The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Sein und Zeit: If you look up the page, you will find the thread#Houston Stewart Chamberlain, which was provoked by the attempt ofUser:Robinson98354 to removeHouston Stewart Chamberlain from the list of "People" in the sidebar. Now, hereyou 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 ofUser:English Patriot Man (who has hadmany socks)[5], 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,[6] as it is if you put inany of English Patriot Man's many socks, such asUser:Hashi0707.[7]
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)[reply]
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'sThe 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'sAn 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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- See, you really don't know what you're talking about. The SPI on QubixQdotta was filed on 22 August, and not by me.[8] -- 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)[reply]
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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- I don't engage substantively with socks, who are tedious anddisruptive 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)[reply]
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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- I accuse people of things who are deserving of accusation -- and youstill don't have a clue what you're talking about concerning your new buddy Qubix Qdotta, who hasadmitted 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 pullingyour 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)[reply]
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 inWP: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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed from this discussion comments by
User:Qubix Qdotta which violated
WP:OUTING, publishing private information about me which I wish to remain private. For those curious about the comments, the situation which QQ described is thoroughly dealt with at
User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory, which describes the entire circumstance, without the private information. I have informed QQ, on their talk page and in edit summaries, that if they attempt to out me again, I will bring the issue to the noticeboards.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
01:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is an archived record of arequest for comment.Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Regarding the general question of whether the sidebar should contain books that were influential, I believe there is
no clear consensus to support a blanket removal of all books from the sidebar. Based on editors comments, the particulars of suggested additions or removals should remain open for discussion as there is also
no consensus on a criteria for including books. Noting further that several editors have rightly raised concerns that any books that are included should be verfiably discussed in
WP:RS as having influenced Nazi
racial ideology. My recommendation would be to have specific discussion about additions and removals along these lines, without prejudice to future RfCs or dispute resolution regarding specific additions/removals.
Seraphim System(talk)23:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should the "Racial ideology" section of the sidebar contain in its list books which were influential in shaping the Nazi's racial ideology, such asHouston Stewart Chamberlain'sThe Foundations of the Nineteenth Century,Alfred Rosenberg'sThe Myth of the Twentieth Century,Arthur de Gobineau'sAn Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, Madison Grant'sThe Passing of the Great Race, and other books which consensus may find appropriate?Beyond My Ken (talk)02:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: !Votes andshort explicationsonly, 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 springde 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)[reply]
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)Indef block for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- yes its fine - the articles about each of these books make it clear that they are appropriate for the racial ideology section of the navbox. They could just as well be in a "books" subsection but this is fine too.Jytdog (talk)03:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No As per my comments above.@Kierzek: who commented above may also want to add their !vote here (I've no idea why a separate RfC has been started when comments had already been requested in the section above).Number5707:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but only as to "Mein Kampf". Otherwise, as I stated above, a link under the "list" section toList of books about Nazi Germany is more appropriate.Kierzek (talk)13:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No - The books don't appear to be explicity Nazi in ideology so I would say they should remain off the infobox. Perhaps they should be included in another template about a related subject they all have in common.[qub/x q;otta]▤▧23:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - but only if the books are specifically cited as being Nazi ideology.Toreightyone (talk)12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Partial(Summoned by bot) per Kierzek's suggestion, limit inclusion to small number of indisputably 'Nazi' texts, such as MK, but link to 'list' for those whichmay have influenced.Pincrete (talk)06:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Books RfC: Threaded discussion
[edit]User:Beyond My Ken, I have said it quite clearly that I approve of those books being included in the sidebar, as well asMein Kampf andThe Myth of the Twentieth Century but in a separate section titled 'Literature'.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.gAn 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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
(continued from above) 1)The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century did influence Nazi racial thought but some parts of it many Nazis would have disagreed with e.g Chamberlain included Slavs into the "Aryan race" and he says in the book "Though it were proved that there was never an Aryan race in the past, yet we desire that in the future there may be one. This is the decisive standpoint for men of action." I highly doubt Himmler would have agreed. 2) Gobineau'sAn Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races condemns antisemitism and praises the Jews on several occasions, again, I highly doubt any prominent Nazis would have agreed. 3) Grant'sThe Passing of the Great Race was just one of many books that influenced Nazi racial theory of Nordic supremacy. And again, the Nazis weren't coherent with their Nordic supremacy thinking. This is why it's important to distinguish between which books influenced Nazi racial ideology with a separate section and the actual racial ideologies themselves e.gmaster race,Lebensraum, etc in the 'Racial ideology' section. Nazi racial ideology was not consistent and was largely contradictory so to somehow place books which openly condemn certain aspects of Nazi racial ideology makes no sense.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (
talk)
23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- @Number 57: I started the RfC to help bring some clarity to the discussion, and to guarantee that there was sufficient time for the editors who regularly participate here to express their views, without undue pressure for a quick evaluation of "consensus".Beyond My Ken (talk)11:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beyond My Ken, you quickly addedAn Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races orThe 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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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 exampleBlood and Soil not Gobineau'sAn 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 aWP:NPOV assertion as it is without any doubtWP:UNDUE. --Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]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)Indef blocked for abusively using multiple accounts.Beyond My Ken (talk)23:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
17:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
