Template talk:Nazism sidebar

message: Hopefully we can put an end to this farce. Long ago there was discussion on this talkpage to the effect that a "logo", or emblem, would be obviously more appropriate in this role, than an SVG representation of a flag. Flags are fundamentally physical pieces of fabric: what we use on Wiki are representations of flags, not actual "flags". Emblems and logos, however, are specifically intended for use on two-dimensional media like this (e.g.  ). -- Director (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple emblem is obviously more appropriate. --18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert-warring

message: I propose scaling the size of the swastika in the infobox down slightly from 120px to 100px. I believe that for a lone symbol, the image is slightly too big and draws attention away from the articles that it appears in. By scaling it down slightly (yes, it may not seem like much but it makes a huge difference), aesthetics are greatly improved. I have placed the template to the side of this discussion for visual aid: the top infobox has the swastika scaled to 100px, and the bottom is scaled to the current 120px. What are your thoughts? Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I resized it per clear consensus on that issue above and believe this should be closed at this time. Kierzek (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Swastika size in infobox 

message: The side-bar, under related topics, contains two curious entries:
*Nazi punk
*National Socialist black metal
I would like to remove them since they don't seem to belong in the infobox. Are there any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, anything not directly related to the German Nazi movement should be removed, but I wonder how others feel. Associating people, groups or movements with the contentious category (which is what the sidebar does) is questionable, again in my opinion. Collect (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's one up vote and no down votes, I will go ahead and remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this topic and agree with the removal. Kierzek (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk and heavy metal 

message: I saw a previous conversation in the archives about the inclusion of Lincoln Rockwell.  No consensus was gained there, so I am reopening the conversation.  He was a leader of a small fringe political entity in the United States that had virtually no authority or influence.  He should not be included in the sidebar. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockwell 

message: I want the Swastica removed. Everybody knows the Nazi symbols and this inclusion is superfluous. It appears to be there for fans. 87.113.6.55 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather agree with this. I have made it considerably smaller than it once was, since the large size seemed gratuitous to me, and related to the fact that many Nazi-related people articles have very large images of their subjects in their ledes, much larges than the generally accepted 225-250px in the majority of other articles.  These large images appear to be an effort to be iconic.  In any case, I don't think te sidebar would suffer without the swatiska. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: IP: Its not there for "fans", don't be ridiculous. It is there for id. use, as images are used for the same purpose for other organization templates. I do agree there is no need for it to be "large" in presentation. But with that said, I don't have a strong feeling about keeping it at this point; I always thought the Party Eagle was better for use, even if not technically as accurate. Ping to  on this. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the party eagle would be less provocative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nazism is associated with swastikas much more than with any other kind of symbol or image. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, but there's no requirement that a sidebar have a graphic at the top, so if the swastika is the only graphic that's going to be allowed, I'd prefer nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Thank you very much for your suggestion!  Since there is disagreement here, then a consensus has not yet been reached.  In my humble opinion, I would agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator that the most-recognized symbol of Nazism, the swastika, should stay in both the sidebar and the navbar.  There are other discussions and RfCs on this talk page that also should be considered.  Paine Ellsworth  - put'r there – 05:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

text: A new RfC should be opened to resize, change, or remove the image. The current version is based on community consensus from the the RfC and discussion above (i.e. RfC: Swastika size in infobox and Do we need a new RfC on the Hakenkreuz or Parteiadler?). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I've reverted the bold change. By the statement "this *is* reduced" in your edit summary, which seems to be a reference to the closing statement of the RfC, one could equally justify changing the image size to 1px. It's unfortunate that the wording of the closure was so vague; the RfC was clearly to change the size of the image from 120px to 100px. 60px is too small. The 87px was just about right; However, as I said before, I think an RfC is the best road to seek a change. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I have seen and read this talk page, and I see no justification or consensus to set the image to 60px.  — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to return it to 87px, that's fine with me - but what's your justification for that?  You're taking a hard line on 100px because of the RfC, yet you think 87 (which I did) is OK, but not 60.  I'm telling you that 60 is visually fine, anything smaller is too small, anything much larger (like 100) is promoting, not illustrating - and I'm saying that from trying numerous sizes out.  If you'd like to start another RfC, that's fine.  If you don't, I will do so this afternoon when I return from work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think 87 is "visually fine", but I've never attempted to justify it. Yes, I'm taking a hard line on 100px, based on community consensus from the RfC. One could say for example, "I'm telling you that 10 is visually fine, anything smaller is too small, anything much larger (like 17) is promoting, not illustrating - and I'm saying that from trying numerous sizes out." with just as much credence, because it is a personal opinion.  — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, except you would be laughed off the page for voicing such a ridiculous opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017 

message: Proposals: 
*A. The swastika at the top of the sidebar should be reduced to 60px.
*B. The swatiska should stay at 87px, which it has been at since December 25, 2016.
*C. The swatiska should be returned to 100px, which was the result of the earlier RfC.
*D. Remove the swastika entirely.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I can live with removing the swastika entirely, if that is the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have not been living with it since June 31, 2015: Your change to the size on July 31, 2015 lasted less than a week and was not re-implemented until December 25, 2016. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *My mistake, and my apologies. I'll make the correction - but please do not change the wording of an RfC started by another editor.  Note "An editor has requested comments..." in the box above.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

text: — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's convenient. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, if the consensus is 60px, I have no problem it with being instituted as upright-0.27, or if it's 87px as 0.4 etc. etc.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

text: My experimentation was faulty. To make  work, you have to add , otherwise it ignores  and displays the image at its native size, 471px. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: a flag (which is shown directly below the infobox on the page itself).Maineartists (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Two or more images with similar elements in the same template is not uncommon: The communism sidebar contains the hammer and sickle and a red star with a hammer and sickle (the example above) and the liberalism sidebar contains two of the same yellow flag. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have now presented the full range of options. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

text: — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *I added a demonstration of how it would look using the flag, above and below. I haven't thought much about it yet but the flag looks best at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the caption at Nazism#Etymology, that's the flag of Nazi Germany aka the Third Reich, contrasted to that of the Nazi Party. The latter -  - seems more appropriate. Less important, it's an aesthetic improvement as it centers the circle on the flag. At this point I could support it if it were on the table, subject to educated arguments against it. A dash of color helps, again a matter of aesthetics. I could go up a notch on size, to .  But it isn't on the table. What think you ? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would be OK with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you concur that the Nazi Party flag is more appropriate, I will add options E:  and F:  and change my !vote to F. Then we probably should ping all participants. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Things are getting so confused, that I would rather that this RfC be closed, and a new one be opened with the options you mention, with all participating editors pinged or notified on their talk pages.  I think that would result in an RfC that would be much easier for someone to judge consensus on when being closed. (I certainly wouldn't know how to close this one at the moment.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, cleanliness is next to Jimboliness. You're free to withdraw this and restart as you see fit. Let me know if I can help with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me see if I can think this through a bit more thoroughly so we don't end up in the same place again.  For one thing, with the multiplicity of sidebar representations that would be needed, I think they should be moved to another page.  In the meantime, if you want to start a new RfC, you can take this as my permission to close this as withdrawn.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Swastika size in infobox (2) 

message: *A: Reduce to 60px - The purpose of the swastika at the top of the sidebar is illustrative.  It should not be so large as to appear to be promoting Nazism or neo-Nazism, but not so small that it looks ridiculous. (See the sidebar on theimmediate right, in which the swastika is at 60px. Under it is the swastika at 87px.  120px and 100px can be seen in the RfC above.)  The reduction in the last RfC from 120px to 100px was a good start, but it was not enough, and we've actually been living with it at 87px since June 31, 2015  December 25, 2016, when I reduced it to that. When another editor put the swastika side-by-side with "Nazism", that was visually unbalanced and not very attractive stylistically, so I reverted the change, but I was struck by the fact that the swastika at 60px, which that editor had reduced it to, looked very good: not too big, and not so small as to be silly.  So I played around for a while with numerous sizes, and I determined -- at least to my own satisfaction -- that 60px was a very good size for it to be. Anything much smaller looked wrong, and larger than 87px looked promotional to me - and now that I've seen it at 60, even 87 looks large.  Thus I suggest that we leave the swastika at 60px. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I can live with removing the swastika entirely, if that is the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have not been living with it since June 31, 2015: Your change to the size on July 31, 2015 lasted less than a week and was not re-implemented until December 25, 2016. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *My mistake, and my apologies. I'll make the correction - but please do not change the wording of an RfC started by another editor.  Note "An editor has requested comments..." in the box above.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

text: — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's convenient. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, if the consensus is 60px, I have no problem it with being instituted as upright-0.27, or if it's 87px as 0.4 etc. etc.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

text: My experimentation was faulty. To make  work, you have to add , otherwise it ignores  and displays the image at its native size, 471px. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: a flag (which is shown directly below the infobox on the page itself).Maineartists (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Two or more images with similar elements in the same template is not uncommon: The communism sidebar contains the hammer and sickle and a red star with a hammer and sickle (the example above) and the liberalism sidebar contains two of the same yellow flag. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *I'd go farther and say None of the above (no swastika) may be preferable. Could this option be added to the RfC? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have now presented the full range of options. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

text: — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *I added a demonstration of how it would look using the flag, above and below. I haven't thought much about it yet but the flag looks best at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the caption at Nazism#Etymology, that's the flag of Nazi Germany aka the Third Reich, contrasted to that of the Nazi Party. The latter -  - seems more appropriate. Less important, it's an aesthetic improvement as it centers the circle on the flag. At this point I could support it if it were on the table, subject to educated arguments against it. A dash of color helps, again a matter of aesthetics. I could go up a notch on size, to .  But it isn't on the table. What think you ? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would be OK with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you concur that the Nazi Party flag is more appropriate, I will add options E:  and F:  and change my !vote to F. Then we probably should ping all participants. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Things are getting so confused, that I would rather that this RfC be closed, and a new one be opened with the options you mention, with all participating editors pinged or notified on their talk pages.  I think that would result in an RfC that would be much easier for someone to judge consensus on when being closed. (I certainly wouldn't know how to close this one at the moment.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, cleanliness is next to Jimboliness. You're free to withdraw this and restart as you see fit. Let me know if I can help with that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me see if I can think this through a bit more thoroughly so we don't end up in the same place again.  For one thing, with the multiplicity of sidebar representations that would be needed, I think they should be moved to another page.  In the meantime, if you want to start a new RfC, you can take this as my permission to close this as withdrawn.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: *E (flag at 60) Second choice: D (no graphic); Third choice: A (swastika at 60) - Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please note that after some consideration, I've changed my preference from "Flag at 87" to "Flag at 60". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *I've changed the displayed flag to that of the NSDAP per the discussion below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *The flag displayed is now the NSDAP flag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *Flag changed per discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *I wouldn't say anyone is trying to "water it down", but rather to find a balance between presenting what you rightfully call the recognized symbol of Nazism, and the response that many people have to a symbol they find deeply offensive for personal, philosophical, historical and moral reasons.  Also, in defense of those who !voted for removal, the word itself, "Nazism" is quite clear and unambiguous, so whether there needs to be a symbol at all could be considered simply a matter of design, and not necessarily of content.  If so, the question becomes does such a consideration - visual design - worth the offense ceated by the symbol?  I think you can argue both sides of that question, but that it's not nearly as straight-forward and clear-cut as you present. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *This is an encyclopedia we are building and it is going to have some things people (including myself) find offensive; but, that does not mean said things should not be included in some way, all things considered; otherwise, it becomes a slippery slope of inclusion and exclusion and we are to present things in WP:NPOV, whether we personally like something or not. Kierzek (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's true, but we can certainly present the offensive symbol in as non-offensive a way as possible, and still have it perform its function. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with that. Kierzek (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: *Actually, WP:NPOV says absolutely nothing to that effect; and we are not about "Truth" (especially with a capital "T"), we are about verifiability - which has absolutely nothing to do with this, since there's no more or less "truth" in a big swastika compared to a small swastika.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey <small>(2, take 2)</small>

message: Editor Robinson98354‎ removed Houston Stewart Chamberlain from the list of "People" in the template, on the grounds that he wasn't a Nazi.  I think an argument could be made that the list of "People" is not necessarily a list of Nazis, but a list of people associated with or important to the Nazi movement.  Still, I do take Robinson98354‎'s point, so I did not restore Chamberlain to the "People" list.
Chamberlain was, however, a strong influence on the Nazi ideology, so I added him to the "Ideology" list, an edit which Robinson98354‎ reverted with the same comment, that Chamberlain was not a Nazi. In this case, though, I think he is dead wrong. Since Chamberlain was a significant influence on the Nazi ideology, his inclusion on the "Ideology" list is completely justified, and should not be removed.
Here's what a number of sources have to say about Chamberlain's influence on the Nazis and the connection between them:
Kershaw Hubris: 
*"[Concerning] race theory ... Hitler drew heavily for his ideas from well-known antisemitic tracts such as those of Houston Stewart Chamberlain" (p.151) 
*"[A]t the end of September 1923, Hitler had met Wagner's son-in-law, the now aged racist writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who subsequently wrote Hitler an effusive letter, saying that he had 'transformed the condition of his soul at one fell swoop', and 'that Germany should have brought forth a Hitler in the time of his greatest need' was proof of its continuing vitality as a nation." (p.660 n.166)
Shire The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
*"[I]t was on the Third Reich, which did not arrive until six years after his death but whose coming he foresaw, that [Chamberlain's] influence was the greatest.  His racial theories and his burning sense of the destiny of the Germans and Germany were taken over by the Nazis, who acclaimed him as one of their prophets.  During the Hitler regime books, pamphlets and articles poured from the presses extolling the "spiritual founder" of National Socialist Germany.  Rosenberg, as one of Hitler's mentors, often tried to impart his enthusiam for the English philosopher to the Fuehrer.  It is likely that Hitler first learned of Chamberlain's writings before he left Vienna, for they were popular among the Pan-German and anti-Semitic groups whose literature he devoured so avidly in those early days.  Probably too he read some of Chamberlain's chauvinistic articles during the war.  In Mein Kampf he expresses regret that Chamberlain's observations were not more heeded during the Second Reich." (pp.108-109)
*"Chamberlain became a member of the budding Nazi Party [!] and so far as his health would permit began to write for its obscure publications. ... This remarkable Englishman's seventieth birthday, on September 5, 1925, was celebrated with five columns of encomiums in the Nazi Voelkischer Beobachter, which hailed his Foundations as the 'gospel of the Nazi movement' ..." (p.109)
Reuth Goebbels
*"After meeting Chamberlain in Bayreuth, twenty-six-year-old Goebbels wrote euphorically in his diary that Chamberlain was the 'pathbreaker,' 'the preparer of the way,' the 'father of our spirit.' (p.53)
I could check more sources, but this should be more than sufficient to show that Chamberlain belongs in the "Ideology list, and perhaps should even be restored to the "People" list, as he was, it turns out, a member of the party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: this make sense. As an aside, the editor in question was (most likely) a sock for a banned user. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I considered that possibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Houston Stewart Chamberlain]] 

message: I've removed The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century from the Racial Ideology section. There is no reason for the book to be included in the Nazism sidebar at all. The book was an influence to Nazi ideology but so were many others, there is nothing gained by adding this book to the sidebar.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your removal. Having influenced Nazi ideology is a sufficient reason for its inclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Many other books influenced Nazi ideology. What about Arthur de Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races or Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race? Why is Chamberlain's book any different?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added those books.  Why are you advocating for a book which is widely acknowledged as being racist and antisemitic? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The Nazism sidebar only displays the book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Why is this book an exception to all of the other works that influenced Nazi ideology? The same as in the 'Ideology' section only Houston Stewart Chamberlain is listed. Why? None of these should be listed in the Nazism sidebar, they are all mentioned in List of Nazi ideologues article, which is why I attempted to remove it. What is your argument for only that author and book to be included in the Nazism sidebar?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Check again, I have added the other books to the list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see now. The thing is though, why are any of the books added to the sidebar? The books are not specifically Nazi, they just simply influenced Nazism. It's the same as some of the works of Nietzsche influenced Nazism but it would be ridiculous to add that into the sidebar given Nietzsche's views of antisemitism, nationalism and racism. The other links in the 'Racial ideology' section mention the books. Why the need for separate links?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: They are there for exactly that reason, that they greatly influenced the Nazi's racist ideology.  There's no reason to remove them.  Again, why are you apparently championing Houston Stewart Chamberlain? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dozens of books influenced Nazi ideology. Why are those three (previously just the one) being singled out? It makes no sense. Hell, even some left-wing books influenced Nazi thought. I don't understand why you're personally attacking me by claiming that I'm "championing" Chamberlain when all I've simply done is questioned why him and his work are in the Nazism sidebar. WP:NPA.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite those dozens of books, and perhaps we'll add some of them. In the meantime, your singling out of HSC is concerning, especially when combined with some of your edits to other articles. These are not times to be seen to be in any way on the wrong side of this issue, and your editing in this area began at about the same time as Charlottesville -- so you draw the potential conclusions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not the only person who gets the final say in the matter. You still haven't given any valid reason as to why any books should be mentioned in the Nazism sidebar. The books themselves are not part of the 'Racial ideology', they just influenced it. If we were to go down the route of including all the influences of Nazism in the 'Racial ideology' section then it would be endless, hence the List of Nazi ideologues article. I have singled out Chamberlain because his work was the one then listed and then when I've mentioned two other important influences you have included them when I've created this section with the idea of removing all books from the Nazism sidebar, it adds absolutely no value to the sidebar unless of course you were to add a 'Literature' section like the Stalinism sidebar. When you are coming out with "These are not times to be seen to be in any way on the wrong side of this issue, and your editing in this area began at about the same time as Charlottesville -- so you draw the potential conclusions" - what are you trying to imply exactly? This almost certainly consists of a personal attack. How about you actually elaborate on what you are accusing me of? Perhaps you should read the WP:NPA while you are at it as well.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since you and I are at an impasse -- and frankly your claim that Chamberlain's book shouldn't be included is extremely ahistorical -- unless other editors weight in, the article stays in the status quo ante. Until you have a consensus to make the changes you suggest, please do not change the template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a 'Literature' section and included all the books as well as The Myth of the Twentieth Century into the sidebar as well since Rosenberg's works were highly influential. I was arguing that the book should not be in the 'Racial ideology' section and then leave out all the other important works that influenced Nazi ideology. I 'singled out' Chamberlain because at the time it was only his work that was included in the sidebar. I'd also like you to clarify what you were accusing me of as I've not once personally attacked you but twice you have hinted that I'm something and I'd like you to tell me what you meant by those accusations.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your changes, since you did not get a consensus for them.  Please do not make any changes to the template without getting a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: A consensus? But it was okay for you to add two books without asking anyone else? It's only you who seems to have a problem with it. It makes much more logical and rational sense to include a 'Literature' section if books are going to be used in the sidebar. Look at other sidebars such as the Template:Marxism–Leninism sidebar. I feel you're purposely going out of your way to be provocative towards me. Firstly you have accused me of something you won't even clarify and now you're just being awkward for being awkward sake. Why would anyone revert an edit which quite clearly puts things in the right place? Books belong in a 'Literature' section.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So you've reverted again. What is it about my edit that you have a problem with exactly?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:BRD article specifically states "No one is ever required to follow this process, but it can sometimes be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks." What do you object so much about my edit? It's an improvement and puts things in the right place.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please get a consensus for your suggested edits. Editing without a consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE and can lead to being blocked from editing.  If you now disagree with my addition to the template of the two books you suggested, then there is no consensus for them either, and you're free to remove them as being made without a consensus.  However, your other edits are non-consensual, and cannot be added to the template until they have been discussed and agreed upon. There is no agreement on them at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed you still won't clarify what your personal attacks meant earlier on and quite obviously you are not going to give me an answer. Moving on, since you're the one who has reverted my edit, what do you personally have against it exactly? Surely, don't you agree that it makes much more sense to add a 'Literature' section and include the prominent works that influenced Nazi ideology rather than just have the odd book title included in the 'Racial ideology' section?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please get a consensus for your suggested edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You were the one that decided to remove my edit. I am asking you specifically, what do you have against my edit? You can't just go around reverting people's edits without a jolly good reason. A consensus cannot be reached if you won't even justify your revert without the simply "get a consensus". I'm attempting to get one here - what do you object about my edit exactly?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you ought to read the WP:BRD that you linked me to on my talk page. 1) It's not a necessary rule to follow, only a guideline. 2) The BRD article stattes "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen." So, what was your reason for reverting my edit? There seems to be no apparent justification on your behalf. It's quite obvious you're just being awkward for awkward sake. Get off your high horse.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your initial edit was removed because you attempted to remove Houston Stewart Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, a book which had a profound effect on the Nazi's racist ideology, from the "Racial Ideology" section on grounds that make no historical sense whatsoever.  When you asked why it, and not two other books were there, I added your suggested two other books to the section. Your reorganization of the books into a "Literature" section removes them from the section about the area where they had their effect -- on the racial ideology of the Nazis -- to a place which downplays their virulent antisemitic message: "Literature" could mean anything.  As such, and because you did not have a consensus to make the edit, it was reverted.  It will continue to be reverted until there is a full discussion between all concerned editors - a few hours is not a sufficient time for that discussion to have developed -- and a consensus has been reached as to what to do.  If you continue to attempt to insert this material without a consensus, you will be violating the Wikipedia policy on disruptive editing by editing without a consensus to do so.This will be my last statement to you.  I will gladly participate again when other editors become involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: *The above comment by QubixQdotta, a suspected sockpuppet who admits to having edited before using other accounts, , , , but will not come clean about what those accounts were (although one is painfully obvious) was made in retaliation for my throwing him off my talk page. See: User talk:Beyond My Ken#Re: Nazi Lowriders  He's never edited here before, but has made numerous edits to Alt-right, where he argued that the Nazis were on the far-left wing and not the far-right wing.   As he is a doubly-biased editor, his comment should not be counted in regard to consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was just trying to add to the discussion as I saw do, and you've derailed this whole thing which is actually very hypocritical considering you tried to block my earlier comment and stated "Retaliatory comment not germane to this discussion". As for the SPI (which is a useless speculationof how I'm a random Japanimation wiki user in disguise as a gang historian made by people who hate me/have too much free time)...ahem, it's a completely irrelevant discussion for this board. To call me "a doubly-biased editor" is also astronomically hypocritical considering you target anything doesn't agree with you and blatantly state they are in bad faith. [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 04:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what's in your mind, I can only judge from your editing behavior. I throw you off my page, and you immediately end up here, in the middle of a dispute between myself and another editor which has nothing whatsoever to do with you, and you want me to draw the conclusion that it's a tremendous coincidence?  Not gonna happen.  I'm a nice guy, but I'm not an idiot, I know retaliation when I see it, and this is it. (You should really read WP:HARASSMENT some day.) You can comment all you want here, and I will continue to point out that the only reason you're here is to get back at me, so that your comments will carry next to no weight, which is only right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Beyond My Ken, a book that has a "profound" influence on the ideology does not make it part of that specific ideology. Like I've said, many other books influenced Nazi ideology and others were 'part of' Nazism quite literally e.g Mein Kampf and The Myth of the Twentieth Century but but even they were not part of the 'Racial ideology', they were simply literature that influenced the racial ideology - there is a difference. I initially removed the book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century from the sidebar which prompted User:Beyond My Ken to accuse me of defending Chamberlain and then made a couple of personal attacks in which he would not clarify what he meant (judge for yourself - they are further up). I removed the book because as it seems a couple of other users have agreed - books should not be listed in the Nazism sidebar because although they might have influenced Nazi ideology, they were not explicitly aspects of the Nazi 'Racial ideology' sentiments. @User:Kierzek - I have no problem following the BRD guideline (although I fail to see how someone should be blocked for not following something that is not mandatory since no rules would be broken), which is why I did not engage in an edit war and started this discussion. I simply added the 'Literature' section because I thought that it would be the more logical thing to do if books were going to be used in the sidebar. So there we have it, we either have what I initially suggested anyway which is 1) Removing all books from the sidebar 2) Keeping books in the sidebar with a much more rational idea of a 'Literature' section and include books that influenced Nazi ideology. I strongly favour the former, I don't think any books should be in the sidebar (hence my initial removal of Chamberlain's book) and have pointed out several times that such influences belong in the List of Nazi ideologues article, not the Nazism sidebar.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kierzek, the article List of books about Nazi Germany does not have any books that influenced Nazi ideology since that article is about books that discuss Nazi Germany (policies, ideas, crimes, etc), the correct article would be List of Nazi ideologues which lists the various things that influenced Nazism. I don't even think Mein Kampf and The Myth of the Twentieth Century should be included in the sidebar because nowhere without a 'Literature' section would any books fit. Plus, even though those two books were by prominent Nazis, they were not the black and white version of Nazism and even the two books themselves have different views e.g Hitler objected completely to Rosenberg's paganism. I think it would be best if all books were removed from the sidebar and some link to the List of Nazi ideologues be mentioned somewhere, possibly.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Jytdog, I first removed the book because I said it didn't belong in the 'Racial ideology' because any book was just an influence to a certain ideology but Nazi ideologies were ideas like Lebensraum or the master race, not a book itself. For example Mein Kampf is not an ideology but explains Hitler's various different ideologies. There is a key difference between something being an influence to an ideology and an actual ideology itself. So since User:Beyond My Ken reverted my removal I then added a 'Literature' section and included five books: An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, , Racial Science of the German People, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, The Passing of the Great Race and The Myth of the Twentieth Century. Guess what? That was also reverted. So this seems to be a catch 22. On the one hand, I removed a book because I don't think a book can be classified as a 'racial ideology' (books can influence racial ideologies though, of course) and now people are saying keep books in the sidebar yet when I made an attempt to create a separate section titled 'Literature' in the sidebar which would then give the viewers to be able to see which books influenced Nazism it was removed and yet now it's being said that books must stay in the sidebar because they influenced the roots of Nazism. The five books I listed I would say were arguably the most influential when it comes to what Nazi ideology stood for but the addition of books in the sidebar could prove to be problematic because it's simply subjective on what books should be considered part of Nazi ideology, or at least influenced it enough to be considered a vital element of it. Unfortunately, the Nazis also selectively used certain people's works so that is also another way that adding books could cause problems. Even books like Mein Kampf were not exactly the set in stone of Nazism. Hitler himself was later even critical of it. The same as Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century which Hitler is reported to have never even read. Even the Nazis were selective of Gobineau's work An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races because Gobineau was not antisemitic. The idea of having books in the sidebar isn't exactly something I would disagree with but having books in the 'Racial ideology' section is ridiculous because books are not ideologies themselves but rather influences which is why I suggest having a 'Literature' section if books are to stay in the sidebar, I would say the Template:Marxism–Leninism sidebar is a good model to go off when it comes to having books added to a sidebar.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning appears to be something like "a book is not an ideology"...  which is obvious to the point of being silly.  Books express an ideology and can inform and support ideologies.  That is what this one did/does, with respect to Nazi ideology. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An 'ideology' is defined as "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy." - which is exactly what I've already said. Nazism was the ideology with many other ideologies such as Lebensraum, master race, etc, as part of it, but to call a book on its own as an 'ideology' itself is ridiculous and wrong according to the very definition of the word. Mein Kampf is not an ideology but instead expresses Hitler's various different ideologies such as Lebensraum, antisemitism, etc. The difference between expressing an ideology and being an actual ideology shouldn't be that difficult to understand. I don't disagree that The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century was influential to Nazi ideology but surely if literature is to stay included in the sidebar then a 'Literature' section is more appropriate rather than having it in the 'Racial ideology' section? What I also find striking is that User:Beyond My Ken reverted my edit when I added the 'Literature' section and added five books (previously mentioned) because according to him I didn't reach a consensus, yet he added An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races and The Passing of the Great Race without asking anyone and those were also the ones I added. Simply having books in the 'Racial ideology' is wrong because they were/are not racial ideologies themselves but influenced Nazi racial ideologies such as those already listed in the sidebar. The issue isn't having books included in the sidebar but the correct section which is why I propose adding a 'Literature' section. I really can't see why there should be any sort of quarrel over such a suggestion. If anything, it will improve the sidebar. User talk:Jytdog, how do you feel about the creation of a 'Literature' section and adding the five books I've mentioned previously in the sidebar?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Beyond My Ken, you are very quick to accuse people of being sock puppets. Why don't you ever actually comment on the things you revert or have a problem with? It's always personal attacks with you. But no I'm not connected with either Robinson98354 or English Patriot Man, moderators can feel free to check my IP, I have nothing to hide. I've also explained to you time and time again that I initially suggested the removal of Chamberlain because at that time it was only his work which was included in the 'Racial ideology' section of the sidebar. I have now said quite a few times that I do not object to the inclusion of Chamberlain and his work in the sidebar but when including literature there should be a separate section due to the fact that not all of the selected works that influenced Nazi racial ideology were completely in line with Nazi racial thinking e.g even Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century classified Slavs into the Aryan race, I'm sure many Nazi thinkers would not have agreed with that assertion since many were just simply pan-Germanic and only considered the Germanic/Nordic people as worth any racial value, Himmler comes to mind. The same as Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races condemned antisemitism and described the Jews in several passages in a positive light, again, not exactly in line with Nazi racial ideology.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that I am "very quick to accuse people of being sock puppets" if you've only been editing here for about 6 weeks? Even if it were true, that would have nothing to do with the question -- and evidence -- that you are a sock.  You realize that if you are, and your master is English Patriot Man, everything you've written here (and everywhere else on Wikipedia) can (and will) be deleted, as you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any form, at any time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And I hope you are also aware that changing your IP is not sufficient to be protected from being blocked as a sock, if the behavioral evidence is sufficiently compelling.  The fact is that your editing is heavily involved with Nazi racial policy, which is the same subject which EPN and his socks edit in, almost exclusively.  If the admin I approached isn't able to make the connection, I will file the SPI, with more evidence then the mere outline I've posted here, and we'll see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because in case you have forgotten, you accused User:QubixQdotta of being a sock puppet yesterday. So you've now not only accused me of being a Nazi (you personally attacked me a couple of times and have refused to clarify what you mean but like User:QubixQdotta pointed out, I'm not stupid and I know exactly what you were implying) and now to top it all off you're accusing me of being a sock puppet. For someone who has been on here for 12 years, I would have thought you would have known that talk pages are to be used to resolve disputes, not personally attack and accuse people. You're not even reading what I've been saying about Chamberlain and why I removed his work. I don't need to repeat myself again, I've already explained my position on this ongoing debate, I don't only need your approval.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See, you really don't know what you're talking about.  The SPI on QubixQdotta was filed on 22 August, and not by me.  -- and, again, QubixQdotta has nothing to do with you, although you did attempt to use them as cover for yourself before I booted you off my talk page as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Again, more threats from you. I edit a lot of different pages. Maybe you should stop stalking my contributions and instead focus on resolving this dispute and actually answer my points and problems I have with having books in the 'Racial ideology' section. You haven't refuted a single point I've made but instead have now gone from personal attacks to flat out accusing me of being a sock puppet. It's very tedious and petulant.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't engage substantively with socks, who are tedious and disruptive and not supposed to be editing here.  I do engage with editors of all views who are not pariahs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words into my mouth and attempt to try and trip me up by you getting your wires crossed, I never once referred to an SPI but what you have said on this talk page. You accused him of being a sock puppet on this talk page (03:41, 30 August 2017). You should spend less time using talk pages as a way to insult people and accuse them of things and instead solve disputes.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I accuse people of things who are deserving of accusation -- and you still don't have a clue what you're talking about concerning your new buddy Qubix Qdotta, who has admitted to being a sockpuppet; we simply don't know who the master is.  If it comes to that, it's conceivable that I've made a mistake about who's pulling your strings, but there's no mistaking that you are a sock. The evidence above is only the tip of the iceberg, the rest will be on the SPI if I need to file it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone who has said "BTW, this is a discussion about the question asked at the RfC, not about ancillary matters. Any additional off-topic discussion will be deleted." (13:02, 31 August 2017) to create a title on the Nazism sidebar talk page titled "Who is who, here?" and accuse me of being a sock puppet is nothing short of ironic. Do what you have got to do, you quite clearly have you made your mind up what I am. I know I'm not a sock puppet and I edit fairly and I engage in reasonable and rational discussions on talk pages and do not engage in WP:DE. Now if we could actually get back on topic that would be greatly appreciated.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century 

message: If you look up the page, you will find the thread #Houston Stewart Chamberlain, which was provoked by the attempt of User:Robinson98354 to remove Houston Stewart Chamberlain from the list of "People" in the sidebar.  Now, here you are, attemtping to remove Houston Stewart Chamberlain's best known work, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Centuryfrom the "Racial ideology" section, or to move it into an innocuous-sounding "Literature" section.
Sein und Zeit, is this just a coincidence?  Are you in any way connected with Robinson98354?  
I ask because another editor expressed the opinion in that earlier thread that Robinson98354 was a sock of a banned editor, and because Roninson98354 was later found to be a sock of User:English Patriot Man (who has had many socks) , and Robinson98354 stopped editing in May 2017, just a month before you began editing in June 2017.  Further, when you look at your edits and compare them to Robinson98354 and English Patriot Man, the overlap is very significant,  as it is if you put in any of English Patriot Man's many socks, such as User:Hashi0707. 
So, Sein und Zeit, would you like to comment on this here, or would you prefer to comment on the SPI I will be filing right after I ask an admin who is familiar with English Patriot Man to look over your edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Beyond My Ken, you are very quick to accuse people of being sock puppets. Why don't you ever actually comment on the things you revert or have a problem with? It's always personal attacks with you. But no I'm not connected with either Robinson98354 or English Patriot Man, moderators can feel free to check my IP, I have nothing to hide. I've also explained to you time and time again that I initially suggested the removal of Chamberlain because at that time it was only his work which was included in the 'Racial ideology' section of the sidebar. I have now said quite a few times that I do not object to the inclusion of Chamberlain and his work in the sidebar but when including literature there should be a separate section due to the fact that not all of the selected works that influenced Nazi racial ideology were completely in line with Nazi racial thinking e.g even Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century classified Slavs into the Aryan race, I'm sure many Nazi thinkers would not have agreed with that assertion since many were just simply pan-Germanic and only considered the Germanic/Nordic people as worth any racial value, Himmler comes to mind. The same as Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races condemned antisemitism and described the Jews in several passages in a positive light, again, not exactly in line with Nazi racial ideology.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that I am "very quick to accuse people of being sock puppets" if you've only been editing here for about 6 weeks? Even if it were true, that would have nothing to do with the question -- and evidence -- that you are a sock.  You realize that if you are, and your master is English Patriot Man, everything you've written here (and everywhere else on Wikipedia) can (and will) be deleted, as you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any form, at any time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And I hope you are also aware that changing your IP is not sufficient to be protected from being blocked as a sock, if the behavioral evidence is sufficiently compelling.  The fact is that your editing is heavily involved with Nazi racial policy, which is the same subject which EPN and his socks edit in, almost exclusively.  If the admin I approached isn't able to make the connection, I will file the SPI, with more evidence then the mere outline I've posted here, and we'll see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because in case you have forgotten, you accused User:QubixQdotta of being a sock puppet yesterday. So you've now not only accused me of being a Nazi (you personally attacked me a couple of times and have refused to clarify what you mean but like User:QubixQdotta pointed out, I'm not stupid and I know exactly what you were implying) and now to top it all off you're accusing me of being a sock puppet. For someone who has been on here for 12 years, I would have thought you would have known that talk pages are to be used to resolve disputes, not personally attack and accuse people. You're not even reading what I've been saying about Chamberlain and why I removed his work. I don't need to repeat myself again, I've already explained my position on this ongoing debate, I don't only need your approval.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See, you really don't know what you're talking about.  The SPI on QubixQdotta was filed on 22 August, and not by me.  -- and, again, QubixQdotta has nothing to do with you, although you did attempt to use them as cover for yourself before I booted you off my talk page as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Again, more threats from you. I edit a lot of different pages. Maybe you should stop stalking my contributions and instead focus on resolving this dispute and actually answer my points and problems I have with having books in the 'Racial ideology' section. You haven't refuted a single point I've made but instead have now gone from personal attacks to flat out accusing me of being a sock puppet. It's very tedious and petulant.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't engage substantively with socks, who are tedious and disruptive and not supposed to be editing here.  I do engage with editors of all views who are not pariahs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words into my mouth and attempt to try and trip me up by you getting your wires crossed, I never once referred to an SPI but what you have said on this talk page. You accused him of being a sock puppet on this talk page (03:41, 30 August 2017). You should spend less time using talk pages as a way to insult people and accuse them of things and instead solve disputes.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I accuse people of things who are deserving of accusation -- and you still don't have a clue what you're talking about concerning your new buddy Qubix Qdotta, who has admitted to being a sockpuppet; we simply don't know who the master is.  If it comes to that, it's conceivable that I've made a mistake about who's pulling your strings, but there's no mistaking that you are a sock. The evidence above is only the tip of the iceberg, the rest will be on the SPI if I need to file it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone who has said "BTW, this is a discussion about the question asked at the RfC, not about ancillary matters. Any additional off-topic discussion will be deleted." (13:02, 31 August 2017) to create a title on the Nazism sidebar talk page titled "Who is who, here?" and accuse me of being a sock puppet is nothing short of ironic. Do what you have got to do, you quite clearly have you made your mind up what I am. I know I'm not a sock puppet and I edit fairly and I engage in reasonable and rational discussions on talk pages and do not engage in WP:DE. Now if we could actually get back on topic that would be greatly appreciated.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is who, here?

message: Should the "Racial ideology" section of the sidebar contain in its list books which were influential in shaping the Nazi's racial ideology,  such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century,  Arthur de Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race, and other books which consensus may find appropriate?  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No - The inclusion of the books is not the problem, the problem is placing them in the same category as 'Racial ideology'. Although without any doubt the books influenced Nazi racial ideology, they should not be placed in the same section because they weren't explicitly Nazi racial books and weren't completely coherent with Nazi racial ideology. The Nazis were selective in the works they used to influence their ideology. (continued below) -- Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: *Yes, an innocuous section where they won't be tarred with a connection with Nazi racist ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's important to mark the distinction between something that influences an ideology and the ideology itself. Literature is literature, books are not ideologies themselves. Not all of the books themselves were exclusively even Nazi anyway e.g An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races is currently included in the 'Racial ideology' section yet the book condemns antisemitism and describes the Jews in positive terms, hardly something that is completely coherent with all of Nazi racial ideology. The Nazis were selective in the works that influenced their ideology overall hence why it's important to distinguish between the two.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *User:Jytdog, how can they be appropriately fitted in the 'Racial ideology' section when one of the book openly condemns Jews and speaks about them in a positive light? I'd hardly say that was the same way the Nazis thought.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, how could Nazis have existed at all?  How could heidigger have been a nazi/nazi sympathizer?  There is no accounting for irrationality or self-contradiction, or people taking one bite out of an apple and leaving the rest. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Beyond My Ken, you quickly added An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races or The Passing of the Great Race when all I did was mention them on this talk page. You didn't reach a consensus. One rule for you and one rule for everyone else it seems.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the same rule for everyone.  When you mentioned them as being missing, I agreed, and we had -- at that moment -- a consensus to add them.  I've already told you (above) that if you now disagree with that action, and think they shouldn't have been added, then you should remove them, but you have ignored that in favor of repeating the same claim over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, this is a discussion about the question asked at the RfC, not about ancillary matters.  Any additional off-topic discussion will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Jytdog, are you actually going to answer my question or just ignore it by responding with questions? It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask. A book is included in the 'Racial ideology' section of the Nazism sidebar when the book itself praises Jews which is at the complete opposite spectrum of what Nazism preached. And again, you have also clarified exactly why I advocate the addition of a separate section titled 'Literature' because although certain books were used by the Nazis to somehow make their racial ideology seem more legitimate, many of the works they used actually were against other racial ideologies their preached. Just because the Nazis decided to use certain books that propagated their ideals does not make those books themselves part of Nazi racial ideology. A Nazi racial ideology was for example Blood and Soil not Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. The inclusion of works in the 'Racial ideology' section because certain parts of the book were favoured by the Nazis is not a WP:NPOV assertion as it is without any doubt WP:UNDUE. --Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't removed the books because I've already quite clearly established that I don't think the books should be removed. On the contrary, I think they should be included in a more appropriate section titled 'Literature' since essentially that is what they are, not racially ideologies per se.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about including books in the "Racial ideology" section 

message: (Note: !Votes and short explications only, threaded discussion and extended statements will be relocated)
*Yes - The books listed were tremendously influential in shaping Nazi racial ideology, and their inclusion in the "Racial ideology" section helps to give readers who follow the links a better background on where that ideology – which did not spring de novo from Hitler's mind – came from, and why it had an appeal to some parts of the German population.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No - The inclusion of the books is not the problem, the problem is placing them in the same category as 'Racial ideology'. Although without any doubt the books influenced Nazi racial ideology, they should not be placed in the same section because they weren't explicitly Nazi racial books and weren't completely coherent with Nazi racial ideology. The Nazis were selective in the works they used to influence their ideology. (continued below) -- Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Books RfC: Survey

message: *User:Beyond My Ken, I have said it quite clearly that I approve of those books being included in the sidebar, as well as Mein Kampf and The Myth of the Twentieth Century but in a separate section titled 'Literature'.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, an innocuous section where they won't be tarred with a connection with Nazi racist ideology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's important to mark the distinction between something that influences an ideology and the ideology itself. Literature is literature, books are not ideologies themselves. Not all of the books themselves were exclusively even Nazi anyway e.g An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races is currently included in the 'Racial ideology' section yet the book condemns antisemitism and describes the Jews in positive terms, hardly something that is completely coherent with all of Nazi racial ideology. The Nazis were selective in the works that influenced their ideology overall hence why it's important to distinguish between the two.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *User:Jytdog, how can they be appropriately fitted in the 'Racial ideology' section when one of the book openly condemns Jews and speaks about them in a positive light? I'd hardly say that was the same way the Nazis thought.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, how could Nazis have existed at all?  How could heidigger have been a nazi/nazi sympathizer?  There is no accounting for irrationality or self-contradiction, or people taking one bite out of an apple and leaving the rest. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Beyond My Ken, you quickly added An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races or The Passing of the Great Race when all I did was mention them on this talk page. You didn't reach a consensus. One rule for you and one rule for everyone else it seems.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the same rule for everyone.  When you mentioned them as being missing, I agreed, and we had -- at that moment -- a consensus to add them.  I've already told you (above) that if you now disagree with that action, and think they shouldn't have been added, then you should remove them, but you have ignored that in favor of repeating the same claim over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, this is a discussion about the question asked at the RfC, not about ancillary matters.  Any additional off-topic discussion will be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Jytdog, are you actually going to answer my question or just ignore it by responding with questions? It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask. A book is included in the 'Racial ideology' section of the Nazism sidebar when the book itself praises Jews which is at the complete opposite spectrum of what Nazism preached. And again, you have also clarified exactly why I advocate the addition of a separate section titled 'Literature' because although certain books were used by the Nazis to somehow make their racial ideology seem more legitimate, many of the works they used actually were against other racial ideologies their preached. Just because the Nazis decided to use certain books that propagated their ideals does not make those books themselves part of Nazi racial ideology. A Nazi racial ideology was for example Blood and Soil not Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. The inclusion of works in the 'Racial ideology' section because certain parts of the book were favoured by the Nazis is not a WP:NPOV assertion as it is without any doubt WP:UNDUE. --Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't removed the books because I've already quite clearly established that I don't think the books should be removed. On the contrary, I think they should be included in a more appropriate section titled 'Literature' since essentially that is what they are, not racially ideologies per se.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Books RfC: Threaded discussion

message: The scale of this is too large to help navigation Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox. Moxy- 17:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it has become bloated and needs to be scaled back with edits for concision. Kierzek (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too large to be helpful