Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Nazism

message: Right; I've been watching this case proceed for a few weeks now, and I think it's time for me to get a bit more involved. I've decided to progress to the second stage of Mediation: "Suggested Edits"; the goal of this stage is to bite the bullet and let each party get down on paper (figuratively speaking :-) what they want to put into or take out of the article.
This stage takes the format of "Suggested Edits", or "Requests for Implementation"; I've drew up a quick format below, which parties are reuqested to roughly follow (I'll keep things neat and tidy).
== Suggested Edit 0 by AGK ==
What I want to implement into the article Nazism is:
*(line X) "...Lorem ipsum..." → "...Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident..."
*(line Y) "...consectetur adipisicing elit..." removed.
~~~~
===Discussion===
====Support====
====Oppose====
I'll be checking by just as much as previously, but this time I'll be getting more involved, mainly with formatting edits and if necessary nudging parties to get involved.
Questions can be directed to me, via mediums listed at User:AGK/Contact.
My kindest regards,Anthony 14:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Stage 2 

message: ===Suggested Edit by Cberlet===
This page should feature the main scholarly views on fascism. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on .--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if it is the case that they contradicted themselves on this point, it would still be worth mentioning that one or both stated "at times" that there was an ideological relationship between fascism and socialism. DickClarkMises 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fascism article already discusses how fascism emerged from socialism. The issue is an over-emphasis on marginal views.--Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not do a good job at explaining the link between socialism and fascism, only the differences.  Either way, we should include the views of Mussolini and Hitler on the fascist policies of the US.JoeCarson 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This last view is marginal to the entry on fascism and should not be included. Tazmaniacs 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fascism]]

message: This page should feature the main scholarly views on fascism. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on .--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]]

message: What is the supposed edit to be? Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And even if it is the case that they contradicted themselves on this point, it would still be worth mentioning that one or both stated "at times" that there was an ideological relationship between fascism and socialism. DickClarkMises 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fascism article already discusses how fascism emerged from socialism. The issue is an over-emphasis on marginal views.--Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not do a good job at explaining the link between socialism and fascism, only the differences.  Either way, we should include the views of Mussolini and Hitler on the fascist policies of the US.JoeCarson 10:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This last view is marginal to the entry on fascism and should not be included. Tazmaniacs 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: As long as Hitler and Mussolini's views on Fascism are included.  Some people insist on removing any mention of the US under FDR, even though the two arch-fascists of the 20th century recognized fascism in the New Deal.JoeCarson
*Support (disagree with JoeCarson though - see NOR:Primary, secondary & tertiary sources. Direct quotes from Mussolini & Hitler must be used very cautiously, as they have contradicted themselves a lot, and certainly not to push the claim that the New Deal was fascist (or communist) ). Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: If the edit is not compatible with Vision Thing's proposal.JoeCarson 10:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: This article should feature all main scholarly views on fascism including one that fascism is form of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Vision Thing|Vision Thing]]

message: ====Support====
JoeCarson 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: JoeCarson 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ===Suggested Edit by --Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded – what is it I am supposed to implement into the article? Anthøny 11:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So I suppose we should work out a draft concerning the exact extent of von Mises & Hayek in the article? Anyone up for a proposal? Tazmaniacs 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why? ~ Anthøny 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Cberlet's suggested edit is lot more reasonable, IMO. It is not a "main scholarly view" to claim that Nazism is a form of Socialism. Tazmaniacs 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay ~ Anthøny 09:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nazism]]

message: This page should feature the main scholarly views on Nazisn. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on .--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by --[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

message: What is the supposed edit to be? Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded – what is it I am supposed to implement into the article? Anthøny 11:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So I suppose we should work out a draft concerning the exact extent of von Mises & Hayek in the article? Anyone up for a proposal? Tazmaniacs 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *JoeCarson 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: If the edit is not compatible with Vision Thing's proposal.JoeCarson 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: This article should feature all main scholarly views on fascism including one that nazism is form of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Vision Thing|Vision Thing]]

message: ====Support====
*JoeCarson 18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? ~ Anthøny 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Cberlet's suggested edit is lot more reasonable, IMO. It is not a "main scholarly view" to claim that Nazism is a form of Socialism. Tazmaniacs 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay ~ Anthøny 09:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *JoeCarson 18:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? ~ Anthøny 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Cberlet's suggested edit is lot more reasonable, IMO. It is not a "main scholarly view" to claim that Nazism is a form of Socialism. Tazmaniacs 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay ~ Anthøny 09:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ===Suggested Edit by Cberlet===
This page should feature the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, and others with marginal views on Fascism.--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fascism and ideology]]

message: This page should feature the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, and others with marginal views on Fascism.--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]]

message: ====Support====
*JoeCarson 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *JoeCarson 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: This article should extensively elaborate ideology of fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Vision Thing|Vision Thing]]

message: In what does this change or contradicts Cberlet's suggestion? Please be more detailed on what you mean by "extensively". Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *Oppose. Redundant to original edit proposal. Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I'm more and more convinced that this article is an unnecessary content fork. I rather see a large fascism article, then 2 bad separate articles. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Intangible2.0|Intangible2.0]] 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

message: ====Support====
====Oppose====
*Oppose I think this is a bad idea because the subject is so complicated it needs more text rather than less.Cberlet 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *Oppose I think this is a bad idea because the subject is so complicated it needs more text rather than less.Cberlet 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: The page on Fascism and ideology has a section on Fascism and Totalitarianism.  This section should lead off with the Totalitarianism template link. See: here.--Cberlet 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]]

message: This is a minor issue, but I don't agree with such edit because, as I understand it,  shouldn't be used in such cases. "Fascism and totalitarianism" section and "Totalitarianism" article are related but "Totalitarianism" is not a spin off "Fascism and totalitarianism", nor "Fascism and totalitarianism" is a short summary "Totalitarianism". Maybe AGK as an administrator, with better insight into policy, can clarify this. -- Vision Thing -- 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There has been a vote that suggests that  and   be forwarded to .  This is proper and appropriate.--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by --[[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

message: The argument between Cberlet and Vision Thing is not very clear here, nor the stakes of the debate. I remembered the vote, but not where it was nor where the arguments may be found. Tazmaniacs 23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *JoeCarson 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: National Socialism and National socialism should be redirected to Nazism in accordance with scholarly and most common use. -- Vision Thing -- 18:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Vision Thing|Vision Thing]]

message: There is hardly anything to disambiguate about! The Czech and Austrian parties were all funded with Nazi money (and are mentioned in the main article about National Socialism). Czech National Social Party and National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party should be mentioned in National Socialist Party (the former is a social-democratic party, the latter a neo-Nazi party). Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ===Suggested Edit by Cberlet===
This pages should feature the main scholarly views. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on .--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, see also Peter Temin (who is hardly an Austrian) 1991 journal article "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s" in The Economic History Review. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I see that he is claiming that The National Socialist were socialist in practice as well as in name, and this is coming from former head of the Economics Department at MIT (hardly a position out of the mainstream). -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is what is the conclusion of the major contemporary scholars of fascism? Anyone can find a cite to support a specific claim, but in a real encyclopedia, we are supposed to avoid giving Undue Weight to marginal views. WP:UNDUE --Cberlet 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that there is a real danger of the economics and ideology articles becoming troublesome as separate articles. The reason that this is a problem is that I would argue that any political ideology necessarily includes some sort of economic policy. To say that the economic systems in fascism are somehow distinct from the ideology that spawned them is non-sensical. Now, it is certainly the case that nationalism (an ideology to which fascists virtually always subscribe) per se doesn't necessarily entail socialism. However, fascism necessarily entails either the nationalization of or substantive government regulation/administration of the various market entities, so we need to be careful. Now, I think it might be a very good idea to create articles about the resultant economic policies of fascism in various applications of the ideology, including Germany, Italy, etc. Those articles could, in my opinion, examine the actual policies of a particular government historically, and thus offer readers not just theoretical insight about what the result of institutional fascism ought to bring, but rather what it has brought in different cases. DickClarkMises 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, subarticles like Economics of Nazi Germany or Economics of Fascist Italy can be created, however they should only be created when the discussion of economic policy in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy become too large, if ever. Remember that for Hitler, military planning was much more important that National Socialist planning. These issues can only be discussed in articles concerned with strict historicity. Intangible2.0 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Economics of fascism]]

message: This pages should feature the main scholarly views. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on .--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]]

message: The Austrians are among the main scholars of fascist economics.  Any article without significant coverage of their work is incomplete.JoeCarson 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, see also Peter Temin (who is hardly an Austrian) 1991 journal article "Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s" in The Economic History Review. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I see that he is claiming that The National Socialist were socialist in practice as well as in name, and this is coming from former head of the Economics Department at MIT (hardly a position out of the mainstream). -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is what is the conclusion of the major contemporary scholars of fascism? Anyone can find a cite to support a specific claim, but in a real encyclopedia, we are supposed to avoid giving Undue Weight to marginal views. WP:UNDUE --Cberlet 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *Support. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: This article should feature all main scholarly views on this subject, giving the most prominent place to one saying that fascist economies were in essence socialist.  -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Vision Thing|Vision Thing]]

message: I think that the ideology and economics articles should be merged, since the entire matter is predicated on an ideological dispute. Cberlet 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: JoeCarson 13:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I still think it is best to have this article deleted, because it does not warrant another article to put forth this discussion. This should all be discussed in Fascism, Nazism, Italian Fascism, Nazi Germany, and Corporatism. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Intangible2.0|Intangible2.0]]

message: Do you mean that there is not enough material to fill up an article about Economics of fascism? Why is that a fork? Or do you think there should be one article for Economics of Nazi Germany, Economics of Fascist Italy? That might not be a bad idea. But perhaps both would form subset of the original article. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that there is a real danger of the economics and ideology articles becoming troublesome as separate articles. The reason that this is a problem is that I would argue that any political ideology necessarily includes some sort of economic policy. To say that the economic systems in fascism are somehow distinct from the ideology that spawned them is non-sensical. Now, it is certainly the case that nationalism (an ideology to which fascists virtually always subscribe) per se doesn't necessarily entail socialism. However, fascism necessarily entails either the nationalization of or substantive government regulation/administration of the various market entities, so we need to be careful. Now, I think it might be a very good idea to create articles about the resultant economic policies of fascism in various applications of the ideology, including Germany, Italy, etc. Those articles could, in my opinion, examine the actual policies of a particular government historically, and thus offer readers not just theoretical insight about what the result of institutional fascism ought to bring, but rather what it has brought in different cases. DickClarkMises 18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, subarticles like Economics of Nazi Germany or Economics of Fascist Italy can be created, however they should only be created when the discussion of economic policy in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy become too large, if ever. Remember that for Hitler, military planning was much more important that National Socialist planning. These issues can only be discussed in articles concerned with strict historicity. Intangible2.0 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ===Suggested Edit by Cberlet===
These pages should feature the main scholarly views. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises, Hayek, Flynn, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on .--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is mainly an issue with User:Timeshifter, not of current mediation. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fascism as an international phenomenon#United States]], [[New Deal]] and [[The New Deal and corporatism]]

message: These pages should feature the main scholarly views. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises, Hayek, Flynn, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on .--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]]

message: Most scholars who have written about the corporatism of the New Deal share many of the same views as the Austrians.  I agree that Hayek and Rothbard should not dominate the article, but the views covered will overlap siginificantly with theirs.JoeCarson 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is mainly an issue with User:Timeshifter, not of current mediation. Intangible2.0 22:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *Support. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ===Suggested Edit by Cberlet===
These pages should feature the main scholarly views, including an apprpriate and balanced mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the discussion of these view on .--Cberlet 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Collectivism]]

message: These pages should feature the main scholarly views, including an apprpriate and balanced mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the discussion of these view on .--Cberlet 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]]

message: I'm not aware of any dispute regarding this article. In my opinion, the article is good as it is. -- Vision Thing -- 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *JoeCarson 23:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: These pages should feature the main scholarly views. There should be a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek, et. al, with a link to the main discussion of these marginal view on .--Cberlet 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Edit by [[User:Cberlet|Cberlet]]

message: * I'd like specific edits to implement - e.g., change "...XYZ..." into "...ABC...", and so on until what you've given me under "suggested edit" has been satisfied ~ Anthøny 09:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *JoeCarson 23:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: These views are too marginal to be included on an article about Socialism. Fascism and ideology is the place to talk about alleged relations between Socialism and Nazism, not Socialism. Tazmaniacs 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *JoeCarson 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fascist studies, the views of von Mises are considered marginal. That a relative of an author is pushing his viewpoints on Wiki raises serious issues.--Cberlet 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. Tazmaniacs 23:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? ~ Anthøny 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I assume you are referring to WP:NPOV? ~ Anthøny 09:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I cited Undue Weight on purpose.  WP:UNDUE--Cberlet 18:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes a book like  The Road to Serfdom marginal? It has easily more than 1000+ cites in Google Scholar, maybe not all agreeing, but certainly these cites are supportive of the claim that his is a significant viewpoint. Intangible2.0 12:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is how many of the major contemporary studies of fascism cite The Road to Serfdom other than to dismiss it? How many of the major contemporary studies of fascism cite Hayek, von Mises, Flynn, Sennholz, etc.? Merely counting Google Scholar hits has no merit in this instance. Check the leading scholars of fascism--Payne, Gentile, Eatwell, Griffin, Weber, Fritzsche, Laqueur, De Felice, Nolte, Sternhell, Vondung, Rhodes, Redles--and there is little mention of Hayek, von Mises, Flynn, or Sennholz.  The issue here has always been WP:UNDUE.--Cberlet 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To best of my knowledge those people you refer to are not economist. How then their views about economics of Fascism and Nazism can be considered more relevant than the views of prominent economists such as Hayek, Mises and Temin? -- Vision Thing -- 21:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Why are you opposing this edit? I though that at least here we could find a common ground, since we both agreed with a brief mention of the views of von Mises and Hayek. -- Vision Thing -- 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Good evening (GMT time); apologies for my absence over the past few days, both here and on Wikipedia. Regretfully, this lack of editing will have to continue until further notice, mainly due to the fact that I'm simply too busy in real life to devote the time I'd like to at Wikipedia.
Hopefully I can continue Mediation soon, but until such times I'm going to place this case on hold (unless another Committee member wishes to take up my duties until such times as I can return.
Once again, my apologies and if you wish to contact me, email may be a slightly faster option: see my contact page for details.
Kindest regards,Anthøny 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator Absence