is the common Left-wing and therefore non-neutral term. trying to rewrite history is Stalinistic. An examination of "Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919-1939" - being a complete four series publication of every possible diplomatic document in this period - finds not a single mention of "Nazi Germany". Only "Germany" and "German".2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:919B:8642:DD49:D1B5 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- And by its nature that cannot be an exhaustive list up till 1945.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- I believe you are both correct and incorrect with your statement that Nazi Germany is not the correct statement. At the time of the war it was referred to as "Germany" or "The Third Reich" or "Hitlers Germany" This is portrayed in many memoirs by German Officers especially those such as Oberst (Colonel) Klaus Von Stauffenberg in which he referenced "Hitlers Germany" multiple times. Tyler Derderian (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Tyler Derderian
- Relying entirely on diplomatic correspondence or the memoirs of German officers does not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. "Nazi Germany" does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- By no means authoritative but "Nazi Germany" gives 10,600,000 results "The Third Reich" 8,830,000 results "Hitler's Germany" 629,000 results ("Hitlers Germany" 444,000 results), based on this it seems that yes Nazi Germany is the most commonly used name.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven If what you're saying is that the title is based on the number of results it gets on Google, than I think we should seriously rethink what Wikipedia is based upon. Not trying to be mean here. I agree with 2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:919B:8642:DD49:D1B5 first statement, just like how the Wiki and many users use "CPC" instead of "CCP." The title disobeys one of the core principles of Wikipedia and that is a neutral point of view. LucasA04 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you're suggesting that we need to be considerate of Nazis and not offend them, I'd suggest you read WP:No Nazis. A read of WP:COMMONNAME would be worthwhile as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- No as "By no means authoritative " should have indicated. neutrality does not mean we have to be neutral, it means we reflect what most RS say. Now I have never read every book or magazine article on Germany 1933 and 1945, so it hard to judge. So we have to use our best guess, and every source I can think of of the top of my head trends to use Nazi Germany (and for your information I think it is whitewashing, but enough of soapboxing), so we must reflect COMMON usage.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- This matter has been exhaustively discussed in the past and there are loads of scholarly works with the title Nazi Germany. Either is permissible, which is why The Third Reich redirects to Nazi Germany, so you can rant and rave all you want but the academic literature on the term Nazi Germany abounds. It's not about Google hits at all, although that just adds more substantiation.--Obenritter (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven If what you're saying is that the title is based on the number of results it gets on Google, than I think we should seriously rethink what Wikipedia is based upon. Not trying to be mean here. I agree with 2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:919B:8642:DD49:D1B5 first statement, just like how the Wiki and many users use "CPC" instead of "CCP." The title disobeys one of the core principles of Wikipedia and that is a neutral point of view. LucasA04 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Military History
The Overmanns figures are said by many too high while German government figures which are 4,4 million military dead (All nationalities) and 3,6 million dead from the 1937 borders. These figures are based on graves registrations, casualty lists and demographic studies made in 1960 and updated in the early 2000s and are most likely to be the most accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaladaHart78 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Name
The name section needs to be improved as it doesn't explain a thing about where the term Nazi actually came from. I do not want to hear "yeah, but that information is located in section X!" I shouldn't have to go digging for information which should easily be found in an etymology section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.60.250 (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you've got some reliable sources that discuss the etymology of the term please list them below.— Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is easily findable in the etymology section. The etymology section of the article Nazism. I don't know why you would expect to find it in this article. Here "Nazi" is simply used as a normal adjective to describe "Germany". The etymology of Nazi is no more relevant to this article than that of "Republican" is to Republican France or "Communist" is to Communist China. --Khajidha (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you're hardly the first to notice: a contingent of ideologue editors are uncomfortable when the word "socialism" appears on any article dealing with this period of German history—and typically remove it in a blaze of sophistry. The truth will out, but it may take a little while. Lexlex (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nonsense. WP:COMMONNAME is quite clear, and "Nazi Germany" fulfills it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- The socialist element of the party was removed in the Night of Long Knives.— Diannaa (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Good point. Rohm & the Strasser brothers were the primary proponents of the socialist elements of the party platform, but Hitler never paid much attention to those parts of the 25 Points once they had been promulgated, and had no interest at all in Rohm's "Second Revolution" once he had obtained power. Even earlier, his addition of "Socialist" to the party name was as much a device to make it easier for left-leaning people to join as anything real. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- That argument is WP:Original Research and not relevant to WP:COMMONNAME: "National Socialist Party" was clearly the party's name. It was consistently used by them throughout their tenure and is still the primary term used today here in Germany. To argue that "they weren't really socialist, therefore we shouldn't use (or even include) their own name in the article" violates WP:POV. Lexlex (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Odd I thought it was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, you are correct as to the full formal name without "The", in the title/name. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- And I have never met anyone or seen anything that calls it that. On the other hand Nazi I have seen countless times.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- You were commenting on the name of the NSDAP, which certainly one does not come across the use of the formal name as often as the common name in English of Nazi Party; the same would be true as to the use of Nazi Germany; so, I am not sure what we disagree on here. I was only pointing out that "The" is not part of the name. Kierzek (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- And I have never met anyone or seen anything that calls it that. On the other hand Nazi I have seen countless times.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, you are correct as to the full formal name without "The", in the title/name. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Odd I thought it was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party".Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- "consistently used by them throughout their tenure and is still the primary term used today here in Germany" As German language usage, all of that is quite irrelevant here on the ENGLISH Wikipedia. Why is this so hard to understand? Different languages are different. In English, this party is virtually always referred to as the Nazi Party. And this period of the country's history is called either Nazi Germany or the Third Reich. --Khajidha (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- That argument is WP:Original Research and not relevant to WP:COMMONNAME: "National Socialist Party" was clearly the party's name. It was consistently used by them throughout their tenure and is still the primary term used today here in Germany. To argue that "they weren't really socialist, therefore we shouldn't use (or even include) their own name in the article" violates WP:POV. Lexlex (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good point. Rohm & the Strasser brothers were the primary proponents of the socialist elements of the party platform, but Hitler never paid much attention to those parts of the 25 Points once they had been promulgated, and had no interest at all in Rohm's "Second Revolution" once he had obtained power. Even earlier, his addition of "Socialist" to the party name was as much a device to make it easier for left-leaning people to join as anything real. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you're hardly the first to notice: a contingent of ideologue editors are uncomfortable when the word "socialism" appears on any article dealing with this period of German history—and typically remove it in a blaze of sophistry. The truth will out, but it may take a little while. Lexlex (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
English language bias, why it should be clear what the role of chancellor is in Germany
Hello, there has to be a certain amount of English language bias, because this is the English language wiki, and the people we want to make sure understand the information in the easiest way possible are those who speak English. If you were from the UK, where the dialect is the standard for a large portion of worldwide English speakers, the chancellor is not the head of government. It is the head of budget and it is a very familiar role. For the person not familiar with the workings of German government, the word chancellor is not the head of government. Therefore, not to state clearly in the lead section, what the role of the German chancellor is, yet to mention that role several times, is confusing. After the word fuhrer, it says (leader) in brackets, because it is important to inform people what exactly the article is referring to, rather than simply throw terms around. ~ R.T.G 07:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is far from clear what change(s) you are suggesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- And, actually, I believe you are incorrect. The Chancellor in Weimer Germany and at the beginning of the Nazi regime was the head of the government, but not the head of state, which was the President (Hindenberg). I believe you may be confusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK with the German Chancellor - they are not equivalet posts. See the article Chancellor of Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Read Head of government and head of State.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken and Slatersteven:What I am suggesting is that although you both immediately saw my confusion, that a chancellor in the German government and a chancellor in the UK government are not the same thing, the article does not exhibit the same awareness. We should not expect the English language speaker to be immediately aware of the official titles of heads of state or heads of government, in countries around the world. Instead, we should say, "head of state" and "head of government" where it may not immediately be clear, otherwise the casual reader will read the lead section of this article and believe that Hitler merged the budget with the prime ministers office, i.e., pretty much what goes on in the UK, which is misleading and, kind of funny, but it's better if it is clear... ~ R.T.G 14:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- We wiki link to Chancellor of German which was his title. I suppose there might be an argument for "Chancellor of Germany (the german head of government)", but I think we also do have to give our readers some credit for being able to click a link.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not on such a significant part of the story, Steven. It should be quite clear especially given it is so simple. ~ R.T.G 14:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's a key point to the topic. The significant thing about the merger, we are supposed to be led to believe, is what those offices are, rather than what their titles are. I understand, the article has been worded this way for over seven years, I checked before I tried to make the change, but that is not evidence that it cannot be improved. The only thing which can be certain if it does not state "head of government" is that it does not state "head of government". ~ R.T.G 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- My take on this is that I very much doubt that many citizens of the UK are going to confuse the "Chancellor of the Exchequer" with the "Chancellor of Germany", any more than they are going to confuse the Home Secretary with a secretary working from home, but I see no harm in linking the first instance of "Chancellor" in the article to Chancellor of Germany. I don;t think any additional changes are necessitated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is an internationalised Latin term for a non-specific position in government. According to Wikipedia, "Chancellor (Latin: cancellarius) is a title of various official positions in the governments of many nations." According to Wikipedia, there is a chancellor of the high courts and there is a Lord Chancellor, both of which I believe I have heard of... but are the sort of roles you may or may not hear about in ten years... whereas the usual chancellor is drilled into the culture, night after night at this time of year. It's a simple and obvious change. If the operative element is "head of government", it should be introduced as head of government, like any other abbreviation. It's not a big deal. To be concise we remove words, not information. It is a key element to the story. A reader should not be expected to go fish. ~ R.T.G 01:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've added "head of government" and "head of state" to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede, that should be enough to put this complaint to bed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly, thank you. ~ R.T.G 02:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've added "head of government" and "head of state" to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede, that should be enough to put this complaint to bed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is an internationalised Latin term for a non-specific position in government. According to Wikipedia, "Chancellor (Latin: cancellarius) is a title of various official positions in the governments of many nations." According to Wikipedia, there is a chancellor of the high courts and there is a Lord Chancellor, both of which I believe I have heard of... but are the sort of roles you may or may not hear about in ten years... whereas the usual chancellor is drilled into the culture, night after night at this time of year. It's a simple and obvious change. If the operative element is "head of government", it should be introduced as head of government, like any other abbreviation. It's not a big deal. To be concise we remove words, not information. It is a key element to the story. A reader should not be expected to go fish. ~ R.T.G 01:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- My take on this is that I very much doubt that many citizens of the UK are going to confuse the "Chancellor of the Exchequer" with the "Chancellor of Germany", any more than they are going to confuse the Home Secretary with a secretary working from home, but I see no harm in linking the first instance of "Chancellor" in the article to Chancellor of Germany. I don;t think any additional changes are necessitated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's a key point to the topic. The significant thing about the merger, we are supposed to be led to believe, is what those offices are, rather than what their titles are. I understand, the article has been worded this way for over seven years, I checked before I tried to make the change, but that is not evidence that it cannot be improved. The only thing which can be certain if it does not state "head of government" is that it does not state "head of government". ~ R.T.G 15:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not on such a significant part of the story, Steven. It should be quite clear especially given it is so simple. ~ R.T.G 14:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- We wiki link to Chancellor of German which was his title. I suppose there might be an argument for "Chancellor of Germany (the german head of government)", but I think we also do have to give our readers some credit for being able to click a link.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken and Slatersteven:What I am suggesting is that although you both immediately saw my confusion, that a chancellor in the German government and a chancellor in the UK government are not the same thing, the article does not exhibit the same awareness. We should not expect the English language speaker to be immediately aware of the official titles of heads of state or heads of government, in countries around the world. Instead, we should say, "head of state" and "head of government" where it may not immediately be clear, otherwise the casual reader will read the lead section of this article and believe that Hitler merged the budget with the prime ministers office, i.e., pretty much what goes on in the UK, which is misleading and, kind of funny, but it's better if it is clear... ~ R.T.G 14:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
can we change this instance of "was" to "were"?
in the politics>ideology section it says "The Nazis was a far-right fascist political party..."
This sentence would flow better if it said "The Nazis were a far-right fascist political party...".
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwedodah (talk • contribs) 22:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 June 2020
 | This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add a Merge from tag with the origin page Nazi control of music. Place the tag where to see fit. Thanks. Nightvour (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Merger Proposal
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was Oppose. Nightvour (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Nazi control of music into Nazi Germany. The citations provided could provide enough info for a rewrite. Nightvour (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I Oppose the merger. The quality of the article Nazi control of music does not meet the Good Article standard, and this article does. problems: it is tagged as being essay-like; it has a lot of unsourced content; and the citations are inadequate.— Diannaa (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have added a bibliography in the article. It should be renamed Music in Nazi Germany. Alcaios (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose- per Diannaa. This article is long enough as it is. I agree with Alcaois regarding the renaming of Nazi control of music. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The article, now called Music in Nazi Germany, has what appear to be at least half a dozen academic articles focused entirely on the topic. That makes the topic notable on its own. Add a "main" link from the "Architecture and art" section here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have renamed the article 'Music in Nazi Germany' and added a bibliography to the article, even though a more specific 'Nazi control of music' could also be written with the 10 added references. Alcaios (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Jonesey95. This is clearly notable as a topic in its own right, as Art in Nazi Germany. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Music is a relatively minor topic to cover in the history of this state. As its own article it can be developed more than a single sentence or two in the main article. Dimadick (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose- per Diannaa. Too tangential a topic. This is covered under the generic guise of the arts in Nazi Germany (Culture). --Obenritter (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. As it is a poorly written article at this stage and one that should remain a minor sub-article. This article is long enough, covering the major topics. Kierzek (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2020
| This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Merge from tag under Architecture and art. The discussion is closed. Nightvour (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Map
Anybody have a map of Nazi Germany's territory overlaid atop present-day borders? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 13:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we add clarity to this sentence?
I'd like to change
The regime ended after the Allies defeated Germany in May 1945, ending World War II in Europe.
To be
The Third Reich ended after the Allies defeated Germany in May 1945, ending World War II in Europe.
I feel this will add clarity to the sentence since the previous sentences are talking about the first and second regimes/reichs. Sloot (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Done I've made some tweaks to that sentence and the one before it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Topographical map to be inserted
- The file is a "red link", which means it is not found either here on Engloish Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons, Only files from these two places can be put into articles. Maybe a typo in the name? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- ok, link fixed--Mullerkingdom (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought that might be what you were referring to. Two problems:
- (1) I don't see how this particular article benefits from a topographhical map. It's not like Germany and the surrounding area changed its topography from the Weimar Republic to the Nazi "siezure of power". Yes, the extent of the country expanded with the Anschluss, the taking of the Sudatenland and then the rest of the Czech portion of Czechoslovakia, etc., but that's better indicated on a political map, not a topographic map.
- (2) You uploaded this at Commons as your "own work", but I sincerely doubt that you made the map, which is what the "Source" field is asking for. In fact, you call it the "Harris Map German Reich 1942", indicating that some person or organization called "Harris" published in in 1942. That you took the picture of or scanned the map does not make you the source. For these reasons, I have nominated the map for deletion at Commons.
- Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I understand the sourcing issue should be solved, though I think the map would be useful for inclusion, fits to the topic, anyway the article does not have so many maps.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC))
- The map is not a good fit with this article, as it tells us little or nothing about the article subject, which is the political entity Nazi Germany. Topography had nothing to do with what happened there. If the map had been present at the time of the Good Article nomination, I would likely have been asked to remove it. — Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Should not be included. It does not add to a general readers understanding of the subject matter of the article. Kierzek (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- The map is not a good fit with this article, as it tells us little or nothing about the article subject, which is the political entity Nazi Germany. Topography had nothing to do with what happened there. If the map had been present at the time of the Good Article nomination, I would likely have been asked to remove it. — Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- I understand the sourcing issue should be solved, though I think the map would be useful for inclusion, fits to the topic, anyway the article does not have so many maps.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC))
- Yes, I thought that might be what you were referring to. Two problems:
- ok, link fixed--Mullerkingdom (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Two comments
(1) I think the caption "Chart showing the pseudo-scientific racial divisions used in the racial policies of Nazi Germany" needs expansion. The chart clearly shows more than simply what the divisions are, perhaps things like who are allowed to have children together.
(2) When I read the words "Most Germans were relieved", it made me think of First they came ...; and I suggest that the phrase might be made a link to that article.
Please post any responses here, not on this IP address's talk page. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Maps of Nazi Germany in the info box
Havsjö, this is POV-ish, showing maps of Nazi Germany during the war in the info box is not the correct approach. Instead of showing the internationally recognized boundaries of Nazi Germany shortly before the outbreak of WWII, you are opting to show the boundaries that no one accepted and considered the claims as nothing more than occupation of other sovereign states. There is an article for that Greater Germanic Reich, which highlights Nazi megalomania and land claims. --E-960 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Two minds, I can see both arguments. So I will have to fall back on wp:other, how do we treat other nations states, by recognised borders, defacto control or something else?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Info box normally should have the most commonly accepted facts, while details and grey areas are covered in the article text. --E-960 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, I am in two minds. I can see arguments for both inclusion and exclusion. But its its the norm not to do this we should not do this here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- KIENGIR I would NOT try to stylize Nazi Germany in the same was as First French Empire (see info box there) — in the case of this article it actually comes across a pompous, because why stress the "greatest extent" of Nazi Germany especially that the proposed map shows Nazi Germany from 1933-1939, while the the current only from 1941-1944. --E-960 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, I am in two minds. I can see arguments for both inclusion and exclusion. But its its the norm not to do this we should not do this here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Such maps should be in the 4.1 Territorial changes and 4.2 Occupied territories sections of the article not the info box. --E-960 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comparisons with other articles are marginal, infobox pictures are based by consensus. Only you feel stress in that, although that map also depicts the administrative divisions in the most complete way. It would be totally arbitrary ot cherrypick from 1938-1939, why not from 1933-1937? Why not all? Since the territories grown at the time, it is adequate the depict the full extent. The worse approach is to accuse other editors of favoritism or to involve the question of recognition, since then we could remove all maps not just about the Slovak state e.g., but a plenty of countries may be censored out, to say nothing of earlier the war as well there have been entities not fully recognized. Moreover, the Allies also menawhile the war dropped recognition of earlier recognized entities/boundaries, even the whole issue in war conditions as I reflected in the edit log is completely out of question (the Axis recognized, what Allies don't, and vica versa changing over times, no more international common thing, even there were issues where collaborating Axis Powers had conflicting recognition on some issues, etc.). I have no problem if you include more maps, but I don't support removal of the existing ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC))
- Because (as was said) this was Nazi Germany at the greatest extent of its internationally recognised borders.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you may add it, but does not mean agreement of deletion of another map (anyway the map is not unambigous as well how it has been titled, since the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was attached to Germany as a protectorate, but not incorporated to it regularly, while the territory of former Austria and the so-called Sudetenland was reguraly incorporated as standart part of the country).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC))
- Why do we need to have a map of Nazi territory at its greatest extent?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the title of the article, and let's not confuse Nazi territory with German territory, or similar, it is not necessarily one and the same (btw. your question seems poetrical, and if it is not misunderstood, have already been answered above...).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC))
- Yes the title is Nazi Germany not Nazi conquests in ww2.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- So, there is Nazi Germany with regular, incorporated territories. There is the wider meaning, with the Protectorate, or futhermore General government or Bezirk Byalistok. The widest extent would include the Reichskommissariats. Hence I said what I said. Me and Havsö did not argue to the ultimate Nazi conquested territories including everything, just the administrational map which is anyway not the widest extent in such interpretation.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC))
- The map which E-960 added shows Germany + annexed Austria and Sudetenland (+ Bohemia Protectorate). The map which this replaced showed the administrative regions of Germany with its wartime (greatest extent) borders (and only Germany, not occupied territory (e.g. not Reichskommissariat Ostland), but only the reich "proper" (i.e. Germany)). These administrative regions, even if not recognized by the other side in the war (duh) was still administered as an part of Germany for several years. In fact they were administered in this way for longer than the period of only Germany + Austria/Sudeten that the "E-960 map" showed. Pretty cringe to accuse me of "accepting German aggression" and "justifying the Nazi territorial claims" (of this 75 year old war) because I argue to retain the map which shows the administrative reality people lived in for several years compared to a map which shows the status of the country for only a few months in the middle of its existence. It this argument used for any map of any unrecognized country or empire which includes territory conquered at some point? --Havsjö (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- So, there is Nazi Germany with regular, incorporated territories. There is the wider meaning, with the Protectorate, or futhermore General government or Bezirk Byalistok. The widest extent would include the Reichskommissariats. Hence I said what I said. Me and Havsö did not argue to the ultimate Nazi conquested territories including everything, just the administrational map which is anyway not the widest extent in such interpretation.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC))
- Yes the title is Nazi Germany not Nazi conquests in ww2.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please read the title of the article, and let's not confuse Nazi territory with German territory, or similar, it is not necessarily one and the same (btw. your question seems poetrical, and if it is not misunderstood, have already been answered above...).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC))
- Why do we need to have a map of Nazi territory at its greatest extent?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you may add it, but does not mean agreement of deletion of another map (anyway the map is not unambigous as well how it has been titled, since the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was attached to Germany as a protectorate, but not incorporated to it regularly, while the territory of former Austria and the so-called Sudetenland was reguraly incorporated as standart part of the country).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC))
- Because (as was said) this was Nazi Germany at the greatest extent of its internationally recognised borders.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we have a standard info box in this article showing internationally recognized territory of Nazi Germany just before the outbreak of WWII, and have all the vaguely defined expansionist details in the Greater Germanic Reich article and/or the 4.1 Territorial changes and 4.2 Occupied territories sections? Also, why have two maps in the infobox, it all just look overstated, not even the Empire of Japan or Fascist Italy articles have two maps in the infoboxes (at least there the maps show expansion over decades, not a short lived 2.5 year maximum extent). Also, the "justification" comment was an observation that showing the administrative districts map gives the impression that this was the "home" territory not clearly noting that good chunk of this was occupied territory, and is not directed at anyone in particular. Also, I wrote "no one accepted German aggression" as in people in the 1930's, why are you interpreting this statement as referencing you specifically, it's a quick blurb talking about people and/or governments at that time. --E-960 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should just show the Deutschesreich map [1] in the infobox, and the Greater German Reich [2] in the Territorial changes section. --E-960 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- - I concur with Havsjö, but as an addendum, make it clear, the term unrecognized, as reflected above, does not really play at war conditions, moreover the Axis recognized it, etc.
- - E-960, you edit log comment was quite clear, not really to be misundestood, since Havsjö did not made any "POV-pushing", is was a fact what was then Reich proper (thus it as well cannot be any "justification of any Nazi territorial claims"), regarding "no one accepted German aggression" is a quite sentimental statement, a bit far subject regarding the exact matter, which now you claim to the 1930', as a quite colloquial term. There was a point when at peace conditions many territorial changes have been acknowledged shall it be related to Germany or not, after the war generally Axis recognized what Allies did not and vica versa, again, war conditions cannot be compared to peacetime conditions. We won't censor out dozens of maps because it shows a blick of a historical time which is unfavored sensitively by nations, shall it be with Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Czech, Slovaks, Romanians or Serbs, etc, there are plenty of such happenings in history back in time. You have to also see generally of a given entitiy and timeline we likely use a map of an extent which includes all phases, shall it be achieved later or shorter, as it is more informative, it has nothing to do with "impressions". If you base your argumentation as well to the two other articles you have shown as an example, that would concur to have only the standard-form Greater German Reich and anything other in the specific places in the article, but your proposal wish to eliminate anything that is not the map your wish to add now, so you are not even consistent, but simply dislike anything else.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC))
- KIENGIR, the infobox at first glance just does not look proper, having two maps is excessive. The overwhelming majority of "country" infoboxes will only have one map, unless there are some overseas territories involved. So, if we must use a 1942 territory, one map is better (I don't believe in tricking-out the infobox, a recent trend with many of the articles). However, I still think the 1939 perhaps even the 1937 map is better, because after WWI a new reality emerged, with formal recognition of statehood by the League of Nations and other states, before that you invaded a country it was yours, after WWI you invaded a country you were occupying it. Also, I don't agree with the Japan and Italy approach, in the info box there should be one map with the "home" territory and further down in the article a map of all the occupied lands under control, I think this makes a clear distinction of what is what. --E-960 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- As noted more times above, recognition issues are irrelevant here (similarly, yours vs. occupying, under control may subject to POV, similarly outlined above, even if we don't enter into contemporary legal issues, etc.). I can offer that solution you now outlined as well, the standard-form map remains, and the 1944 administrative map goes to the core. But only if Havsjö as well agrees.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC))
- The 1944 administrative map could be put in the "Geography" section and leave only the 1942 map in the infobox then --Havsjö (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, agree, as suggested. --E-960 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- The 1944 administrative map could be put in the "Geography" section and leave only the 1942 map in the infobox then --Havsjö (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- As noted more times above, recognition issues are irrelevant here (similarly, yours vs. occupying, under control may subject to POV, similarly outlined above, even if we don't enter into contemporary legal issues, etc.). I can offer that solution you now outlined as well, the standard-form map remains, and the 1944 administrative map goes to the core. But only if Havsjö as well agrees.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC))
- KIENGIR, the infobox at first glance just does not look proper, having two maps is excessive. The overwhelming majority of "country" infoboxes will only have one map, unless there are some overseas territories involved. So, if we must use a 1942 territory, one map is better (I don't believe in tricking-out the infobox, a recent trend with many of the articles). However, I still think the 1939 perhaps even the 1937 map is better, because after WWI a new reality emerged, with formal recognition of statehood by the League of Nations and other states, before that you invaded a country it was yours, after WWI you invaded a country you were occupying it. Also, I don't agree with the Japan and Italy approach, in the info box there should be one map with the "home" territory and further down in the article a map of all the occupied lands under control, I think this makes a clear distinction of what is what. --E-960 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2020
Vladol adolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.25.238 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- You need to say what edit you wish made.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2020
| This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the party's full official name should be stated somewhere, that's why I'm offering to change this:
Nazi Germany, officially known as the German Reich[a] until 1943 and Greater German Reich[b] in 1943–45, was the German state between 1933 and 1945, when Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) controlled the country which they transformed into a dictatorship. Under Hitler's rule, Germany quickly became a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the government. The Third Reich[c] – meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire" – alluded to the Nazis' conceit that Nazi Germany was the successor to the earlier Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) and German Empire (1871–1918). The Third Reich, which Hitler and the Nazis referred to as the Thousand Year Reich,[1] ended in May 1945 after just 12 years, when the Allies defeated Germany, ending World War II in Europe.
to that:
Nazi Germany, officially known as the German Reich[d] until 1943 and Greater German Reich[e] in 1943–45, was the German state between 1933 and 1945, when Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party[f] (abbreviated in German as NSDAP and commonly known in English as Nazi Party) controlled the country which they transformed into a dictatorship. Under Hitler's rule, Germany quickly became a totalitarian state where nearly all aspects of life were controlled by the government. The Third Reich[g] – meaning "Third Realm" or "Third Empire" – alluded to the Nazis' conceit that Nazi Germany was the successor to the earlier Holy Roman Empire (800–1806) and German Empire (1871–1918). The Third Reich, which Hitler and the Nazis referred to as the Thousand Year Reich,[1] ended in May 1945 after just 12 years, when the Allies defeated Germany, ending World War II in Europe.
- The thing is that the word Nazi is only popular in English and many non-native English speakers might be a little confused. In fact, if you check various articles in other languages about the Nazi Party, you'll find out that they are called National Socialist German Workers' Party.
- Examples: German, Russian, Spanish, French, Portuguese.
Kineolody (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Kineolody (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b Shirer 1960, p. 5.
- This is the English wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is too much detail for the lead. These points are covered in the Background section.— Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- The word "socialism" is regularly removed from the lead by a contingent of editors in blatant violation of WP:POV. For those breathlessly responding—rather than sophistry, please cite any other Wikipedia entry which uses only an abbreviation in its lead while never defining the term. Lexlex (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I think we should change "Nazi" wherever possible to National Socialist or NSDAP
| WP:DFTT EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Nazi is shorthand for Nationalsozialistische, whose first two syllables are pronounced as such. It's unofficial and even pejorative; it's the equivalent of calling Communists/Communism Commies. It was never used in Germany and Hitler even hated the phrase. It was never used outside of the English sphere until after WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinishedCycle (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Flag
The current flag in use is the off centered version of the flag that was not the version of the flag that was in use in Nazi Germany, who in fact used the one with the swastika located in the center. The article on the Flag of Nazi Germany currently says:
References from Third Reich books that display the country's flags always show the centred-disk version as Germany's national flag. One book published by the Third Reich in 1937, Du bist Sofort im Bilde ("You Are Informed Immediately", a guide book to the organization of the Third Reich)[3] displays a centred-disk German flag as Germany's national flag. A book published one year earlier in 1936 in the Third Reich, Deutscher Beamten-Kalender 1936 (German Civil Servants Yearbook 1936) also displays the centred-disk flag as the national flag, beside it the off-centred disk flag is described for use on a "Kriegsschiff" (warship).[4] Also the centred-disk flag was commonly used by civilians and the German armed forces aside from the navy.(Fireandblood02 (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC))
- Everything can be found here:
--Fornax (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC) - The off-centered version was used from 1935 on.--Fornax (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for the clarification.Fireandblood02 (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Semi-protected edit request
| This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Racial Policy and Eugenics, for subsection Racism and Antisemitism, instead the Nazis viewing Jews as a “mixed race” please add that they were viewed as an “inferior race” as the Nazis had a hierarchy.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:D536:4DC5:6FA2:8D18 (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: The statement is sourced to a well-regarded scholarly work as is and states: The Nazis postulated the existence of a racial conflict between the Aryan master race and inferior races, particularly Jews,
so the supposed hierarchy of racial categorizations is made clear. The links to other articles explain these concepts more fully. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Protected edit request
The article currently says:
- After outmanoeuvring the Allies in Belgium and forcing the evacuation of many British and French troops at Dunkirk, France fell as well, surrendering to Germany on 22 June.
This is an egregious dangling modifier. It literally states it was France that outmanoeuvred the Allies in Belgium and forced the Dunkirk evacuation. Please reword. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you for your suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The editor who created these threads is apparently a sockpuppet. Please do not uncollapse unless you are an admin.
|
|---|
NAZISM IS NOT FASCISM, and FASCISM IS NOT NAZISM, this article directly goes against the mainstream consensus of political scientists− The real, specialized experts like the political theorists political scientists make sharp distinction between nazism and fascism. (The two term was arbitrary lumped together from 1945 to the 1960s. The Soviet Union and Stalin himself were the main driving fore in this well designed confusion and misleading idea. Fascism had no ethnic nationalist neither any racist concepts, it based only around the greatness of state and its citizens regardless the ethnic background of the citizens. For a fascist everybody belong to the nation who and whose ancestors were born on the territory of the state, regardless their ethnic background. It based on IUS SOLI. Nazi ideas rotated around ethnic nationalism and ancestry , the ethnic origin of the people (IUS SANGUINIS). While facism can be (and used to be) anti-racist (like Mussolini), nazism is a clearly racist ideology (like Hitler). No wonder that Jews were overrepresented in Italian fascism, especially in its early period. − In this video, the huge diferences in economic societal level are well explained : https://youtube.com/qdY_IMZH2Ko --Creator Edition (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Talkpages of the Wiki articles is OFFICIALLY CALLED AS "FORUM"Dear Marek! You confused the Wiki articles,with the talkpages. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought See POINT 4: QUORTE: <quote>Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages.</quote> --Creator Edition (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
For a start and better nerstanding: I suggest to watch this video with full of quotes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko You can find these quotes in Google Books , if you need references for the article.--Creator Edition (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
These are different concepts: READ: PAGE 4-6: LINK:[6] READ: PGE : 47 LINK: https://books.google.com/books?id=221W9vKkWrcC&pg=PA48&dq=difference+between+nazism+and+fascism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib5_S6x-7uAhVBiIsKHUUoArc4FBDoATAHegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=difference%20between%20nazism%20and%20fascism&f=false
And here is the Jolly Joker, what you don't want to face: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko This video itself has more references than this article itself. Everything is perfectly referenced in the video. So this video is a heavy weight stuff in the argument. Because this article use only around 20 (twenty) books and repeatedly rotating around them. And unlike you, most of the references of the article don't even confuse nazism and fascism.--Creator Edition (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Please watch the video before you write comment, because it is better supported by references thus more trusworthy than this poorly referenced article. Please watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko
Logically the video can not be used as reference, because technically it is impossible to use it as such (simply because it is not written text but a motion picture, and references are text based beings.) However it does not mean it do not contain exact quotes from written books, even much-much more than this article. I want to download the subtitles of this video, but I did ot figure out how to do it. So it is just a technical problem, but the content is more thrustworthy because it has huge number of references from the books of serious authors of ideolgists (political scientists with modern phrase). And this article is about events in a country (Germany) in a time period, and not about the ideology itself, so it would be even better to move this discussion to the nazism or fascism article.--Creator Edition (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC) And the quotes are mostly burned in itself on the video material, and the subtitle does not contain them :((( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator Edition (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstood in the communication. This video has the classic references from books of experts (exactly what the Wikipedia articles actually needs), but I can nt reach it via the subtitles, because it is burned into the surface of the video content, making it very labour-intensive to stop the video, start the video and write down the title of the book and writer page number search the isbn page etc...with the help of Google Books. Can I ask you,have you watched the video?--Creator Edition (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Neither are political scientists, so they are non expert in the subject.--Creator Edition (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2005/05/12/the-anatomy-of-fascism/
"English language itself lists the following words as synonymous with fascism: AUTHORITARIANISM, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, isolationism; neo-fascism, neo-Nazism; corporativism, corporatism"-- written by user: Obenritter]] It depends on time frame of a given era. "AUTHORITARIANISM, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule militarism"so many of these can fit well for Soviet Union and Stalinism too.... "militarism; nationalism xenophobia, racism chauvinism" fit well for the pre WW1 Colonial European democracies. Racism was not only tolerated but fit very well into pre WW1 liberals (even among their MEPs) in England France and Germany. However these are unimaginamble and can not be tolerated in modern liberal parties of our timeline. That's why I told, the interpretation strongly depend on the time frame, and we must understand that if we want to avoid the so-called anachronism. --Creator Edition (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC) |
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deutschesreich1939.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_German_Reich_%281942%29.svg){kind=link}
Creator edition is a sockpuppet
According to Bbb23, Creator edition has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet on hu.wiki by a CheckUser there. According to KIENGIR, they are one of many socks created by Stubes99, so many that Hungarian editors have given up on reporting them. This information is not yet confirmed by a en.wiki CheckUser, but, given Creator Edition's behavior here, it seems to me to be sufficient to collapse both threads above -- after all, they can always be uncollapsed if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Creator Edition indeffed by User:Diannaa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021
| This edit request to Nazi Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change this anthem file with an old recording, rather than modern U.S. Navy Band version, because the anthem of Nazi Germany has only one stanza from Deutschlandlied and Horst-Wessel-Lied. 2001:4452:4AE:8A00:3C95:88E4:3568:4F91 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) File:Deutschlandlied (first stanza).oga
- Done. I absolutely agree, only the first stanza was used as the co-official anthem of the Reich, and it is the reason why it's censored in this modern day and age. PyroFloe (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree this version is much more appropriate. My one complaint is that this file doesn't have the translated English subtitles pop up when playing. Is it possible to add those? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Recent edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes,
we discussed this and you seem to understand it. PyroFloe made many good faith, but erroneus and sloppy edits at several articles. Even by your argumentations small-f does not define the state as the sloppy edits would describe, it was a National Socialist State, and the Nazi is enough defining, this is not a case study of the relations of Nazism and Fascism. Moreover, this paremeter is a government type parameter, and a fascist state is not a government, etc. I suggest you think twice and carefully listen arguments.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
- Nazism is a form of fascism. Please stop removing the description from the article against the consensus of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse me, some relation between them does not mean them equal, not even by in a terminological way. I don't know what consensus you are talking about, I was reverting a bold edit, so the opposite is true about what you are saying.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
- I'm saying that several editors have undone your removal of "fascist", and that constitutes a working de facto consensus, if not a formal one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please stop misleading edit logs, you are edit warring, I just restored the status quo. No, one editor reverted, but after she understood my argumentation, so your deduction fails. Please revert yourself.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
- No, I will not, considering that you've now reverted three editors. Just because you consider the original edit to be BOLD doesn't means you can discount your revert. Per WP:BRD, a revert of a bold edit is supposed to be followed by a discussion, something which you only did after two other editors reverted your revert.Please note that the article has been categorized in "Fascist states" since 2016, and Diannaa herself added a reference to the NSDAP being a "fascist party" in 2019, so the add of "Fascist" to the infobox was not in any respect a bold edit.I do not want to report you for edit warring, but I will if you give me no choice by continuing to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please stop repeatedly mischarachterizing the issue. Now after you realized you did a mistake and arguing differently. I reverted a legitimate way the first editor, as a bold addition (yes it was bold, since it was not there), after Diannna asked me about something, I clarified, she understood (an administrator). After you did what you did, despite I entered in the talk page. What you do is clearly, against wikietiquette, since you are an experienced editor, as me and we know what is the protocoll, BRD, status quo ante, etc. So your reference to the earlier is boomerang. Hence, any report you would make, would be a failure since requirements would not meet, but may have an opposite outcome. I think you should calm down and in the future follow the etiquette with a cold head, as our relation always had been professional and were based on mutual respect.
- The Fascist state category is just as enough to resolve this issue, this category is anyway sloppy creation, used at many instances erronouesly, it's a broad concept umbrella. However I could as well recommend you the German article on NS-Staat, which as well clearly describe if even later it has been called "fascistic", or in the Communism everything has been labelled as Fascist, indeed the state was an unprecedented Nazi state, uncomparable with any other in his kind, a new model, and Nazism is well defining, if someone seeks connection/similaritiers to fascism, it may be substracted in other articles. As well, a government type as I explained is semantically different issue. Nazi Germany was a National Socialist state, not a Fascist state, the relation of degree of the ideologies are not to be confused with something else, hence no consensus for this addition.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
- I've changed nothing, and I made no mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Where and when did your discussion with Diannaa take place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- There was no discussion. He likely assumed I agreed when I chose to not engage in an edit war over this. The truth is, I think the description of Nazi Germany as a fascist state is an apt one, and it should remain in the infobox.— Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine, so we have a formal working consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree it should remain, even though Nazism had other aspects to it, beyond fascism. Kierzek (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nazi Germany was a fascist totalitarian dictatorship. Fascist is one of its most important distinctions, since the Nazi state exemplified the authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization that constitutes the term. Moreover, much of the Nazi organization's early ideals and practices (as we all know) mimicked the Fascist Party under Mussolini. That being said, the Oxford Thesaurus of the English language itself lists the following words as synonymous with fascism: AUTHORITARIANISM, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, isolationism; neo-fascism, neo-Nazism; corporativism, corporatism--Obenritter (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond my ken, you did. This the status quo ([7]), revision, which is not equal with the edit you performed. With Dianna we just interacted in edit logs so far, she is a nice editor, however not necessarily an expert in these areas, as well we met in similar topics where amendments had to made for accuracy, similarly to you or other editors. Kierzek, you have the point, but you should drop the emotional issue and remain professional. Obernritter, terminologically as well this is not a valid designation. Just because they share some charachteristic, it does not mean we just collect some variables, group them and if they share a few or more with other considered elements of an ideology, then we add the as genuine, it's quite synth or or-ish. The government type parameter already contains Nazi piped with Nazism, and that's enough defining, in that article the reader could read the relations of fascism. The rest I already said, unfortunately many times Anglo-Saxons do not really understand appropriately many akin things in the topic area (even outside), they just throw to everything as fascism, believeing they "justify" something. I am very sorry the the result of new, sloppy bold edit of PyroFloe caused this mess (which most of the articles have been reverted wholly of partially because of it's mistakes), however much more sorry about the lack of professionalism here, hence I have to uphold everything I said.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- Nazi Germany was a fascist totalitarian dictatorship. Fascist is one of its most important distinctions, since the Nazi state exemplified the authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization that constitutes the term. Moreover, much of the Nazi organization's early ideals and practices (as we all know) mimicked the Fascist Party under Mussolini. That being said, the Oxford Thesaurus of the English language itself lists the following words as synonymous with fascism: AUTHORITARIANISM, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, isolationism; neo-fascism, neo-Nazism; corporativism, corporatism--Obenritter (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree it should remain, even though Nazism had other aspects to it, beyond fascism. Kierzek (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's fine, so we have a formal working consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- There was no discussion. He likely assumed I agreed when I chose to not engage in an edit war over this. The truth is, I think the description of Nazi Germany as a fascist state is an apt one, and it should remain in the infobox.— Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Where and when did your discussion with Diannaa take place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've changed nothing, and I made no mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, I will not, considering that you've now reverted three editors. Just because you consider the original edit to be BOLD doesn't means you can discount your revert. Per WP:BRD, a revert of a bold edit is supposed to be followed by a discussion, something which you only did after two other editors reverted your revert.Please note that the article has been categorized in "Fascist states" since 2016, and Diannaa herself added a reference to the NSDAP being a "fascist party" in 2019, so the add of "Fascist" to the infobox was not in any respect a bold edit.I do not want to report you for edit warring, but I will if you give me no choice by continuing to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please stop misleading edit logs, you are edit warring, I just restored the status quo. No, one editor reverted, but after she understood my argumentation, so your deduction fails. Please revert yourself.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
- I'm saying that several editors have undone your removal of "fascist", and that constitutes a working de facto consensus, if not a formal one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Excuse me, some relation between them does not mean them equal, not even by in a terminological way. I don't know what consensus you are talking about, I was reverting a bold edit, so the opposite is true about what you are saying.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
- Keep the "fascist state" in the infobox. Applicable and useful to the reader. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- We should inform the reader adequately and accurately, not just based on solely what it may be probably understood. Appropriate terminology should not be a subject of a community vote, but professionality.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- It is unfortunate for you that six editors disagree with your assessment concerning the addition of "Fascist state" to the infobox, while one appears to agree with you (see below), but has yet to present any real evidence to support their opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- For me? This an encyclopedia, it is unfortunate for the readers primarily, it has nothing to with how many editors you list on any side, this is not a vote, irrelevant. Only what matters, accurate and adequate information, in the end. Btw., this comment of yours was completely unnecessary, take a break or cool down, as I recommended more times.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- It is a WP:CONSENSUS discussion, and when
sixseven (see below) editors are on one side of the issue, and one (and perhaps another) are on the other, the consensus is quite clear, something you seem loathe to admit. You very much need to WP:Dropthestick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)- I think you should stop bullying me and being unfriendly, you go by far, better try to interpret appropriately what I have written. I now what means consensus, and yes it is a consensus discussion, but consensus itself is not solely a vote per policy, this is what I referred. Hence your statement about "you seem loathe to admit" is a complete speculation, in a bad faith manner. I ask you to abandon any unconstructive comments which are not directly related to the content, hence your comment made by your 10:33, 15 February 2021 entry tried to insist some kind of WP:WINNING, but our encylcopedia is not about that (hence I said it was unnecessary). Dropping the stick you should as well interpret to yourself. Mind also WP:AGF. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- It is a WP:CONSENSUS discussion, and when
- For me? This an encyclopedia, it is unfortunate for the readers primarily, it has nothing to with how many editors you list on any side, this is not a vote, irrelevant. Only what matters, accurate and adequate information, in the end. Btw., this comment of yours was completely unnecessary, take a break or cool down, as I recommended more times.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- It is unfortunate for you that six editors disagree with your assessment concerning the addition of "Fascist state" to the infobox, while one appears to agree with you (see below), but has yet to present any real evidence to support their opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- We should inform the reader adequately and accurately, not just based on solely what it may be probably understood. Appropriate terminology should not be a subject of a community vote, but professionality.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- Keep the "fascist state" in the infobox, Germany in this period is practically the poster boy for fascist state.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Actually it is Mussolini's Italy.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- Actually it is both.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is your opinion, I disagree. Italy is that, or we could say Spain and some other countries may had open declared fascist traits which are notable. However, any expert knows the distinction and it's level, which is evident in the "non-Anglo-Saxon" Europe on the given period.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- OK, do you have one RS that sats it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You mean reverse engineering, something should be denied not stated, or vice versa? See e.g. Z. B. Reinhard Kühnl: Der deutsche Faschismus in Quellen und Dokumenten, Köln 1975; Jürgen Kuczynski: Geschichte des Alltags des deutschen Volkes. Studien 5: 1918–1945, Berlin 1982. "Marxistische Historiker in der früheren DDR und in Westdeutschland nutzten in diesem Fall Begriffe wie „deutscher Faschismus“ oder „faschistische Diktatur" -> clearly such notions were coined later in the Communist period.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- I can't read German, maybe you would be so kind as to quite the relevant passages?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Marxist historians in the former East Germany and in West Germany used the "German Fascism" and "fascist dictatorship" terms in this case".(KIENGIR (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- And? This is not saying no one else has said it. [[8]], so you need a serouce saying it was not facist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Answered below.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- "Marxist historians in the former East Germany and in West Germany used the "German Fascism" and "fascist dictatorship" terms in this case".(KIENGIR (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- I can't read German, maybe you would be so kind as to quite the relevant passages?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You mean reverse engineering, something should be denied not stated, or vice versa? See e.g. Z. B. Reinhard Kühnl: Der deutsche Faschismus in Quellen und Dokumenten, Köln 1975; Jürgen Kuczynski: Geschichte des Alltags des deutschen Volkes. Studien 5: 1918–1945, Berlin 1982. "Marxistische Historiker in der früheren DDR und in Westdeutschland nutzten in diesem Fall Begriffe wie „deutscher Faschismus“ oder „faschistische Diktatur" -> clearly such notions were coined later in the Communist period.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- OK, do you have one RS that sats it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is your opinion, I disagree. Italy is that, or we could say Spain and some other countries may had open declared fascist traits which are notable. However, any expert knows the distinction and it's level, which is evident in the "non-Anglo-Saxon" Europe on the given period.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- Actually it is both.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Actually it is Mussolini's Italy.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- Keep the "fascist state" in the infobox, as I have already explained. Kieniger's explanations do not accord academic consensus in the English or German-speaking sources. The Nazi government was multi-faceted and unique but fascism was part of its makeup. In Duden's Wörterbüch, they also list the following synonyms with Nazism: Hitlerfaschismus; (Politik) and Faschismus. The contention that this categorization is an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon fails and so it is an imperative to keep it.--Obenritter (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Synonyms of an ideology does not qualify an entity as "fascist state", necessarily, it is a more complex issue (seriously, Duden Wörterbuch?). I disagree German-speaking sources would accord to that what you say, hence I recommended the overview of the German Wikipedia on this, in which such issues are treated even more strictly then here. I agree Anglo-Saxon sources are not best, but as well in on other areas some sources are far from being accurate.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- You can disagree all you want and try to ridicule the use of dictionaries that use Nazism as a synonym for fascism, but you are wrong in this case. I can cite dozens of academic sources in German or English from noted historians of the Third Reich and I suspect you'll still try and make your point. You have a history of edit warring BTW and this long and silly argument is another example of that. Per eminent German Third Reich scholar, Wolfgang Benz: "As the most radical manifestation of fascist ideology, characterized by a corporatist social order, by non-normative violence, the suppression of the workers' movement and strict anti-communism, by racist exclusion of minorities up to genocide and expansionism (“living space”), National Socialism (Nazism) gained power in Germany in 1933." (See: Wolfgang Benz, "Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus. Die Folgen für das Verständnis von Pluralismus und Toleranz in Europa," in Religiöser Pluralismus und Toleranz in Europa, eds. C. Augustin, J. Wienand, and C. Winkler C. (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2006), p. 69. ISBN: 978-3-531-14811-3)--Obenritter (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Obenritter,
- I did not ridicule anything, I draw the attention that a disctionary's list of possible synomyms are far away form the complex subject we are discussing (and you should know that as an experienced editor). "You have a history of edit warring BTW and this long and silly argument is another example of that" -> Excuse me, what history you refer exactly? Without jugding further it's validity, how it would be related to this content issue? Or, how a talk page discussion with arguments would have any connection of what you stated? What do you mean by silly argument? May I tell you to remain strictly professional and do not deteriorate from the real subject? Could you present the whole sentence Benz stated? Btw. I suggest you to read my answer to Slatersteven.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- You've failed to academically prove/substantiate your point (which makes this a silly argument), you've ignored the consensus opinion that fascism is part and parcel to Nazism, you've implied the inferiority of Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking scholarship on this subject (which is highly offensive BTW), and you're currently deflecting since I provided a direct quote from a noted scholar (albeit translated since I speak both languages) and converted it to English for the reading ease of my fellow English-speaking editors. However, so you can read it for yourself in German -- here is Benz's quote: "Als radikalste Ausprägung faschistischer Ideologie, gekennzeichnet durch eine korporatistische Gesellschaftsordnung, durch außernormative Gewalt, Unterdrückung der Arbeiterbewegung und strikten Antikommunismus, durch rassistische Ausgrenzung von Minderheiten bis zum Genozid und Expansionsstreben („Lebensraum“), erhielt der Nationalsozialismus 1933 in Deutschland die Macht." --Obenritter (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- JUst FYI -- the book you cited, which was edited by Reinhard Kühnl, is a collection of documents explicitly about how the Nazis were fascists. In the Amazon.de description of the book, it states that its "350 documents make it possible to develop a well-founded picture of the fascist dictatorship, its political and social foundations and requirements." You have undermined your own arguments. Why am I even having this conversation? Geesh. --Obenritter (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- - "You've failed to academically prove/substantiate your point (which makes this a silly argument)" -> did the discussion finish? Were you able to do what you consider from me missing? Excuse me, even if it would be as you say, it does not qualify the arguments silly
- - "you've ignored the consensus opinion that fascism is part and parcel to Nazism" -> false, read back
- - "you've implied the inferiority of Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking scholarship on this subject (which is highly offensive BTW)" -> this is your overexaggerated observation. Indeed, Anglo-Saxon scholarship widely endorse the idea of Austro-Hungarian citizenship, which never existed in world history (just one example). It has not nothing to with inferiority, just some erroneous parts possible.
- - "deflecting" - why would be "deflecting" if I ask for the complete sentence, to properly interpet, precisity would be a "deflection"? (at least I carefully read and evaluate everything, possibly unlike some others in this discussion)
- - Thank you for prividing the full quote. Why do you think this quote would prove to be the country of begin fascist state? It tells about National Socialist ideology, which rised to power in 1933. The infobox contains "Nazi", piped to the relevant article in which the relation to fascism is explained.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- You addition I noticed later, it would have been better if you'd wait for an answer, before judging again too quickly. "picture of the fascist dictatorship" would mean the definition of a fascist state? We could discuss about common points, but can we state it would be a fascist state like Italy, or classic fascist states?(KIENGIR (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- JUst FYI -- the book you cited, which was edited by Reinhard Kühnl, is a collection of documents explicitly about how the Nazis were fascists. In the Amazon.de description of the book, it states that its "350 documents make it possible to develop a well-founded picture of the fascist dictatorship, its political and social foundations and requirements." You have undermined your own arguments. Why am I even having this conversation? Geesh. --Obenritter (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You've failed to academically prove/substantiate your point (which makes this a silly argument), you've ignored the consensus opinion that fascism is part and parcel to Nazism, you've implied the inferiority of Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking scholarship on this subject (which is highly offensive BTW), and you're currently deflecting since I provided a direct quote from a noted scholar (albeit translated since I speak both languages) and converted it to English for the reading ease of my fellow English-speaking editors. However, so you can read it for yourself in German -- here is Benz's quote: "Als radikalste Ausprägung faschistischer Ideologie, gekennzeichnet durch eine korporatistische Gesellschaftsordnung, durch außernormative Gewalt, Unterdrückung der Arbeiterbewegung und strikten Antikommunismus, durch rassistische Ausgrenzung von Minderheiten bis zum Genozid und Expansionsstreben („Lebensraum“), erhielt der Nationalsozialismus 1933 in Deutschland die Macht." --Obenritter (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can disagree all you want and try to ridicule the use of dictionaries that use Nazism as a synonym for fascism, but you are wrong in this case. I can cite dozens of academic sources in German or English from noted historians of the Third Reich and I suspect you'll still try and make your point. You have a history of edit warring BTW and this long and silly argument is another example of that. Per eminent German Third Reich scholar, Wolfgang Benz: "As the most radical manifestation of fascist ideology, characterized by a corporatist social order, by non-normative violence, the suppression of the workers' movement and strict anti-communism, by racist exclusion of minorities up to genocide and expansionism (“living space”), National Socialism (Nazism) gained power in Germany in 1933." (See: Wolfgang Benz, "Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus. Die Folgen für das Verständnis von Pluralismus und Toleranz in Europa," in Religiöser Pluralismus und Toleranz in Europa, eds. C. Augustin, J. Wienand, and C. Winkler C. (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2006), p. 69. ISBN: 978-3-531-14811-3)--Obenritter (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Synonyms of an ideology does not qualify an entity as "fascist state", necessarily, it is a more complex issue (seriously, Duden Wörterbuch?). I disagree German-speaking sources would accord to that what you say, hence I recommended the overview of the German Wikipedia on this, in which such issues are treated even more strictly then here. I agree Anglo-Saxon sources are not best, but as well in on other areas some sources are far from being accurate.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
I can't see this going anywhere until at least one RS is provided that says "Germany was not fascist". Until then this is pointless and a waste of time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, then I react here you, not to your above answer. Your source speaks about the ideology of Fascism related, but mentions a Nazi state. The issue is not about the degree of fascism related to Germany, try to understand the issue appropriately.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- [[9]] "One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany" (my enmpahsis), The Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazi Germany - Page 54 "Nazi Germany was a Fascist state", The Key to Understanding Global History - Page 347 "Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. ", Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler: The Nazi Holocaust Masterminds - Page 45 " Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. ", this is nows disruptive, drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You rush to quickly, one back and forth answer on new point (especially you presented a new source) cannot be disruptive. With the first source you still remained on the ground that I just explained. You presented other two references stating it was a Fascist State (wow, finally we are at the point). Can you demonstrate this view prevails, how it is compated with Nazi state or NS-Staat, National Socialist State or similar, even foreign languages?(KIENGIR (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- We have provided sources, explicitly supporting our contention, you have failed to provide one backing yours. It is not down to us to do any more work, it is down to you to demonstrate this labeling of Nazi Germany as fascist is in fact contested by any RS. Either put up or stop nowSlatersteven (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- You rush to quickly, one back and forth answer on new point (especially you presented a new source) cannot be disruptive. With the first source you still remained on the ground that I just explained. You presented other two references stating it was a Fascist State (wow, finally we are at the point). Can you demonstrate this view prevails, how it is compated with Nazi state or NS-Staat, National Socialist State or similar, even foreign languages?(KIENGIR (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- [[9]] "One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany" (my enmpahsis), The Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazi Germany - Page 54 "Nazi Germany was a Fascist state", The Key to Understanding Global History - Page 347 "Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. ", Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler: The Nazi Holocaust Masterminds - Page 45 " Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. ", this is nows disruptive, drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
To further substantiate Slatersteven's point, here are some books dealing with Nazi Germany's fascism and what led/contributed to or bolstered it, and its consequences:
- Sohn-Rethel, Alfred. Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism. London, CSE Bks, 1978.
- Hutton, Christopher M. Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue Fascism, Race, and the Science of Language. New York: Routledge, 1998.
- Childers, Thomas. The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-1933. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1983.
- Fritzsche, Peter. Rehearsals for Fascism. Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
- Herzog, Dagmar. Sexuality and German Fascism. New York: Berghahn Books, 2004.
- Martin, Elaine. Gender, Patriarchy, and Fascism in the Third Reich: The Response of Women Writers. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993.
- Mason, Tim. Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class. Edited by Jane Caplan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- Sünker, Heinz, and Hans-Uwe Otto. Education and Fascism: Political Identity and Social Education in Nazi Germany. Knowledge, Identity and School Life Series, vol. 6. London: Falmer Press, 1997.
- Kallis, Aristotle. Fascist Ideology: Territory and Expansionism in Italy and Germany, 1922–1945. London: Routledge, 2000.
Beyond this...I am done with this discussion.--Obenritter (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank You, however again, the question is not the relation/degree of fascism, but the Fascist state designation. I would be happy to see how the term is used in comparison the other examples I gave. That may settle this debate, even for clarity.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- We have provided sources, explicitly stating "Fascist state", unless you can show this designation is contested by RS there is no debate to be had, we go with what RS say. This is my lat word here, you do not have wp:consensus so provide a source to back your position or drop the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
References
- Well the jewishvirtuallibrary source does not even contain the word fascist, can you provide a quote for the other two that say it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, but please note only later I will return, but I answer for this yet know. Your question is not logical. We use sources to support something, not necessarily deny something. If you you'd ask me to provide a source for that Greenland is a 20km2 little island, I don't have to provide a source which literally denies that is is NOT a 20km2 little island (hence coined you reverse engineering earlier). Thus I don't have to provide anything, that would state it is not Fascist. Being a Nazi state does not exlude Fascist elements or the relation to the Fascist ideology (which most of you conflate and stress on), but still not identical (again the issue is NOT the degree of relation).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- You do if you want to challenge it, if You want to remove a claim you have to show it is not valid. We have sources that support fascist, so by your logic, we include it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven,
- it seems you did not understand what I just told you, I suggest you to read back (hence as well what you suggest "by your logic" flaws). We have sources to support Nazi as well. The two does not exlude each other, so I don't have to show such what you claim, however as per the above demonstrated example your claim would be anyway completely illogical. While Fascism is a greater umbrella term, Nazism is specified close qualifier, and by logic we refer to best near unique sufficient one. As well, if we want to demonstrate Elton John's birthplace in the infobox, we don't write out Milky Way, Solar System, Planet Earth or Europe, but we call the spade as a spade, England. Similarly we don't have to list all charachteristics and relations of Nazism, like far-right, fascist, racist etc., but we put the most defining qualifier, which is Nazism. Nazi Germany was a Nazi (National Socialist) State, as it's government was Nazi, this term is well defyning, even in line with the categorization of our platform, and we ignore superflous and redundant categories, but we put the closest child. Hence, if we have both sources for Fascist state and Nazi state, those who wish to insert the earlier have the ONUS to prove it's validity. per commons sense and logic, this whole issue should not exist, per the earlier demonstrations, since Nazi is well defining as first child (even in relation to Fascism), however there are some good faith but less expert users who somehow feel to push the Fascist state designation over a well-established designation just because another user's sloppy bold edit - which have been reverted almost every another article wholly or partially - have surfaced this somehow, and now we are here. So, if none of you see what's the problem, than prove Fascist prevail over the Nazi designation (for the state of course, if we ignore at this level that a Government parameter in the infobox is about a Goverment, not a state, hence the current addition is even semantically incorrect). Please assure me - or anyone - before answering that you fully understood what I have written, and if not ask before going forward. Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
- Yes WE know that, its what we are saying, Nazi Germany can be both. We go with what RS say, and RS say it was a fascist state. RS do not (for example) give both places as Earth, Sol, Mutter speiral, so we don't. Again we do not need to prove it, as we have proved sources that say it, it is now down to you to prove its contested, not by omission, but by objection. I understand what you are saying, I do not agree with it, you have to obey our policies, and that means wp:v and wp:or, we go with what RS say, we have shown they say this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- You do if you want to challenge it, if You want to remove a claim you have to show it is not valid. We have sources that support fascist, so by your logic, we include it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven, but please note only later I will return, but I answer for this yet know. Your question is not logical. We use sources to support something, not necessarily deny something. If you you'd ask me to provide a source for that Greenland is a 20km2 little island, I don't have to provide a source which literally denies that is is NOT a 20km2 little island (hence coined you reverse engineering earlier). Thus I don't have to provide anything, that would state it is not Fascist. Being a Nazi state does not exlude Fascist elements or the relation to the Fascist ideology (which most of you conflate and stress on), but still not identical (again the issue is NOT the degree of relation).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
- Well the jewishvirtuallibrary source does not even contain the word fascist, can you provide a quote for the other two that say it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
By the way, here is o what the info box says "Unitary Nazi one-party fascist state under a totalitarian dictatorship" (emphasis mine) so we do say it was a nazi state, we say it was both (which it was).Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think there is consensus here that fascist should be included, I would add my voice to it. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Slatersteven,
- I think you still don't understand it well. Nazi Germany is primarily (and accurately) a National Socialist=Nazi state. RS say as well Fascist state (you finally gathered two instances after a long-long discussion where mostly the folks erroneously though the issue would be to prove the connection to Fascism, huh (!)), but I quickly shown as well the same about Nazi state. The Elton example you did not grasped it seems, "England" would correlate with Nazi, while Fascist state would correlate with Europe. Hence your last two sentences are null and void because, since you did not understand that we have RS for BOTH, but logic and even categorization support my statement on this this. So you have to prove (ONUS) that Fascist State prevails over Nazi state. Do you understand? (however, all of this became irrelevant, because of the semantical error I referred and will refer again)
- On your further statement, do you understand that a government is NOT a state? Hence the sentence is semantically failed in that context? Unitary Nazi one-party totalitarian dictatorship is NOT semantically failed, do you see the difference?
- Boynamedsue, nice to see you. Did you read fully the discussion, did you understand the issue fully? Do you understand Nazism is considered a subset of Fascism, hence well defining? Do you understand the semantical and procedural mistakes are ignored by others?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
- I understand that we base our edits on reliable sources, of which many exist that state Nazi Germany was a fascist state. I think that's all there is to say, unless you have reasons based on Wikipedia policies rather than your personal logical interpretation. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also many exist saying it was a Nazi state. But you ignored one question, do understand (in general) that the government infobox parameter is meant for the decription of a government and not a state, hence any addition that would contain state with an attributed qualifier does not belong there?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC))
- I understand that we base our edits on reliable sources, of which many exist that state Nazi Germany was a fascist state. I think that's all there is to say, unless you have reasons based on Wikipedia policies rather than your personal logical interpretation. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
An appeal
- KIENGIR It appears from your comments here that you believe that of the 8 editors involved in this discussion, you are the only one who "understands the issue fully". You have questioned a number of the participants as to whether they fully or correctly understand the issue, apparently in the belief that if they fully understood, they would have to agree with you. This is, frankly, insulting to the intelligence of those editors, and you need to stop.You have accepted nothing of the evidence and arguments that have been offered in opposition to your position as being valid, which has begun to appear to be an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is not constructive behavior. In fact, it is the very definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, in particular per WP:REHASH
You really must stop this, you're beginning to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. Yes, certainly, it is legitimate to attempt to build a consensus, but you are not doing that, because every single editor who has become involved in this discussion has rejected your position. You cannot "build" a consensus if no one agrees with you.I implore you, please WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You have made your point, we all understand your position, we recognize that your arguments are serious ones, and that you believe them to be true, but the fact of the matter is you have failed to convince anyone that "fascist state" should be removed from the infobox, and your repeating your arguments ad infinitum is not going to change that.Please take a moment to reconsider your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a long, hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.
- You are certainly overeaxaggerating again. There are much more longer discussion and debates in WP, and the strenght of the arguments matter, you base everything one the number of editors. I did not say everybody have to agree with me, but try to separate things ok popularity vs. exact matters. Sorry, just because in an issue more editors do not understand something, it's not my fault, not even an insult, since at certain areas WP:CIR is required. WP:HEAR is not on me, on the contrary the opposite would seem (and yes, not construtive indeed). WP:DE WP:TE does not hold, with this accusations even another editor failed. I brought always new aspects of the arguments, and if an editor did not understand, I tried to explain better. I examine evertything with extreme care and computational/logical precisity, I am famous about, but you have to understand at the field of the "exact" areas which cannot dealth like we would vote if what color we would like in the infobox. I had never problem to acknowlegde if I have wrong, but this could not be proved. I told you about the engineering view, which is sharp and exact, like in mathematics/logics, what you try to demonstrate here would may be valid in non-exact fields. Consensus building is a process, and just because at a certain point there is no agreement, it does not mean we could not go on or in the end establish a point (again, there are much more longer discussions with a much more bigger duration time).
- Moreover, I think you are to sudden, a to much caring about me, chasing me, instead of concentrating on content issues, and with this you not just steal time from me, but yourself (because instead of replying you again, I could have improved other articles, and could only once engage hear a day). Unfortunately it appear like you'd hunt me, just because you don't like my arguments or whatsover, and insisting to suppress me, this is against wikietiquette, especially after the useless SPI show I kindly asked you to return here with good faith and give time, despite you again can't just stop! I am discussing with now a newly engaged editor, please in the future just and only approach me with content issues.
- P.S. See your own blockquote put here, did you apply that? Would you acknowledge that a government is not a state? (outside the fascist/nazi terminology)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC))
- No, KIENGIR, we are not going to set up false equivalences, this is about your behavior, not mine. I've already gotten a "Thanks" from one of the other editors in this discussion for posting this appeal. If you're not going to take the steps I suggest, to reconsider your behavior in this discussion, then I'll have to take other steps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- On WP:AN, I've requested that someone close this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is not about yours, because I don't chase you and I did not do any steps against your often unfriendly behavior, although I could, but my time here is very precious, and I have applied the utmost good faith towards you, but I am sorry you ignored the same towards me, especially after today's SPI you could really put yourself a bit more moderate. I also got thanks many of my edits, I am sorry you ignore content issues. Not professional, not elegant I am heavily disappointed. You can do anything you want, I never intended to limit you by any means (it would be unprofessional). Would you also request to close the issue at Talk:List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation?(KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC))
- On WP:AN, I've requested that someone close this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, KIENGIR, we are not going to set up false equivalences, this is about your behavior, not mine. I've already gotten a "Thanks" from one of the other editors in this discussion for posting this appeal. If you're not going to take the steps I suggest, to reconsider your behavior in this discussion, then I'll have to take other steps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).