Talk:National Socialism

message: :You should make a redirect to the article most likely to be expected (see ) when making a link to National Socialism, that article is Nazism, not a disambig page. Intangible2.0 07:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect should be to National Socialism (disambiguation)
Restored proper redirect to disambiguation page--Cberlet 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages. You are going against WP policy. Intangible2.0 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect 

message: 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)
thread_title: National Socialism

message: Follow the usual dictionary practice.  The first, and VASTLY  most common meaning of "National Socialism" or "National Socialist" is NAZIISM, NAZI. 
Thus, it should be listed first and given prominence.  Other meanings could be discussed as a minor point later in the article. For in practice, most humans associate National Socialism with Nazis, Naziism.
Putting these less known meanings in front of the most common associated meaning (Nazi, Naziism) is to ignore common usage at the expense of some other agenda perhaps???Victorianezine (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most common use of  the phrase "National Socialism" is to describe Naziism 

message: Sorry, but we are using the NSDAP party program as a source in this article? How is that acceptable, especially for a topic that has billions of reliable secondary sources? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources unacceptable 

message: Everybody seems to get their panties in a twist over whether National Socialism and Nazism are the same thing. Clearly, they are not. National Socialism is a social, economical and political ideology. Nazism is the specifically German manifestation of such an ideology at a particular point in time, i.e. the "the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party or NSDAP under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945." This is reflected in the term "Nazi", which is derived from the English perception of the word "national" as pronounced in German. Thus "Nazism" should always refer to the German National Socialism of 1933 to 1945, and not National Socialism as an ideology in itself. Please, keep this article seperate. Thank you. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.166.187 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that ""Nazism" should always refer to the German National Socialism of 1933 to 1945." Biophys (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Socialism vs. Nazism: Keep them Separate, Please! 

message: First, National Socialism is the main entry, but Nazism has the most information to it, so it would be obscuring to combine them. 
Second, this article now deals only with self-declared National Socialism. However, I seem to recall that when it comes to Fascism, there is a lot of analysis about what is and what is not fascism. Should there not be an equivalent coverage in this article?
The political movement that comes to mind as a National Socialist movement is Hugo Chávez Latin-American project. He created ALBA, the alliance for the peoples of OUR America (although the word our is not part of the abbreviation). It's a movement where the Native Americans are "in", and Europeans are "out". Chávez says "Patria, socialismo, o muerto" i.e. "Nation, socialism, or death." A clear indication of the nationalist aspect of his socialism. He is even talking about Great Colombia, and just like the Nazi Führer he is subverting governments of foreign countries to ally them to his Great Colombia plan. He is suppressing free media, he is using thugs (brownshirt tactics), he is removing power from congress, the courts, and local municipalities and collecting it in his own hand. He is changing the constitution to enable him to remain in power indefinitely. And on and on, it's like a laundry list of similarities to National Socialists known from history (which is just one, the Nazis, as far as I know).
I therefore propose that a section is introduced for these not-entirely-self-declared national socialists.Lindorm (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd need a source for that, though. I agree with your analysis, but at this point it's nothing but original research. There are a series of national socialists I'd like to eventually include in the article, but I'm having trouble finding an adequate source. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Declared National Socialism vs. how others see it 

message: Nazism is short for Nationalsozialismus, which is National Socialism. There is no distinguishable difference between the subject of this article and Hitler's Nazism. I nominate the article for deletion and for merging the information on Maurice Barres into the article on Nazism. Commissarusa (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they are the same subject and have to be merged to avoid duplication and risk of a POVfork. I suggest putting the mergeto and mergefrom tags on and letting the matter be discussed. I hope it will be a straightfroward decision but the subject is touchy enough that I wouldn't recommend just boldly merging it without a consensus behind you. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, the only content in this article that isn't about Naziism is the second paragraph, on French national socialism prior to the Nazis. This is useful information, but it hardly justifies a whole separate article. It might be that we could expand this article to be mostly about non-Nazi national socialism, although as far as I know the only significant non-Nazi national socialism was the French national socialism discussed in this paragraph. I'm minded to move this paragraph to Nazism and redirect this page there, and perhaps also create a stub at National socialism in France, with some information about French national socialism (from the material referenced here, and a couple of other sources I'm aware of, Weber's "Nationalism, Socialism and National-Socialism in France" and Winock's Nationalism, anti-Semitism, Fascism in France. But I if there re in fact other significant non-Nazi currents of national socialism, it would be better to expand this article to include them; if that's the case, let me know. VoluntarySlave (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Wikipedia's policy is to have titles based on the subject which is primarily involved with the title. National Socialism is commonly associated with the ideology of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi Party, NSDAP). This should be a redirect to Nazism. Furthermore this article appears have duplicate material as on the Nazism article. Disabiguation should be provided and created to represent other types of National Socialism than the one  other than the Nazi party.--R-41 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the umpteenth time the article's been redirected to Nazism. Yes, National Socialism refers to the Nazi Party in day-to-day discourse, and yes, most specialized literature makes use of the term "National Socialist" to imply, in one way or another, a connection to the Nazis. But there were a few coinages of "nationalist-national socialism" before the Nazis even founded their party; the Organization for Nationalist Labor in Austria, for instance, was one of the first labor syndicates to profess a form of nationalistic socialism as early as 1893. I agree with your proposal; we should, at least, have a disambiguation page listing what National Socialisms have been popularized by various philosophers and politicians, as well as make clear their relation to German Nazism. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: you cannot redirect it to the nazi page without a statement on top of that page that it reverts to nazism and links to either a disambiguation page or to all the other pages national socialism can refere to. futhermore this has been discussed and voted over before.· Lygophile has spoken 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: please look at the discussion here and here· Lygophile has spoken 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Socialism commonly refers to the National Socialism of the the Nazi Party, this should redirect to it 

message: I found this article, "National Socialism: An Eclectic View," describing National Socialism and the rationale behind it, specifically by contrasting it to democracy and capitalism.  (I can't link to it because the domain is blacklisted, but you can find it with a [Google search].)  It's nothing authoritative — its author is identified only as Mjollnir — and it's not appropriate as a source for this Wikipedia article.  However, I'm wondering whether the information in the article is reasonably accurate.  Some of it, such as the emphasis on race, is obviously specific to Nazism, but in general does the philosophy described in the article reflect what is meant by National Socialism?   Capedia (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Socialism: An Eclectic View": Is this a good description of National Socialism? 

message: any objections?  if so, plz state policy  Darkstar1st (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, yes. Obviously. It would be inappropriate, irrelevant, misleading and unhelpful. I am at a loss to understand why this is even being suggested. Policy? I am sure there is one that boils down to "don't put irrelevant templates on articles". I am not sure which one. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: i am adding it now, should you or anyone remove it, please state the specific policy.  Darkstar1st (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:STICK and WP:COMMONSENSE. Before you add this back, or even *suggest* this on yet another article, please state the exact policy that says that Portals should be used for your WP:SOAPBOXING. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: you will need a source to prove undo, as the portal shares a common term with the article.  neutral is calling a spade a spade, or a socialist a socialist.  your opinion is i am not progressing the articles, yet the discussion is much more lively and several items support my stick have been added sense i began editing the subject.  perhaps commonsense could actual means national socialist actually meant socialist when they coined the term, and you still couldn't name who did, at least you are now closer than before i started:)  Darkstar1st (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need a source to prove that a common term is enough, and that the Swedish Bikini Team should be a part of the Sweden portal, etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: which specific policy (please choose one) and provide the specific section of the policy you mean please.  a beer company ad girl and a ideology are very different.  Swedish is an adj, while socialism is not.     Darkstar1st (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How am I supposed to know what policy you base your claim that the Swedish Bikini Team should be a part of Portal:Sweden. I asked you for a reference to a policy for that. Your constant requests that we prove to you why your nonsense is wrong is getting tiring, how about you actually read some of the policies yourself? Your requests for references to policies has however been answered. And we discussed this exact issue on another article. Why do we need to repeat it on this article? You understood last week. How come this understanding now suddenly evaporated? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: i meant a specific policy for your revert of the socialism portal on the national socialism article.  bikini teams are not political, or a country.   socialism is an ideology, so is national socialism, your analogy was comparing two different types of terms.  Darkstar1st (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You have gotten those references already. Stop asking for them. Your argument was that National Socialism and Socialism shared a common term. The same is true for Sweden and Swedish Bikini Team. I showed that this argument was invalid by Reductio ad absurdum. Again: WP:STICK stop wasting peoples valuable time. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: then lets take the first one, "undue", do you have a source claiming national socialist are not socialist, or that it is a minority view?  just pasting the link to the policy does little to make your case, please be specific.  Darkstar1st (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of those policies are specific. You are not stupid. I'm sure you understand these policies with no problems at all. If you do not agree with the consensus here, I suggest you start an RfC. But stop wasting our time. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  add socialism portal 

message: My understanding of previous discussion is that this should be a re-direct page, because there is no topic for the article other than Nazism.  Therefore I will restore.  Could editors please discuss the topic before changing.  TFD (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree as I did before.  Collect (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You disagree without a valid reason. That is not good enough. You do not provide a single relevant, current source that uses National Socialism in any other way but Nazism. All established dictionaries and encyclopedias use them synonymously. Therefore they are synonyms, and we have to redirect the one to the other. It is pure original research to differentiate both terms. --RJFF (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Collect, could you please revert your change which makes no sense.  TFD (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as it most certainly does make sense.  We have gone over this many times now, and the main argument is not that the other uses did not exist in RS sources, but only that they were "too old" in some way. Which I find to be an insufficient reason to disregard them.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that National Socialism (disambiguation) already exists, which lists other uses of "National Socialism" that are not equal with Nazism. Therefore this article is redundant. --RJFF (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:TITLE.  The simplest title is best.  A dab page is not an article, hence inferior to an article on a notable topic.  To show the topic is not notable, AfD is thataway.  Meanwhile, there is no WP:CONSENSUS here for a redirect.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: If other uses do exist that may justify articles about each of those uses.  It does not justify and article that combines all those uses, which is correctly handled through a disambiguation page.  TFD (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It is absurd WP:Synthesis to create a link between Lassalle (whose ideology has been described as "national socialism" by some 19th century books), Poujadisme Boulangisme (that has been called "national socialism" by Maurice Barrès) and Hitler's National Socialism (=Nazism). All that links these distinct phenomena is the label, but nothing else. Therefore, a disambiguation is the right thing. And per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "National Socialism" has to be redirected to "Nazism" with a hat note for the disambiguation page. And actually, that was the status quo ante. And who wants to change it, has to establish consensus for change, not  the other way round. As consensus for change does not exist and policies speak a very clear language, I cannot see a base for continued discussion. All arguments have been exchanged. There is no qualified argument against it. --RJFF (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: since national socialism existed before nazi, primary topic does not apply, apples and oranges.  Darkstar1st (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary topic does not mean that it has existed previously, but that it is of higher notability. Hitler's National Socialism is by far more notable than any other use, even if it is younger than other mentions of the label. Besides, the other uses of "national socialism" are not linked. They are seperate, each for itself. Therefore this article is complete original research and/or synthesis, and its existence is not justified. It tries to establish a theory that links completely unrelated ideologies, movements or phenomena, that have nothing in common but the name. --RJFF (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Collect this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.  If you want to pursue your ideosyncratic belief that Nazism is socialism then please be open about it rather than trying to slip it through by creating a POV fork.  TFD (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I never said any such damn thing, and resent your attempt to paint me indirectly as some sort of Nazi.  Zip it someday, TFD, you are hitting Godwin's Law at 100 Kmph. Collect (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The question is not whether the term is older. The question is whether most people who type "National Socialism" are looking for Nazism or for something else.--RJFF (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: You should not bluster about Godwin's law. You should concede that there is not a single source that verifies the theory which this article tries to establish. There are sources that prove that in 19th century literature Lassalle's ideas have been labelled "national socialist". And there is a source that proves that Maurice Barrès has labelled Poujadisme Boulangisme as "national socialism". But they are not linked in any way, nor are they linked to Hitler's National Socialism. And different phenomena sharing one name do not justify an article, but a disambiguation. --RJFF (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a matter for AfD. As it is, the current title is simple per WP:TITLE. See also, for example,  about Naumann and Weber.  also on Friedrich Naumann.  shows a connection between the old Parti Ouvrier and "national socialism." Pre-Hitler.  And not Lassalle.  And so on. I suspect sufficient to establish notability at AfD in any case. Collect (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have a Naumann-"national socialism", a Lassalle-"national socialism", and French "national socialism". But none of your sources verifies that there was one national socialism and these different phenomena are manifestations of the same ideology. Again: different things, one label. Perfect for a disambiguation. By the way, non-Nazi "national socialism" seems to always be spelled lower case, while Hitler's National Socialism (and this article's title) is spelled upper case. --RJFF (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only that each is nationalistic and socialistic - which is what one would rather expect based on the WP:TITLE of the article.  The feigned unimportance of an article based on simple titles is absurd.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Poujadism Boulangism is not socialistic. Naumann's "Christian National Socialism" is not socialistic. And your sources don't support this. Your sources don't verify that the different usages of "national socialism" are related in any way, except the label, which has been applied to them by different sources, possibly each not knowing of the other, and not wanting to associate the one with the other. But there is not a source that justifies throwing them together. Again: it is original research, an attempt to establish a new, unverifiable, theory that puts these distinct and unrelated ideologies in one context. Your version stated in its first sentence, its central definition, that:  And this is just not verifiable. Therefore the central thesis, which the article takes as a starting point, is not verifiable. And it is a Third Position idea to claim that National Socialism is not the same thing as Nazism, but a mix of nationalism and socialism. Obviously, there are no neutral, reliable sources that support this view. I don't deny that the label "national socialism" has been used in a different way in 19th century, which is supported by sources, but they do not warrant you to establish a theory that these very different and unrelated ideologies and movements all belong in one category. And your version of the article was just pure, bumbling original research. --RJFF (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Um -- your "objection" is that "national socialism" is not particularly "socialistic"?  Sorry - that simply strengthens the use of Naumann abd the Ouvrier Parti as parts of the article!  The fact is that prior to Hitler, the term was used, and not simply as a tautological term - and thus your claim that they are not relevant is nicely skewered by your own post.  Nor do I propose any "theory" at all - in fact all I have done is provide the sources which you asserted did not exist <g>.   And you assert I did "pure, bumbling original research"? Where? Tell me what article I wrote?  Please???    Or is this simply smoking up the lot by making a totally unwarranted charge about my edits?  Collect (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Aha - that is your case? That all who oppose you are ?  Try to follow the core Wikipedia proinciples, please.  Your position runs directly and absolutely contrary to them here.  And calling the other editors here trolls when they disagree is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to boot.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care.  YOUR position is also completely contrary to WP principles, as you don't seem to have the faintest clue about how scholarship actually works.  You have a clear "mission" here, and it's painfully obvious that no amount of facts or RS will deter you from it.  It's a waste of time for editors to look up references to refute your immature and uneducated arguments, as you appear impervious to all logic, and rarely even respond to the editors when they eviscerate your absurd positions (which are not backed up by academic consensus). --Bryon Morrigan --  Talk 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Bryon, perhaps the opposite is true?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country has the communism portal, but yet oddly the socialism portal is missing.  from the talk on socialism, they still can't decide on a definition, ergo how could one say something is not socialism?  Perhaps it is you who is trying to sanitize the history of socialism to remove any warts?  Darkstar1st (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a Socialist, and only care about the history of Socialism insofar as it comports with REALITY and established academic consensus, and not the uneducated rantings and ravings of American radio talk show hosts with nothing but high school diplomas, as those are the only "scholars" you will find backing up your ridiculous nonsense edits.  --Bryon Morrigan --  Talk 17:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Please try to keep the discussion objective and WP:Assume good faith. Exchange arguments, not imputations. --RJFF (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You give that reply to Darkstar and not to the person who most violated Wikipedia policy?  Neat! Collect (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it to both. Sorry if this wan't clear. Could you please come back to discussing the facts? --RJFF (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Still, disagreeing without facing the arguments and reacting to them is not a very cooperative thing to do. Neither is talking around the topic and arguing in circles. --RJFF (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cites were asked for and given. And excluding Lassalle, as required.  Yet they seem to be ignored on behalf of being against the mysterious "Right-Wing POV Warriors" who created this article 8 years ago?  Sheesh! Collect (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The mere fact that you think your "cites" were proving something...is evidence that you have no idea how to properly cite something.  --Bryon Morrigan --  Talk 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection boils down to "Well everyone must want to read about Hitler despite the other reliable sources on the topic named" which is not found in any Wikipedia guideline or policy as a reason.  As for your assertion that since other stuff links here that therefore it must link to Nazism when most of those links were not to Nazism and you are assuming that is what they must wish to link to.  I believe the word is "Hubris" here.  And the post above where an editor makes this a struggle against evil right-wingers seems to weaken your position vastly - and you do not disavow that claim but rather seem to reinforce it.  Cheers - AfD is --> thataway. Collect (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Friedrich Naumann was a liberal not a socialist party, hence his group was called the National-Social Association, not the National Socialist Association.  TFD (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page