Talk:National Socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambig pages do not have "miscellania sections"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

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

AndyL 16:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "disambig" message can be deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is perhaps the most erotic exchange I have ever read on Wikipedia. Guys, just strip off your clothes, grease yourselves up, wrestle as nature intended, and make sweet love. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] redirect

You should make a redirect to the article most likely to be expected (see [1]) when making a link to National Socialism, that article is Nazism, not a disambig page. Intangible2.0 07:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The redirect should be to National Socialism (disambiguation)

Restored proper redirect to disambiguation page--Cberlet 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages. You are going against WP policy. Intangible2.0 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of the policy (and to be honest not sure I have time to read it fully) but, some decent references should be made (preferably in a proper article) about National Socialism ideologies that aren't Nazism. Just because the most common modern day use of the term ends up relating to Nazi's and the Nazi party does not mean that the tenets are the same. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Socialism

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