- This is a draft of a proposed RfC at Talk:Nazism. It is not a current RfC, so please do not comment on it as such. Please leave any comments on this draft at Talk:Nazism#Time for a formal RfC?. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫
RfC: Scope of the Nazism article edit
There has been an ongoing dispute at Nazism over the term national socialism (both capitalized as National Socialism and in lower case). National Socialism is often used to refer to Nazism; the dispute is about uses of the term which predate Nazism, and whether or not they are related to it. Some editors feel that uses of national socialism by people such as Ferdinand Lassalle and Johann Karl Rodbertus should be included as forerunners of Nazism. Other editors feel that such uses are not related to Nazism, and argue that including them amounts to synthesis unless evidence can be found in reliable sources that they are related. This RfC is an attempt to resolve this issue of scope through wider community input.
This dispute has generated a large volume of discussion. For details, see the thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and my original list of issues under dispute. Of particular relevance is the post at the original research noticeboard, in which Hans Adler points out the distinction between the German terms nationaler Sozialismus and Nationalsozialismus, both of which are translated as "national socialism" in English, but which are used in different contexts in German.
So, here is the statement I wish people to debate:
The Nazism article should only be about the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany and derivatives of it in other countries. It should only discuss uses of the term "national socialism" that can be specifically shown, in reliable third-party sources, to relate to the ideology of the Nazi Party of Germany.
Please indicate Agree or Disagree in the appropriate section, along with your rationale. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫