Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Nazism/Archive 1

message: I haven't been terribly active in this lately, but I have worked a bit in this area. I've found myself generally in agreement with Cberlet, so it might not be particularly useful to add me to the mediation (since he is already involved). However, if my participation would be useful, let me know. But I don't need to be a formal participant, and (while reserving the right to dissent in the future) will assume for now that any outcomes that are acceptable to Cberlet will also be acceptable to me. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same goes for myself. I am not familiar enough with such procedures to know how they work, but will formally engage myself if deemed necessary. I am abstaining myself from the time being because of lack of knowledge of this procedure. Tazmaniacs 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally include myself in this mediation (note: I had not been really active on this, as Jmabel ; however, Cberlet's effort to find consensus on this issue has attracted my attention, and I have since supported him, in particular concerning edit-warring on National Socialism (disambiguation) where Cberlet had to face various users supporting fringe views). Tazmaniacs 15:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible additional participant

message: this is open right?if it hasnt been taken ill do it.should i just do it?The Pink Panther 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a non-Member of the Mediation Committee, you need all user's  for you, as a non-Member, to mediate. Daniel Bryant 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: i volunteer to mediate this

message: This stage is the introductory stage, the goal of which is to establish what each party wants, and why.  This will be done via party statements, the content of which will be limited, to provide snapshot-style posts by each individual. The idea is to quickly provide an overview of what the party wishes for from the Mediation; this stage carries directly on to Mediation Stage 2.
Posts should be made by each party in the following form:
===Name===
My general approach is X.
*In my opinion, the problem is Y;
*What I would like to see changed is Sentence A ("...Lorem ipsum...") changed to say
"...Duis aute irure...", per Policy Name
Hopefully my opinion will be carefully considered,~~~~
====Discussion====
Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; please
restrict it to the above post - general discussion should be placed at the top of
this Mediation Stage.
I ask that all parties conform to this snapshot when posting their statements - in my experience, it's worked well in establishing consensus. As Mediator, I'll keep the posts maintainded, and fix up posts that accidentally differ form this format.
Feel free to drop any questions my way - methods of contacting me are available here.
Kindest regards,Anthony 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Stage 1 

message: Current issues concerning me are whether National Socialism and National socialism should redirect to Nazism or to disambiguation page, and whether Friedrich Hayek's views should get prominent place in articles and sections discussing nature of National Socialism and socialism. 
My opinion is that redirects should lead to Nazism because that is the most common use of those terms (this can be easily checked by Google search). As for Hayek, he is at the same time one of the most prominent economists and one of the most prominent political philosophers, so his views deserve elaboration in all relevant articles. -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly that is your opinion, -- Vision Thing --, but it is not shared by the majority of other editors. Yet you recently persisted in promoting your opinion, and engaged in repeated edits that went against the will of the majority--which is one reason I brought this to mediation. I argue that your continuous attempts to link socialism and fascism on multiple pages is a marginal view, and neither collaborative nor constructive. I hope we can have this discussion here without it spilling over onto entry pages.--Cberlet 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Vision Thing|Vision Thing]]

message: Disputes, questions or comments of the above section by other users should be placed here; please
restrict it to the above post - general discussion should be placed at the top of
this Mediation Stage.
*Thanks for your comments; discussion? ~ Anthony 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Reasons why Hayek has won Nobel Prize were outlined in the speech made by one of the members of the Royal Academy of Sciences on presentation of the prize to Hayek: Hitherto the prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Noble has been awarded to researchers who have made pioneering contributions in what we called "pure" economics. (...) However, there are prominent researchers in the field of the social sciences whose range of interests covers other and wider areas than those embraced by the term "pure economics". Among these prominent researchers are this year's prize winners, Professors Myrdal and Hayek. (...) Hayek has extended his field of interest so as to take in the legal framework of the economic system and psychological-philosophical questions concerning the way in which individuals, organizations and different social systems work. Both scholars have shown a dominating interest in problems of economic policy, including possible changes in the organizational, institutional and legal structure of society. (...) These politically-coloured differences, however, are altogether subordinated to a common attitude towards social science research: the conviction that the major socio-economic questions of our time cannot be fully understood without interdisciplinary broadening of the range of problems studied as well as of the methodology applied. (...) It is above all the analysis of the viability of different economic systems which is among Professor Hayek's most important contributions to social science research. From the middle of the 1930s onwards, he devoted increasing attention to the problems of socialist central planning. In this area, as in all others to which Hayek has devoted research, he presented a detailed exposition of ideas and conceptions in this field. 
I quoted from speech extensively to show that Hayek won Noble Prize for his contributions to economics and social sciences, particularly for his detailed exposition of ideas and conceptions concerning socialist central planning. I think that particular importance must be given to Hayek's views because of his interdisciplinary expertise. Scholars who specialize just in one narrow area can often miss a "big picture", which can be better captured by someone with a broader scope of expertise. This Hayek's dual importance is further emphasized in "The Cambridge Companion to Hayek" where it is stated that he was among most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century. It is further said that He is widely regarded as the principal intellectual force behind the triumph of global capitalism, an "anti-Marx" whose famous book The Road to Serfdom was a prophetic statement of the dangers which socialism posed to a free and open society'.'
I think this is enough to establish Hayek as an extremely notable person in these fields, a person who can recognize socialist central planning when he sees one. 
:I think there is no question that Hayek wrote about socialism and collectivism, and is famous for it.  The issue is whther or not his views rate being peppered across Wikipedia in a way that unbalances numerous articles, especially when tied to the subject of fascism, a field where Hayek is generally dismissed as marginal by the leading scholars of fascism. No one is suggesting that Hayek is not well known.--Cberlet 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hayek is not only famous for his writing about socialism and collectivism, but his writings are also considered relevant in those fields. WP:NPOV requires that all significant views should be represented in Wikipedia articles without bias, and if Hayek, as an acknowledged political philosopher and expert in socialist economic systems, says that Nazism is a form of socialism then his view should be properly presented. Also, Hayek is not alone in this. For example, Peter J. Boettke, another distinguished economist and co-author of Britannica's article on economic systems, also agrees that government of Nazi Germany was socialist. -- Vision Thing -- 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hayek

message: As for your claims about economics of Nazi Germany, I would like to cite Stanley Payne (whose expertise on fascism is acknowledged by Cberlet): Hitler's basic stance was that National Socialism meant the subordination of the economy to the national interest: Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz (The common good before individual good), according to one of the most widely publicized Nazi slogans. (...) From 1936, especially, the tendency was firmly toward ever more state regulation and control, a network of government Zwangswirtschaft (a forced or compulsion economy). This did not take the form of direct state ownership but instead the systematic subordination of all sectors of the economy through controls, regulation, strict taxation, contracts and allocation. (...) Because of widespread governmental intervention to rescue banks that were failing during 1931-32, a large part of German bank capital was already owned by the state. The war accentuated such tendencies, which might as well be termed "military socialism" as anything else. -- Vision Thing -- 11:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is suggesting that Fascism and Nazism have no historic connection to socialism. What is generally regarded as marginal by the leading scholars of fascism is the claim that Fascism and Nazism are merely another form of socialism. A clever quip by Payne is not the same as the main body of his superb work.--Cberlet 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote comes from Payne's main work, A History of Fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialism