Talk:Nazism and socialism/Delete

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Nazism and socialism.

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the page.

Nazism and socialism

• Can never be NPOV. Never meant to be NPOV. Never will be NPOV - or better yet nonfiction. JoeM was banned for less. 172 20:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • What is the POV of the article (as it was when the VfD tag was added)? As a non-historian, I may not be equipped to detect subtle premises which are being promoted. -- Cyan 21:32, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Everyking 20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. Nazism is a national socialism, isnt it. Cautious 20:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I personally would be very interested in an article comparing Nazism and socialism, and explaining what "socialist" meant in the National Socialism context. Whether this page is accurate I can't say, but an article on the topic is certainly appropriate. Meelar 21:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Good topic. Article seems acceptable to me. I'm guessing, because the subtext isn't totally obvious, that the subtext is "Socialism is evil because Nazism is a form of socialism," "'Tis not," "'Tis too." Is that it? Or, "Nazism is actually OK because it's a form of socialism," "'Tain't neither," "'Tis too." Is that what's going on? If so, it can and should be toned down. Dpbsmith 21:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The article continually attracts people who want to compare Stalinism or Soviet-style communism to Nazism. Why have separate words (and articles) for these subjects? Why not dump everything deemed bad into a bag and call it "socialism." Several people have tried to point this out to no avail. Take a look. It makes one wonder whether Wikipedia authors are in reality just a bunch of grade schoolers run amok.Sunray 03:49, 2004 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be an even-handed page discussing a real dispute. MK 05:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems even-handed to me. -- Khym Chanur 08:02, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This probably is as neutral as it gets anyway. Cat 10:42, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A non subject which exists merely to satisfy a right-wing agenda of smearing socialism G-Man 13:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a concept propounded by a Nobel Prize winner in economics, and it looks like they've made a serious effort to me to be even handed. We also have to give it the title which such economic and political figures outside of Wikipedia would use. Although of course, it's such a controversial topic, we may have a lot of trouble keeping this topic balanced. Average Earthman 17:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and severely edit. The Nazi party was purportedly socialist, and an examination of whether or not this is true, what socialism may have meant in a Nazi context, etc., is a good idea. This article is pretty bad, though, as most of it is a list of pros and cons and the rest is mostly unreadable... -Seth Mahoney 18:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep unless we intend to delete all articles in danger of becoming perpetual edit wars. The idea that Nazism was a variant of Socialism is factually wrong, but it lives its own life. The relationship between Nazism and Communism is worth a specific article which can be referred to. A section in a larger article is not as suitable to refer to.--Ruhrjung 20:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Hmm...this article is really awful as it currently standards. Among other things, it ought to be written in the form of an article, not a series of lists. And it doesn't present the issue as an argument between different sides, but merely as a series of acts that are presumed to be true. I think the article is virtually irredeemable as it stands, and would not oppose deleting. On the other hand, I think this is a valid topic for an article, if it could be done right. but it might be better just to delete and start from scratch. john 00:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. jengod 00:58, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The ones most difficult to make neutral are the ones that most deserve recognition here. Wally 03:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • For crying out loud, why are so many people voting to keep this drivel!!!???? If so many people are opposing the deletion of this loopy work of POV FICTION, what does get deleted around here!??? User:JoeM was banned for less! But at least there's one lesson to draw: pick a good article title, and you'll get away with anything on Wikipedia. 172 04:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, the drivel can in extenso be expelled to the talk page, and the article itself stubified, but the topic merits an article. If it's single-POV, then make it NPOV.--Ruhrjung 00:24, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I have to say that I vigorously object to your characterization of the article as "drivel". Not having been involved on it myself, I cannot speak to the goings-on during its authorship, but it IS a crucial issue, if a divisive one! My God, if anything the association between Nazism and Socialism has been sullying the name of socialism for decades, when the two clearly have very little in common. It's very much like the association between liberalism and communism; for far too long one has been interchanged, mistaken, mixed-up and confused with the other, and that is most definitely something that MUST BE ADDRESSED. He who forgets the past shall be damned to repeat it, I need not remind. Wally 06:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Can you explain why you think it's POV? After all the article has sections outlining both "Reasons Nazism is considered socialist" and "Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist" as well as providing cites for people who hold these positions. MK 06:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Any discussion should go in the National Socialism article, unless we also want to have Nazism and capitalism, Nazism and liberalism, Nazism and fascism, etc. —Tkinias 09:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep only after merciless editing. "Some opinions..."? Gee, sounds awfully POV to me! It is certainly a good topic, but Tkinias's point is on the money as well. A fine rewrite, john! Denni 22:11, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
• Delete. This is one page that really indicates how people without any background in a particular subject can force a ridiculous position on us simply by waving an NPOV banner. However, neutral point of view does not mean that any ignorant doggerel is to be valued. It means that we cannot take sides between two conflicting points of view with solid basis in well-established positions. Get rid of this crap. Danny 01:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I've done a complete rewrite of the article, essentially deleting everything there and starting from scratch. What is thought of this? john 07:06, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it's been reverted, but check it out in the history. If there is any support for it, I'll revert back. john 07:12, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Your version was 99% less crap-laden. It was an article rather than a debating forum. It's doomed. -- Nunh-huh 07:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Take it to Talk:Nazism and socialism Sam Spade 07:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I guess the SS has spoken. - Nunh-huh 08:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the re-write by John. It is an excellent overview of the debate about similarities between socialism and Nazism. It even reflects relevant aspects of the debate on Wikipedia. And, what is more, it is NPOV. Sunray 16:59, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
• Keep. The re-write by John is a work of art indeed. Move to place on excellent prose? ;-) Kim Bruning 17:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Important to understand the context of important, if infamous, aspects of history. Best arguments above to keep really are arguments to give even more context, and perhaps a name change. Kd4ttc 22:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. relevant topic. -- Taku 23:51, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Very relevant (especially since the Nazi Party was the "National Socialist Party). Jacob1207 15:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• The earlier article was better. RV to pre-Sam Spade version. Andylehrer 18:08, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Now it's a well written and very informative article; doesn't seem biased to me. --Kpalion 02:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The encyclopædia has absolutely no need to consistantly adopt a mainstream POV any more than it does a minority one. We cannot afford to go deleting every article dealing with specifics in WW2 simply because there are people who wish to deny that anything nasty went on during it. Falcon 21:46, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but consider protection to prevent tampering. Andylehrer 21:53, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)