Template talk:Nazi Germany-stub

message: *Please remove :File:Flag of South Africa 1928-1994.svg from  which is shown on the pages of Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, and others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming soon on this channel... 

message: It seems from comments above that the main problem with the template is its usage in articles on people who were in fact not Nazis or even opponents/victims of the regime. Can't we agree on a consensus, rather than debating imagery, to limit the use the stub template for the instutions, officials, military units, etc. of the Third Reich. By such a logic a concentration camp could have the template, an individual inmate would not. --Soman (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that this is how the template is to be used anyway. All the above discussion is predicated on the idea that the template might be first misused and then misunderstood. --erachima talk 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's restricted to Nazi officials, that's a somewhat different matter, even if posting the bloody flag also kind of serves to glorify them. I don't think anyone would inherently object to the Nazi symbol being on Hitler's page. But I still think the more subdued cross would be a better choice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in use on Barthel Schink, who was publicly hanged by the gestapo. –xenotalk 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And? He was hanged. It's quite obvious he didn't endorse that, now did he? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just providing an example of the stub tag used on a victim. –xenotalk 19:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that. Sorry if that came across differently. I think it's absolutely correctly used here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. For the record I'm just providing the example, not an opinion either way. –xenotalk 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Barthel Schink is exactly the type of article I had in mind when I first reported this template. IMO it is at least bad taste to have a Nazi swastika there, if not even flatly insulting.  Dr. Loosmark  19:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  In my opinion, that is a perfectly good usage. Mr. Schink was a hero who fought against the Nazi's. The Nazi's are fairly represented with their own party symbol. I literally have no idea how this is supposed to be "flatly insulting." Are you inferring that the presence of the swastika on his article somehow brands Mr. Schink as a Nazi? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not at all. What I find problematic is that the article of a hero is "stamped" with the symbol of the murderers who killed him.  Dr. Loosmark  19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  And... what? You think that the nazi flag being present on a page describing an incident in which they executed a dozen men without trial somehow supports their ideology? Frankly, Loosmark, you baffle me. Do you think so poorly of our readers that you do not believe they can understand the context of the article? --erachima talk 20:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text:  I understand that you find this problematic, I am more curious as to why. He is famous for having fought against Nazi's. His page has a Nazi symbol on it, because he is famous for fighting Nazi's. What is "problematic" about this simple, clear communication device? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text:  By the way, everything about your language on this topic suggests that you are objecting on the basis of your own morality -- that you are offended. This is where I still believe this comes back to censorship -- you are proposing the censoring of something which you find morally offensive. You find it morally offensive that a man who fought the Nazi's has a swastika on his page, even though there is a perfectly good, rational reason for including this symbol. Is that accurate? Or is there some more purely rational reason I am missing? I say all this with all due respect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Concur that this seems a perfectly valid use of the template. Victim is not 'stamped' with anything. What is your problem with this? -- ۩ Mask 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternative approach

message: Problem solved. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't appear to be a preponderance of Nazi-victim-stubs anyway - stub templates are usually created only after they will have 20-30 members right away and more expected. –xenotalk 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, although that picture points to a specific victim, the entire nation were victims of the Nazi madness. Maybe that illustration would work as the symbol in the Nazi template? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can barely make out what it is. –xenotalk 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: My point is that graphically labeling people as "nazi victims" is just as if not more potentially offensive than labeling their article "related to Nazi Germany". Using the yellow badge as the icon of course being one of the more blatantly obvious missteps one could make. --erachima talk 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)How so? How is being called a Nazi victim when that's clearly documented offensive? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: (ec)Insulting to who exactly? The victims? They would likely agree. The Nazis? Who cares what they think? So who's the "victim" of such an alleged "insult"? "Related to Nazi Germany" is very insulting, like they had a choice in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an issue of labeling. Emphasizing a person's identity as a "victim" can lead to said victimization dominating their life. I would be opposed to any "victim" template on these grounds. --erachima talk 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're a Nazi victim, they've already had their life pretty well defined by now. What about the plain cross instead of the bloody-red version? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point.  is no more appropriate than  is. Also, what does your apparent phobia of the color red have to do with anything? --erachima talk 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: So what about this  or this  ? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Harder to identify for those with sight issues and less iconic, respectively. --erachima talk 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I hardly see how a topic that was started by proposing the removal of the swastika altogether is solved by replacing the current image with one  that is literally just a swastika :). I think it has the same "offensive" issues as the current (and, IMO, completely un-problematic) one, while being simultaneously less clear. As for the second, I share erachima's concerns. For one thing, viewed as a tiny image, that might as well be a symbol of Ancient Rome. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like this? 35px ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that accomplishes an effective compromise and if there's actually consensus that some compromise needs to be achieved (I'm seeing strong consensus for the status quo, at the moment, but perhaps I'm being less than objective), that's a clever solution. My own preference would be for no change at all but if there's some emerging consensus for making a change, I'd pick this, sure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Even harder to see, less iconic, still a swastika. At this point you seem to just be complaining about the use of the color red, which to me seems completely nonsensical. Please explain. --erachima talk 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier to see with proper coloration. This was just a quick-and-dirty test. How many times have I said "blood-red"? Several, I think. Colors evoke strong emotions, and the blood flowed in Nazi Germany. The best symbols I can think of for Nazi Germany are the swastika and Hitler. If Hitler won't do (and probably too small anyway), that leaves some kind of swastika, maybe a more subdued kind like I've demonstrated. There are other symbols you could use. Maybe a guard tower from a death camp? Again, might be too small. The eagle is not bad, because the swastika is very small on it, and maybe that would be a good thing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of emotionally loaded language like "blood red" is precisely why I'm having a difficult time taking you seriously. You appear to be more concerned with political and emotional rhetoric than the actual question we are here to discuss, "what is the most educational, illustrative image for the template ?" If we are talking educational value, then the color is a positive attribute because it makes it easy to see. If we are instead talking ideological value, then I refuse to live in a world where we cower eternally in fear at the sight of a few hex values and simple geometric shapes. --erachima talk 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we write wikipedia for ourselves, or for our readers? How is their education level improved by seeing Hitler's flag over and over again? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The eagle really is a symbol of Ancient Rome, though -- we really can't use that. And I don't think anybody else in here is concerned with the "blood red" bit -- I've seen you mention it a number of times but nobody else. Other folks are more concerned with the swastika. As for guard tower, Nazi Germany was about more than the Holocaust. That's definitely not a solution. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More than just the color, the flag itself is used by hate groups to glorify Hitler and Nazi Germany, and plastering it all over the place in wikipedia just feeds into that. A more subdued version of the twisted cross might be less inflammatory. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Educating the world about the past, and the failures and atrocities that the Nazi flag oversaw, has the precise opposite effect from glorifying the Nazis. Propaganda is all about symbols without context, and training the public to, when they see them, react rather than think. Instant endorsement of anything branded with the flag and instant revulsion towards anything associated with it are BOTH propaganda-trained emotions, and the enemies of clear thought and freedom. --erachima talk 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting the Nazi flag everywhere effectively endorses it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a disingenuous line of argument and you should be ashamed of yourself for attempting it. We are not discussing posting the Nazi flag everywhere, we are discussing posting the Nazi flag on articles about the Nazis. --erachima talk 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you confine it to actual Nazis and not to their victims, that might be OK. If you attach it to their victims also, you should be ashamed. And what about my illustration below, of Nazi Germany with the swastika? Got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As before, hard to identify, less iconic, still has a swastika on it.What pages properly fall under this template is a separate matter (some pages it is currently used in may be inaccurate or redundant templating), and regardless of the conclusion of that discussion I have a very hard time believing that you honestly think that associating the Nazi flag with the pages of people they murdered glorifies Naziism. --erachima talk 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have a very hard time believing that you honestly don't think that repetitive use of the Nazi flag glorifies Nazism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I don't. Why would I? How could I? I don't buy into a fear-addled worldview in which an abstract combination of colors and shapes can become inherently offensive no matter the context. That is, as I explained above, the mark of a propaganda-driven mindset, and it is fought through education. --erachima talk 22:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: This might stand out a little better: 35px ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Anti-fascism is a political movement, might be a useful template to have depending on the number of articles we have on the subject, but it has an independent meaning from "got killed by the Nazis", so would probably not address this concern. --erachima talk 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But it would be a useful alternative in the case of Barthel Schink, for example. --Soman (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  This would be a redundant stub template. Resolute 20:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Nazi-victim-stub}}

message: Rather than saying it in half a dozen places, can I please oppose the use of the fylfot (the swastika symbol without any appendages from a flag).  This is because that image is not just associated with the Nazis, it is in use in other parts of the world with a benign meaning that is frequently overshadowed by the association with the Nazis.  I would much prefer we use the flag icon, as it is then really clear that this is an article relating to the Nazi regime.  Individual victims of course do not need to be tagged with it - they are people, and the stubs will also be Jewish related or Polish related or LGBT related or whatever. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is another very good point. We should not allow the Nazis brief use of the symbol to overshadow thousands of years of history by teaching "swastika = nazis" without qualification. (This was also the subject of a prior debate with respect to Template:Hinduism.) --erachima talk 22:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite. It has come up before.  The scarlet flag, white circle and swastika only has one associated meaning - let's stick with that.  Its clear, works well at a small scale (which the stamp certainly doesn't), and everyone knows what it is.  Make rules about when to use the 'Nazi-related' stub, if that's the issue-I would have thought that tagging short articles about Holocaust victims as 'Nazi-related' would be more of a potential offence than the flag would.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good point indeed, I agree completely. SwarmTalk 00:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of fylfot