Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Early National Socialism/draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• This proposed article has no factual or historical merit and should be deleted. The creator and returning contributor of this article has not answered pointed questions at Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft and instead dodges the issue with irrelevant replies. The POV of the article itself, ie that "National Socialism" emerged from Socialism is merely a ridiculous sentiment popular among uninformed right-wing circles and without credibility. -- Simonides 23:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything is referenced and taken from many sources. There is information there not covered anywhere else unless Andy l has stolen it. It is an Ideology just like Marxism is. Hitler nor Mussolini defined it, named it, or created any of the concepts there in.WHEELER 23:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands, 1) Wheeler is the article creator mentioned above; 2) "National Socialism" is not an objectively confirmed ideology known or accepted by any serious person, apart from the German version, on which there already is an article (there were extreme right-wing parties before Nazism and Fascism but they have only tenuous connections with Nazism itself); 3) Wheeler's "information" consists of random quotes and unsubstantiated conjecture. Please see article. -- Simonides 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. If the article is wrong, correct it. The topic is important and interesting; I mean, National Socialism did not spring fully-formed from Hitler's brow, it had origins running back in some cases to the Middle Ages. Let's document those origins. orthogonal 23:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal, talking about the origins of an ideology is quite different from saying the ideology existed previously. There is no consistent, documented and widely known ideology known as National Socialism with the exception of 20th century Nazism. The article is not just wrong; it is baseless. -- Simonides 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then re-write it by examining the Freikorps after WWI and Viennese anti-Semitism from the 1890s on (that mayor of Vienna, whose name escapes me) and the German pogroms of the Middle Ages and the Church's ban on usury and the formation of Jewish ghettos. -- orthogonal 23:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal, you are talking about the origins of Nazism, only one of which is anti-Semitism, which has its own article (there's also History of anti-Semitism.) This article purports to be about previous manifestations of Nazism, which do not exist, and is based on the claim that Socialism gave rise to National Socialism, because the word occurs in the latter - a farcical suggestion without an iota of scholarly merit. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.' -- Simonides 23:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Everyking 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I agree that there should be an article on the origins of Nazism. However this article isn't it, and I don't think it can become the article that we want. So delete this draft and wait until somebody writes a keepable version. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Recover if possible, else delete. As enthusiastic as I am about coverage of Nazi topics (sunlight does wonders for clearing up infestations of the stuff), there is an article to write about this, but this isn't it. Someone would have to do the hideous heavy lifting of reading Mein Kampf (it's a bloody awful book). I see no loss from deleting and someone starting over again. OTOH, if there's anything to recover from this mess, it may be worth doing so, because just deleting it will encourage its continued recreation - David Gerard 00:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The Nazism article and the Fascism article are already too large. Do not be stealing my material either. Hitler did say, "We are the full counterpart of the French Revolution".WHEELER 00:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not 'stealing' it when you released it under GFDL the moment you hit 'submit'. You may have greatly misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. - David Gerard 00:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree with you. I think you have greatly misunderstood the GFDL. WHEELER is still the Copyright holder of the text he posted, and does have the legal right to be identified as the original author of his work. This is why maintaining page histories is so important. The GFDL is a copyright license - without an attributable copyright holder, the text cannot be shown to have been released under the GFDL. The relevant wording from Wikipedia:Copyrights is "if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship". SkArcher 05:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not from an external source - it's an article posted here. The entire purpose is to make stuff usable across the project - David Gerard 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • If (what SkArcher writes) were true than others would not have the right to alter one contributor's "property" or move parts of it to other, more suitable articles. WHEELER accuses me of "stealing" for taking a paragraph from the /draft and putting it in the main article (ie the part on Austrian National Socialism) and he presumably would think it stealing if someone were to take a passage from this article and put it in the main Nazism article. If individuals remain "copyright holders" under GFDL it would open so many problems as to make wikipedia unworkable. If WHEELER wishes to "own" what he writes and have control over it then he should get his own website, post his own material and copyright it rather than post it to an open source project such as Wikipedia. AndyL 05:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • No, he still owns his work - but that's different from the complete control he's claiming - David Gerard 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • He cannot stop you from adding the material as you see fit; but you must cite WHEELER as the original author of anything you take to add to any other article with a back link to the original and attribution to his User: page, at the very least. Individuals do remain copyright holders for their entries - otherwise the GFDL has no legal force whatsoever. External Source means any source external to the document you are working on - Wikipedia being made up of a large number of documents. So if you do use any material originally authored by WHEELER, you have to link back. A simple entry in the Edit Summary will be sufficient to comply with copyright law. GFDL is not equal to public domain - and even public domain material has to be correctly attributed, hence why Wikipedia includes all those pages with attribution to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brit. SkArcher 15:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Come on, this is ridiculous. Can you cite any instances where material has been moved from one location on Wikipedia to another location on Wikipedia, in which this has been done? Or can you cite any basis for your claim that "external source" "means any source external to the [article] you are working on [including other articles on Wikipedia]"? john k 06:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • From Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License Section 4D: Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document. Section 4I: Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. Section 4J: Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. - That is directly from the license text. You have to do it or the work violates the GFDL. Sorry, but it's true. SkArcher 13:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • If this were the case, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig would have drummed up a lynch mob and razed the Bomis offices to the ground by now. I believe your theory is what judges call "novel" - David Gerard 15:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                  • It would be what is called "correct". You have to maintain notification that WHEELER is the author of the pieces of work in question. This isn't a debate however, so I suggest we end this. Just make sure you maintain the author and version history. There are reasons other than the authors rights for this as well. If an article was plagiarised, and then you moved info from that article to another article, the real owner of the copyrighted material would think that you had directly plagiarised his work, without being able to see the intermediary source. This is particually important when we are discussing deleteing articles, which would erase that trail of attribution. Always cite your sources. SkArcher 17:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely. The idea that Nazism had anything to do with socialism, other than semantics, is an absurdity propagated by the naive right. The origins of fascism may go to D'Anunzio and the Italian Futurists, and they might have been socialists, later, but that's like saying that the Cultural Revolution was a development of Buddhism. It's extremely annoying when these propaganda points get written as fact. Geogre 00:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Distorts arguments from sources, or cites extreme right-wing sources (including one that advocates the return of monarchy.) This doesn't reflect any mainstream view, only those of the author and a few far right commentators. The author presents arguments as facts by citing the opinions of these right wing writers as references, not presenting them as the viewpoint of said individuals. This is a personal essay, not an objective article. Completely rewrite or delete. --J.S. Nelson 01:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, or at least as "original research" (I use the term research lightly). If the author does wish to work on a draft, he can certainly move it to his user page, and see what it amounts to. —siroχo 01:57, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if accurate. I think perhaps a change of title might be in order, and if it is proven to be overwhelmingly innacurate (I havn't the time/resources to verify this) WHEELER should at least be given a copy in his user name space. If the problem is one of POV or sourcing (which I doubt, I've only known WHEELER to be meticulous w his sourcing in the past) than provide alternate interpretations or sources. If someone can prove it is a fraud, I'd likely change my vote, but I don't see any proof of that. Sam [Spade] 02:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it would help to look at the article and the relevant discussion, which has ample proof, before you vote on it. -- Simonides 03:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • If you have no better response than the pomposity and ad hominem you present here, and the foolish manner in which you present your opinions as fact (with no other citations and verifiability than sites designed sheerly to present your POV) in the talk, than I'm not sure how useful it is to talk to you. The way your haranguing WHEELER about his page is simply awful. Next time, try civility. Sam [Spade] 03:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sam, I see why I touched a raw nerve - you have just posted a link on the article's Talk page linking to a right-wing wacko who doesn't known the first thing about Socialism and claims Hitler was Socialist on the basis of a single instance where he claimed to be so. Guess what - reading for comprehension and citing context helps, which your author clearly doesn't understand. That opening line of the speech was made at a May Day celebration and was a deliberate parody of Lenin. Maybe you should look up the relevant pages in the book quoted. Secondly, the difference between my POV links and Wheeler's random quotes, lack of context and leaps of logic, is that my links offer explanation, historical facts and substantial quotations that confirm each other - not one-off remarks. Thirdly, it's a tad ironic when you demand civility, humility, and research when you attempt none. -- Simonides 07:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly defined topic, no useful material. IMO the author is trying to broaden the term from the established and generally understood use, and while the content includes some good encyclopedic observations, there are also some insights that belong somewhere that encourages original research but not here, and some very questionable stuff too. They are all mixed together and it would be easier to start again than to try to sort them out. Andrewa 04:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article isn't ready for main article status yet, but is a worthy topic for an article. Don't confuse the labelling of a phenomena or philosophy with it's invention - NS existed as an opinion before it was called that. I also question the correctness of putting draft articles on VfD. This is also not the place to talk about the content, only the topic itself. SkArcher 05:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. WHEELER is conflating pre-existing parties or movements called "national socialists" (such as :"French National Socialism") with Nazism and fascism when, in fact, all that is in common among these groups is the name "national socialist". Prior to the Nazis most people or groups who used the term "national socialist" or described themselves as "national socialists" were referring to concepts completely different from Hitlerism. This may be an argument for a "national socialist" disambiguation page but the article itself is quite useless and I was in error in moving WHEELER's material from National Socialism where he originally put it to "Early National Socialism" - it seemed to me at the time that was what he was trying to write about and it was simpler to rename the article than try to merge it with the Nazism article but it's clear now that an article on "Early National Socialism" is not what WHEELER is trying to write - rather he's attempting his own particular thesis on what natioanl socialism is. WHEELER's article is in parts redundant of material in other articles and in other parts completely POV and idiosyncratic. The part on Italian fascism is an attempt to convey opinions WHEELER couldn't get into the fascism article and the parts on German National Socialism that are not POV belong in the article on the Nazi Party. There is an Austrian National Socialism article (whose creation WHEELER both suggested and attacked) which makes that part of the article unnecessary Putting the material on "French National Socialism" in this article incorrectly suggests that it has a relationship to or was a precursor to the German Nazi Party which it was not. This isn't really a "does Nazism have anything to do with socialism" debate but a "does this thing here called national socialism have anything to do with that thing there also called national socialism"? AndyL 08:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What WHEELER is doing is akin to having an article on Republicanism that deals with the US Republican Party and the Irish Republican Army as if they were related to each other and part of the same movement. AndyL 09:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good simile. 172 10:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I second AndyL's comments above. 172 08:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are judging the National Socialism through American Eyes and perceptions of socialism. National Socialism is a *phenomena* of Europe of those who rejected international socialism. What you also fail to take into account is that Proudhon, a socialist and founder of "anarchism", stated that he wanted to KEEP PRIVATE PROPERTY. He was against speculation of property, He was also against financiers. He wanted to keep business competition alive. This is the thought of Proudhon and of National Socialism. National Socialism absorbed the thought of Proudhon. Americans are judging European National Socialism of the 1930's with modern American prejudices and concepts. You have to look at it through THEIR eyes not yours.WHEELER 13:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is about highschoolers learning concepts and of foreigners reading articles. National Socialism now is directed to Nazism. Hitler did not invent the idea nor the concept. "What is National Socialism?" is not answered by the Nazism article.WHEELER 14:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. AndyL puts it relatively clearly and fairly, I think. I have encouraged WHEELER many times to find a site that will allow him to post essays, which is really what he wants to do. The conclusions he draws are so original and unexpected that they have to be considered original historical research. Even if valid (and in my experience I rarely find his conclusions valid), they are not part of what Wikipedia seeks to do. He should be commended for his desire to investigate and explore ideas, but his application of that energy here too often results in the production of controversial essays. This article is one such essay, and does not belong here. Jwrosenzweig 16:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Prof Sternhell and Prof Schapiro, and Prof von Kuehnelt is original research? I think not. Prof Sternhell wrote of this material in 1976. New?WHEELER 14:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it funny that American Academia will throw this stuff away. while Prof Schapiro quotes SEVERAL NAZI writers as calling Louis Napoleon and Proudhon has the basis of Fascism. But I should know better American Academia know better than the Nazis and the Fascists themselves. What Arogance!WHEELER 14:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Though I wish more contributors...myself included...would cite their sources as well as this author did, it still comes across as an essay and is therefore non-encyclopedic, original research or both. - Lucky 6.9 16:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This page says little else than that national socialism existed before hitler, grew out of socialism, and lists obscure facts. firstly, it's a bunch of bull. Secondly, national socialism is a term so closely related to nazism, that your page will most likely confuse anyone who reads it. wikipedia is meant to be a place where people can come and find information in an easy manner. and last of all, note that topics on national socialism and nazism already exist, making a revised page from this pov superfluous. --naryathegreat

There seems to be a consensus to delete the article. Can any admin delete it now or should we ask someone who hasn't participated in the vote to do it?AndyL 20:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is typical Andy, you never want to follow the rules. You want to break the rules to suit yourself, yet demand that I follow them but you don't have to. This is a good example of your mindset.WHEELER 14:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy says that the lag time is 5 days for VfD - it was submitted less than 24 hours ago. Secretlondon 20:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks very much to me like crankism masquerading as pseudo-scholarship.Hayford Peirce 01:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well put. 172 06:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. What Andy said. john k 06:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that Zeev Sternhell and Prof Schapiro are cranks. I also find it very hypocritical and unprofessional that some will call for deletion of this article and then take what I have written and use it. WHEELER 14:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I won't repeat since so many have made thecase so well. BCorr|Брайен 18:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just misrepresentation cherry picking. jallan 03:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hitler did not create the concept, party name, nor ideology of National Socialism. To direct all enquiries of National Socialism to the Nazism page is an Academic Crime. Because this is not the truth. The people here want to obfuscate, obscure and delibrately mislead and keep the misleading going. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in keeping up appearances and protecting a "false interpretation" and the "Current idea" of American Academia. This article undermines their false conclusions.WHEELER 14:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, it is not acceptable for you to try to cirumvent the deletion of the Early National Socialism/draft page by moving the info to National Socialism. AndyL 19:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You may argue with my definition of it. But you can not argue with the facts. I am moving the facts over. Let the page then be a list of facts.WHEELER 15:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)