Talk:Nazi Germany

Predecessors and successors

The infobox contains a list of entities that are listed under the columns "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by". These look odd to me, i.e. Poland and France, for example, did not precede Nazi Germany, they were occupied by it. Likewise, Occupied Germany and Yugoslavia, among others, did not succeed it. The Weimar Republic is fine to keep as a predecessor, but not sure what to include as the successor(s), since the article does not discuss this. I seem to vaguely recall that West Germany may have assumed treaty obligations of Nazi Germany, but not sure.

Any feedback on this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This refers to the territories, not to the legal entities. Nillurcheier (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Except the headings are listed as Preceded by and Succeeded by. Successor state has a specific meaning in international law. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:,

Poland and France preceded it, because of many former German territories were recovered from them. Yugoslavia succeeded, because part of the former Carniola. WP infobox succession-predecession does not follow international law, see spefific discussion once at Austria-Hungary and the edit logs, unrecognized entities remained as well in the list, together with recognized ones. Btw. in war conditions - as I urged and clarified in many topics with various examples - blind adherence to the so-called inernational law may be POV and mutually exclusive, etc. We only agreed to remove such impossiblities, like a Polish underground/in exile organizations could be identified as a country or a territory. On the other hand, if the timeline covers interruptions or changes of status quo, the same entity may be as well predecessor and successor. These are the most important factors currently at first glance which should taken into account.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC))

France did not cease to exists, it continued. It was occupied, not disbanded.12:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Who said it ceased to exist?(KIENGIR (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC))

I find that entire section in the infobox totally non-informative without an explanation of exactly what is meant by “preceded” and “succeeded.” Normally terms like that are used (for example) in boxes referring to country leaders, where predecessors and successors filled the exact same role under discussion in the article. That’s not the case here. France was not “Third Reich” before Third Reich. The whole concept of the box doesn’t make any sense that I can see. Can someone please explain the rationale behind it? Preceded and succeeded as what? France was France before, during and after the war. This simple fact is what got the west involved in the war, because every country involved viewed the occupation as illegal. With that view in mind, what is this box really saying? 73.69.251.97 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The meaning is obvious, and this complaint is specious, bordering on trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Not everything that seems obvious to one is obvious to all. Let’s assume it is obvious to you. Okay, I can accept that. Can you accept that it’s meaning is not obvious to me and others involved in this discussion? That fact appears to be fairly obvious to me. If the meaning of the infobox section is that obvious to you then please humor us by answering the questions I asked. Show us how obvious it is. Humor us also by dispensing with unproductive accusations. Calling me a troll is a clear personal attack and waste of time. It is what those involved in the indefensible resort to when they believe they are being challenged. I’m not saying that’s what you are. I’m saying if you don’t want to appear as such, then simply engage in the discussion. I am not challenging the information. I cannot challenge what I cannot make sense of. I’m saying I cannot make sense of it as it is currently presented. So please explain what it means, as if I’m asking genuine questions that deserve genuine answers. Because that is exactly what I am doing. Thank you. 73.69.251.97 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Here’s a thought. After poking around a bit I think I understand now why this particular section of the infobox seems confusing to some readers. Example: The predecessor France is not actually linked to the France article, but to the article French Third Republic. Others are similarly NOT linked to main articles of the country/region as spelled out in the infobox. I propose the place names used in the infobox simply be changed to match the article titles to which they are linked. For me, following the links cleared up my confusion. Had the place names already been named as they are in the linked articles, I (and I assume many others) would not have been confused in the first place. How about the names in the box match the linked article names? Seems simple enough. 2601:180:103:6270:C003:4A19:8D24:D590 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Just stop this, obviously they are not linked to the articles of present-day countries, but the contemporary ones, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

• I agree this part of the infobox is confusing, even misleading. The predecessor to Nazi Germany was the Weimar Republic. The successor was West and East Germany. All the other states should be removed. An occupied state is not its occupier's predecessor state, nor does it become its occupier's successor state upon liberation. Nor do states become each other's predecessors or successors when alliances are formed or broken. Levivich ^harass/_hound 08:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Info refers to territories and is correct, if you take the max "legal" extention of Nazi Germany into account. Nillurcheier (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is a successor or predecessor territory? And what do you mean by "legal" extension? Levivich ^harass/_hound 11:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Some of the conquered territories were incorporated into the Reich. I agree though that this is confusing, and perhaps should be removed.— Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

if you look at the territory of 1937 (as many scholars do) territorial successors are Soviet Union, Poland, GDR and FRG (and Berlin). If you refer to the maximal incorporation around 1943, the mentioned countries share territories which have been part of the Nazi Reich at that time. Nillurcheier (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok just to be clear, it's not the history that I don't understand. I know how far the Nazis expanded and what those territories were before and after the expansion. The question is: why are we listing these "territory successors" and predecessors instead of listing the sovereign states that were successors and predecessors? When people look at the infobox for a sovereign state they will expect that "predecessor" and "successor" would be the predecessors and successors of the state not of the territory that the state held at any point in time. England is not the successor of Normandy. The USA is not the successor of indigenous tribes. Etc. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question: is there any source that describes France or Poland (or the other countries) as "predecessors" or "successors" of Nazi Germany? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

See earlier talks with Havsjö at Austria-Hungary (already archived) or the Second Polish Republic talk. Any territory which belonged to another state before is listed, even unrecognized entities, in full cover, commonly applied in inboxes. It does not define legal successors or predecessors of a state necessarily, but the belonging of the territories covered before and after (extensively and even interlaced, see e.g. several Yugoslavia or UkrSSR articles, etc.) Surprised some editors are/was not aware of this. As well, in many cases you would not be able to name any predecessor/succ of a state, because such would not exist, for various reasons (newly created, no legal continuity, totally abolished/destroyed, etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC))

Yes, many states don't have any predecessors or successors. W/r/t to Austria-Hungary and Second Polish Republic talk, I guess you're referring to Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 5#Fiume and Talk:Second Polish Republic#Content revert? I don't see those discussions are particularly illuminating here? Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. They are illuminating (ok, the AH talk is too short and specific between editors who already understood, but the other not), because if you read carefully this thread, some user's don't understand the concept of this pred-succ lists (=why some countries are in), the principles are fully explained.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC))

Everything in the infobox must be supported in the article, and what's in the article must be supported by a source. This global consensus is not negotiable. Further, we can't just say what we think are predecessors and successors: those words have specific meanings, and reliable sources explicitly describe the predecessors and successors of Nazi Germany. The predecessor (Weimar Republic) was already in the article; I've added the successor states (West Germany, East Germany, Austria) to the article, and updated the infobox to match what the article currently says. (The article's coverage of successor states could certainly still be expanded.) If we want to add France or Poland or any other country to the predecessor/successor fields in the infobox, we must first write the content in the article, with a source. There is no other way. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you misinterpret something, although you were explained, the, pred-suc chartbox does not contain what you say, but what have been explained, successors and predecessors on territory, as it is widely used everywhere, killing in one article the whole contructed predecessor/succession system which leads through over a millenia in the many chained articles is not a solution (but utterly avoidable like this), and as well in this discussion there was no consensus to be achieved for such change.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC))

Without sources saying Poland, France, or any other country, is a "predecessor" or "successor" of Nazi Germany, putting it in the infobox (or anywhere else in the article) is original research. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Best not spam the infobox with junk links a flags. Keep it simple...Allied-occupied Germany.--Moxy- 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about how it looks, it's about sources. Sources state what are the predecessors and successors of Nazi Germany. (And I don't think Allied-occupied Germany is a successor of Nazi Germany in any sense of the word. "Nazi Germany" was a state; "Allied-occupied Germany" was not a state, it was the absence of a state.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I understany your concern, but please see that even unrecognized entitites (=not (legal) states) are as well on the lists). I gave you good examples with the Yug or Ukr articles. This is meant for users to easily navigate between articless in a preceding/succeding way, chaining together the articles over the entities lifespan over time in a given territory. Again, if the approach you claim by legal successors and predecessors, many entries would became missing - as you acknowledged - since such entry may not exist, navigation would be stucked. Over 1000 articles may be effected, even if you say the given situation would be the weakest form of consensus. Excuse me, we cannot break this with a partisan action at one article, since then the symmetry would be harmed, this cannot be handled locally. I use it as well often if we wish to precisely see what was a fate of a state/entity and these helped me to very good locate the appropriate article I searched for. Also consider, if we open this can of worms, in many articles people will initiate endless debates to claim a state of their legal predecessor/successor, which would be at certain areas the subject of dispute (and yes, they would present their sources for even conflicting claims and it would never end). This is a very complex and difficult issue (I mean to find a new solution that would satisfy all claims and aspects). Once I wanted to make a reform and get rid of unrecognized entities, I quickly failed on that and was opposed. Now the practise is applied by adjacent timeline-interwall chaining, which means all entities are in the pred-succ list: the article has a scope intervall between A and B (A-B). Pred list contains everything that is touching A (pred=X-A), succ touches everything that is touching B (succ=B-Z) - simplified version for understanding.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC))

This chain that covers 1000 articles is all based on the two talk pages discussions you linked to? Wasn't there an RFC or something? Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course not, you may randomly check any state/entity article and you'll find the same navigational structure over the chain of articles. It is not known so far that any kind of RFC or anything has been discussed in the past regarding this...they have have been just implicitly formed over a decade.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

You're right about it being like this for over a decade (Special:Permalink/416234457) more or less. But do you acknowledge that you do not know of any sources that use the words "predecessor" or "successor" to describe Poland and Nazi Germany? I'm not keen on opening up a can of worms over infobox parameters that have been more or less stable for 10+ years. But I don't get how it's a navigational aid to list Poland as both a successor and predecessor (Poland and the other countries are on both sides of the chain, both forwards and backwards), as opposed to a navigational confusion. And most importantly, I can't point to any sources that use the words "predecessor" or "successor" to describe Poland and Nazi Germany. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not aware of any sources that describe Nazi Germany as being a successor to Poland for example, or, conversely, Allied-occupied Germany being a successor to Nazi Germany. If such sources cannot be found, then these extraneous and counter-factual entries should be removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, but not just here, but in vast majority in articles...you are riding on words, the infobox templates and parameters are suffering from many inconsistencies and inaccuracies ingeneral, you should not take any terminology or expression mentioned there as something carved in a stone, given the fact that parameters may appear in a different names as they are coded...if you don't understand the princpiple of interlaced pred-succ chaining, just check Kingdom of Italy which helps with dates. That means, in both sides may be entities that preceded and even succeded them, given the territorial changes during it's lifespan. Analyze Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which is a good example of this, until that principle is not fully understood, we should not go on further.

K.e.coffman, with respect, please a bit "open your eyes". In WP, country articles are following by a successive chain. Like Duchy of Austria->Archduchy of Austria->Austrian Empire->Cisleithania->Republic of German-Austria->First Austrian Republic->Federal State of Austria->Austria under National Socialism->Allied-occupied Austria->Austria (this is an easier example with less divergence, highlighting and narrowing to the Austrian states mainly). Just because in WP the successive article's name is Allied-occupied Germany, it does not mean Nazi Germany was not followed by that, it was, lifespan 1945-1955, and after again the wheels of history turned, see there the pred-succ list there. Those navigator instances are not connection with RS, and counterfactual outcome would only happen if we would follow what you propose. Read back if it's not clear, it's about territory, not about legal successors or predecessors neither how the article is named in WP, nor one narrowed interpretation of the exact word parameter shown.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

Just because it's done that way on other articles doesn't mean it makes sense for this article. If the consensus is that it's confusing and not relevant for this article, then it can and should come out. See for example where Roman Empire does not list every country ever conquered by the Romans – it only lists Roman Republic→Eastern and Western empires.— Diannaa (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense, if we don't want to break symmetries and create inconsistencies (technically on the local consensus you are correct, but it should be really theoretical). I hope you realized that your example fails, since the two entity which is lited as sucessors covers the entire territory of it (it is not about listing "every country conquered", it seems you don't understand the issue appropriately, it is about territorial coverage of a preceding or succeding entities, please read back).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC))

I think we've gotten about as far as we can in this discussion. I figure let's pick a country and have an RFC, so I've started an RFC about Poland below at #RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox. Hopefully the RFC will provide some general guidance and we won't need an RFC about every country. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1988-106-29, Leni Riefenstahl bei Dreharbeiten.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

Change this anthem file with an old recording, rather than modern U.S. Navy Band version, because the anthem of Nazi Germany has only one stanza from Deutschlandlied and Horst-Wessel-Lied. 2001:4452:4AE:8A00:3C95:88E4:3568:4F91 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC) File:Deutschlandlied (first stanza).oga

Done. I absolutely agree, only the first stanza was used as the co-official anthem of the Reich, and it is the reason why it's censored in this modern day and age. PyroFloe (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this version is much more appropriate. My one complaint is that this file doesn't have the translated English subtitles pop up when playing. Is it possible to add those? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

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.

---

Yes,

we discussed this and you seem to understand it. PyroFloe made many good faith, but erroneus and sloppy edits at several articles. Even by your argumentations small-f does not define the state as the sloppy edits would describe, it was a National Socialist State, and the Nazi is enough defining, this is not a case study of the relations of Nazism and Fascism. Moreover, this paremeter is a government type parameter, and a fascist state is not a government, etc. I suggest you think twice and carefully listen arguments.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

Nazism is a form of fascism. Please stop removing the description from the article against the consensus of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, some relation between them does not mean them equal, not even by in a terminological way. I don't know what consensus you are talking about, I was reverting a bold edit, so the opposite is true about what you are saying.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

I'm saying that several editors have undone your removal of "fascist", and that constitutes a working de facto consensus, if not a formal one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop misleading edit logs, you are edit warring, I just restored the status quo. No, one editor reverted, but after she understood my argumentation, so your deduction fails. Please revert yourself.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

No, I will not, considering that you've now reverted three editors. Just because you consider the original edit to be BOLD doesn't means you can discount your revert. Per WP:BRD, a revert of a bold edit is supposed to be followed by a discussion, something which you only did after two other editors reverted your revert.

Please note that the article has been categorized in "Fascist states" since 2016, and Diannaa herself added a reference to the NSDAP being a "fascist party" in 2019, so the add of "Fascist" to the infobox was not in any respect a bold edit.

I do not want to report you for edit warring, but I will if you give me no choice by continuing to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop repeatedly mischarachterizing the issue. Now after you realized you did a mistake and arguing differently. I reverted a legitimate way the first editor, as a bold addition (yes it was bold, since it was not there), after Diannna asked me about something, I clarified, she understood (an administrator). After you did what you did, despite I entered in the talk page. What you do is clearly, against wikietiquette, since you are an experienced editor, as me and we know what is the protocoll, BRD, status quo ante, etc. So your reference to the earlier is boomerang. Hence, any report you would make, would be a failure since requirements would not meet, but may have an opposite outcome. I think you should calm down and in the future follow the etiquette with a cold head, as our relation always had been professional and were based on mutual respect.

The Fascist state category is just as enough to resolve this issue, this category is anyway sloppy creation, used at many instances erronouesly, it's a broad concept umbrella. However I could as well recommend you the German article on NS-Staat, which as well clearly describe if even later it has been called "fascistic", or in the Communism everything has been labelled as Fascist, indeed the state was an unprecedented Nazi state, uncomparable with any other in his kind, a new model, and Nazism is well defining, if someone seeks connection/similaritiers to fascism, it may be substracted in other articles. As well, a government type as I explained is semantically different issue. Nazi Germany was a National Socialist state, not a Fascist state, the relation of degree of the ideologies are not to be confused with something else, hence no consensus for this addition.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

I've changed nothing, and I made no mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Where and when did your discussion with Diannaa take place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There was no discussion. He likely assumed I agreed when I chose to not engage in an edit war over this. The truth is, I think the description of Nazi Germany as a fascist state is an apt one, and it should remain in the infobox.— Diannaa (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, so we have a formal working consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should remain, even though Nazism had other aspects to it, beyond fascism. Kierzek (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was a fascist totalitarian dictatorship. Fascist is one of its most important distinctions, since the Nazi state exemplified the authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization that constitutes the term. Moreover, much of the Nazi organization's early ideals and practices (as we all know) mimicked the Fascist Party under Mussolini. That being said, the Oxford Thesaurus of the English language itself lists the following words as synonymous with fascism: AUTHORITARIANISM, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, isolationism; neo-fascism, neo-Nazism; corporativism, corporatism--Obenritter (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond my ken, you did. This the status quo ([1]), revision, which is not equal with the edit you performed. With Dianna we just interacted in edit logs so far, she is a nice editor, however not necessarily an expert in these areas, as well we met in similar topics where amendments had to made for accuracy, similarly to you or other editors. Kierzek, you have the point, but you should drop the emotional issue and remain professional. Obernritter, terminologically as well this is not a valid designation. Just because they share some charachteristic, it does not mean we just collect some variables, group them and if they share a few or more with other considered elements of an ideology, then we add the as genuine, it's quite synth or or-ish. The government type parameter already contains Nazi piped with Nazism, and that's enough defining, in that article the reader could read the relations of fascism. The rest I already said, unfortunately many times Anglo-Saxons do not really understand appropriately many akin things in the topic area (even outside), they just throw to everything as fascism, believeing they "justify" something. I am very sorry the the result of new, sloppy bold edit of PyroFloe caused this mess (which most of the articles have been reverted wholly of partially because of it's mistakes), however much more sorry about the lack of professionalism here, hence I have to uphold everything I said.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

• Keep the "fascist state" in the infobox. Applicable and useful to the reader. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

We should inform the reader adequately and accurately, not just based on solely what it may be probably understood. Appropriate terminology should not be a subject of a community vote, but professionality.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

It is unfortunate for you that six editors disagree with your assessment concerning the addition of "Fascist state" to the infobox, while one appears to agree with you (see below), but has yet to present any real evidence to support their opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For me? This an encyclopedia, it is unfortunate for the readers primarily, it has nothing to with how many editors you list on any side, this is not a vote, irrelevant. Only what matters, accurate and adequate information, in the end. Btw., this comment of yours was completely unnecessary, take a break or cool down, as I recommended more times.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

It is a WP:CONSENSUS discussion, and when six seven (see below) editors are on one side of the issue, and one (and perhaps another) are on the other, the consensus is quite clear, something you seem loathe to admit. You very much need to WP:Dropthestick. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you should stop bullying me and being unfriendly, you go by far, better try to interpret appropriately what I have written. I now what means consensus, and yes it is a consensus discussion, but consensus itself is not solely a vote per policy, this is what I referred. Hence your statement about "you seem loathe to admit" is a complete speculation, in a bad faith manner. I ask you to abandon any unconstructive comments which are not directly related to the content, hence your comment made by your 10:33, 15 February 2021 entry tried to insist some kind of WP:WINNING, but our encylcopedia is not about that (hence I said it was unnecessary). Dropping the stick you should as well interpret to yourself. Mind also WP:AGF. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

• Keep the "fascist state" in the infobox, Germany in this period is practically the poster boy for fascist state.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually it is Mussolini's Italy.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

Actually it is both.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your opinion, I disagree. Italy is that, or we could say Spain and some other countries may had open declared fascist traits which are notable. However, any expert knows the distinction and it's level, which is evident in the "non-Anglo-Saxon" Europe on the given period.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

OK, do you have one RS that sats it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You mean reverse engineering, something should be denied not stated, or vice versa? See e.g. Z. B. Reinhard Kühnl: Der deutsche Faschismus in Quellen und Dokumenten, Köln 1975; Jürgen Kuczynski: Geschichte des Alltags des deutschen Volkes. Studien 5: 1918–1945, Berlin 1982. "Marxistische Historiker in der früheren DDR und in Westdeutschland nutzten in diesem Fall Begriffe wie „deutscher Faschismus“ oder „faschistische Diktatur" -> clearly such notions were coined later in the Communist period.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

I can't read German, maybe you would be so kind as to quite the relevant passages?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Marxist historians in the former East Germany and in West Germany used the "German Fascism" and "fascist dictatorship" terms in this case".(KIENGIR (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

And? This is not saying no one else has said it. [[2]], so you need a serouce saying it was not facist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Answered below.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

• Keep the "fascist state" in the infobox, as I have already explained. Kieniger's explanations do not accord academic consensus in the English or German-speaking sources. The Nazi government was multi-faceted and unique but fascism was part of its makeup. In Duden's Wörterbüch, they also list the following synonyms with Nazism: Hitlerfaschismus; (Politik) and Faschismus. The contention that this categorization is an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon fails and so it is an imperative to keep it.--Obenritter (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Synonyms of an ideology does not qualify an entity as "fascist state", necessarily, it is a more complex issue (seriously, Duden Wörterbuch?). I disagree German-speaking sources would accord to that what you say, hence I recommended the overview of the German Wikipedia on this, in which such issues are treated even more strictly then here. I agree Anglo-Saxon sources are not best, but as well in on other areas some sources are far from being accurate.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

You can disagree all you want and try to ridicule the use of dictionaries that use Nazism as a synonym for fascism, but you are wrong in this case. I can cite dozens of academic sources in German or English from noted historians of the Third Reich and I suspect you'll still try and make your point. You have a history of edit warring BTW and this long and silly argument is another example of that. Per eminent German Third Reich scholar, Wolfgang Benz: "As the most radical manifestation of fascist ideology, characterized by a corporatist social order, by non-normative violence, the suppression of the workers' movement and strict anti-communism, by racist exclusion of minorities up to genocide and expansionism (“living space”), National Socialism (Nazism) gained power in Germany in 1933." (See: Wolfgang Benz, "Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus. Die Folgen für das Verständnis von Pluralismus und Toleranz in Europa," in Religiöser Pluralismus und Toleranz in Europa, eds. C. Augustin, J. Wienand, and C. Winkler C. (VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2006), p. 69. ISBN: 978-3-531-14811-3)--Obenritter (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Obenritter,

I did not ridicule anything, I draw the attention that a disctionary's list of possible synomyms are far away form the complex subject we are discussing (and you should know that as an experienced editor). "You have a history of edit warring BTW and this long and silly argument is another example of that" -> Excuse me, what history you refer exactly? Without jugding further it's validity, how it would be related to this content issue? Or, how a talk page discussion with arguments would have any connection of what you stated? What do you mean by silly argument? May I tell you to remain strictly professional and do not deteriorate from the real subject? Could you present the whole sentence Benz stated? Btw. I suggest you to read my answer to Slatersteven.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

You've failed to academically prove/substantiate your point (which makes this a silly argument), you've ignored the consensus opinion that fascism is part and parcel to Nazism, you've implied the inferiority of Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking scholarship on this subject (which is highly offensive BTW), and you're currently deflecting since I provided a direct quote from a noted scholar (albeit translated since I speak both languages) and converted it to English for the reading ease of my fellow English-speaking editors. However, so you can read it for yourself in German -- here is Benz's quote: "Als radikalste Ausprägung faschistischer Ideologie, gekennzeichnet durch eine korporatistische Gesellschaftsordnung, durch außernormative Gewalt, Unterdrückung der Arbeiterbewegung und strikten Antikommunismus, durch rassistische Ausgrenzung von Minderheiten bis zum Genozid und Expansionsstreben („Lebensraum“), erhielt der Nationalsozialismus 1933 in Deutschland die Macht." --Obenritter (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

JUst FYI -- the book you cited, which was edited by Reinhard Kühnl, is a collection of documents explicitly about how the Nazis were fascists. In the Amazon.de description of the book, it states that its "350 documents make it possible to develop a well-founded picture of the fascist dictatorship, its political and social foundations and requirements." You have undermined your own arguments. Why am I even having this conversation? Geesh. --Obenritter (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

- "You've failed to academically prove/substantiate your point (which makes this a silly argument)" -> did the discussion finish? Were you able to do what you consider from me missing? Excuse me, even if it would be as you say, it does not qualify the arguments silly

- "you've ignored the consensus opinion that fascism is part and parcel to Nazism" -> false, read back

- "you've implied the inferiority of Anglo-Saxon/English-speaking scholarship on this subject (which is highly offensive BTW)" -> this is your overexaggerated observation. Indeed, Anglo-Saxon scholarship widely endorse the idea of Austro-Hungarian citizenship, which never existed in world history (just one example). It has not nothing to with inferiority, just some erroneous parts possible.

- "deflecting" - why would be "deflecting" if I ask for the complete sentence, to properly interpet, precisity would be a "deflection"? (at least I carefully read and evaluate everything, possibly unlike some others in this discussion)

- Thank you for prividing the full quote. Why do you think this quote would prove to be the country of begin fascist state? It tells about National Socialist ideology, which rised to power in 1933. The infobox contains "Nazi", piped to the relevant article in which the relation to fascism is explained.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

You addition I noticed later, it would have been better if you'd wait for an answer, before judging again too quickly. "picture of the fascist dictatorship" would mean the definition of a fascist state? We could discuss about common points, but can we state it would be a fascist state like Italy, or classic fascist states?(KIENGIR (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

I can't see this going anywhere until at least one RS is provided that says "Germany was not fascist". Until then this is pointless and a waste of time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then I react here you, not to your above answer. Your source speaks about the ideology of Fascism related, but mentions a Nazi state. The issue is not about the degree of fascism related to Germany, try to understand the issue appropriately.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

[[3]] "One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany" (my enmpahsis), The Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazi Germany - Page 54 "Nazi Germany was a Fascist state", The Key to Understanding Global History - Page 347 "Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. ", Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler: The Nazi Holocaust Masterminds - Page 45 " Nazi Germany was a Fascist state. ", this is nows disruptive, drop it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You rush to quickly, one back and forth answer on new point (especially you presented a new source) cannot be disruptive. With the first source you still remained on the ground that I just explained. You presented other two references stating it was a Fascist State (wow, finally we are at the point). Can you demonstrate this view prevails, how it is compated with Nazi state or NS-Staat, National Socialist State or similar, even foreign languages?(KIENGIR (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

We have provided sources, explicitly supporting our contention, you have failed to provide one backing yours. It is not down to us to do any more work, it is down to you to demonstrate this labeling of Nazi Germany as fascist is in fact contested by any RS. Either put up or stop nowSlatersteven (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

To further substantiate Slatersteven's point, here are some books dealing with Nazi Germany's fascism and what led/contributed to or bolstered it, and its consequences:

• Sohn-Rethel, Alfred. Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism. London, CSE Bks, 1978.
• Hutton, Christopher M. Linguistics and the Third Reich: Mother-tongue Fascism, Race, and the Science of Language. New York: Routledge, 1998.
• Childers, Thomas. The Nazi Voter: The Social Foundations of Fascism in Germany, 1919-1933. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1983.
• Fritzsche, Peter. Rehearsals for Fascism. Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
• Herzog, Dagmar. Sexuality and German Fascism. New York: Berghahn Books, 2004.
• Martin, Elaine. Gender, Patriarchy, and Fascism in the Third Reich: The Response of Women Writers. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993.
• Mason, Tim. Nazism, Fascism and the Working Class. Edited by Jane Caplan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• Sünker, Heinz, and Hans-Uwe Otto. Education and Fascism: Political Identity and Social Education in Nazi Germany. Knowledge, Identity and School Life Series, vol. 6. London: Falmer Press, 1997.
• Kallis, Aristotle. Fascist Ideology: Territory and Expansionism in Italy and Germany, 1922–1945. London: Routledge, 2000.

Beyond this...I am done with this discussion.--Obenritter (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank You, however again, the question is not the relation/degree of fascism, but the Fascist state designation. I would be happy to see how the term is used in comparison the other examples I gave. That may settle this debate, even for clarity.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

We have provided sources, explicitly stating "Fascist state", unless you can show this designation is contested by RS there is no debate to be had, we go with what RS say. This is my lat word here, you do not have wp:consensus so provide a source to back your position or drop the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to repeat your comments, I read above. Just quickly a few for Nazi state , , . However, today I won't spend more time on this subject. Other editors with good faith could make/expand the analysis I asked.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

References

Well the jewishvirtuallibrary source does not even contain the word fascist, can you provide a quote for the other two that say it was not fascist?Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, but please note only later I will return, but I answer for this yet know. Your question is not logical. We use sources to support something, not necessarily deny something. If you you'd ask me to provide a source for that Greenland is a 20km2 little island, I don't have to provide a source which literally denies that is is NOT a 20km2 little island (hence coined you reverse engineering earlier). Thus I don't have to provide anything, that would state it is not Fascist. Being a Nazi state does not exlude Fascist elements or the relation to the Fascist ideology (which most of you conflate and stress on), but still not identical (again the issue is NOT the degree of relation).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

You do if you want to challenge it, if You want to remove a claim you have to show it is not valid. We have sources that support fascist, so by your logic, we include it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven,

it seems you did not understand what I just told you, I suggest you to read back (hence as well what you suggest "by your logic" flaws). We have sources to support Nazi as well. The two does not exlude each other, so I don't have to show such what you claim, however as per the above demonstrated example your claim would be anyway completely illogical. While Fascism is a greater umbrella term, Nazism is specified close qualifier, and by logic we refer to best near unique sufficient one. As well, if we want to demonstrate Elton John's birthplace in the infobox, we don't write out Milky Way, Solar System, Planet Earth or Europe, but we call the spade as a spade, England. Similarly we don't have to list all charachteristics and relations of Nazism, like far-right, fascist, racist etc., but we put the most defining qualifier, which is Nazism. Nazi Germany was a Nazi (National Socialist) State, as it's government was Nazi, this term is well defyning, even in line with the categorization of our platform, and we ignore superflous and redundant categories, but we put the closest child. Hence, if we have both sources for Fascist state and Nazi state, those who wish to insert the earlier have the ONUS to prove it's validity. per commons sense and logic, this whole issue should not exist, per the earlier demonstrations, since Nazi is well defining as first child (even in relation to Fascism), however there are some good faith but less expert users who somehow feel to push the Fascist state designation over a well-established designation just because another user's sloppy bold edit - which have been reverted almost every another article wholly or partially - have surfaced this somehow, and now we are here. So, if none of you see what's the problem, than prove Fascist prevail over the Nazi designation (for the state of course, if we ignore at this level that a Government parameter in the infobox is about a Goverment, not a state, hence the current addition is even semantically incorrect). Please assure me - or anyone - before answering that you fully understood what I have written, and if not ask before going forward. Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

Yes WE know that, its what we are saying, Nazi Germany can be both. We go with what RS say, and RS say it was a fascist state. RS do not (for example) give both places as Earth, Sol, Mutter speiral, so we don't. Again we do not need to prove it, as we have proved sources that say it, it is now down to you to prove its contested, not by omission, but by objection. I understand what you are saying, I do not agree with it, you have to obey our policies, and that means wp:v and wp:or, we go with what RS say, we have shown they say this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, here is o what the info box says "Unitary Nazi one-party fascist state under a totalitarian dictatorship" (emphasis mine) so we do say it was a nazi state, we say it was both (which it was).Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there is consensus here that fascist should be included, I would add my voice to it. Boynamedsue (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven,

I think you still don't understand it well. Nazi Germany is primarily (and accurately) a National Socialist=Nazi state. RS say as well Fascist state (you finally gathered two instances after a long-long discussion where mostly the folks erroneously though the issue would be to prove the connection to Fascism, huh (!)), but I quickly shown as well the same about Nazi state. The Elton example you did not grasped it seems, "England" would correlate with Nazi, while Fascist state would correlate with Europe. Hence your last two sentences are null and void because, since you did not understand that we have RS for BOTH, but logic and even categorization support my statement on this this. So you have to prove (ONUS) that Fascist State prevails over Nazi state. Do you understand? (however, all of this became irrelevant, because of the semantical error I referred and will refer again)

On your further statement, do you understand that a government is NOT a state? Hence the sentence is semantically failed in that context? Unitary Nazi one-party totalitarian dictatorship is NOT semantically failed, do you see the difference?

Boynamedsue, nice to see you. Did you read fully the discussion, did you understand the issue fully? Do you understand Nazism is considered a subset of Fascism, hence well defining? Do you understand the semantical and procedural mistakes are ignored by others?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

I understand that we base our edits on reliable sources, of which many exist that state Nazi Germany was a fascist state. I think that's all there is to say, unless you have reasons based on Wikipedia policies rather than your personal logical interpretation. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Also many exist saying it was a Nazi state. But you ignored one question, do understand (in general) that the government infobox parameter is meant for the decription of a government and not a state, hence any addition that would contain state with an attributed qualifier does not belong there?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

An appeal

• KIENGIR It appears from your comments here that you believe that of the 8 editors involved in this discussion, you are the only one who "understands the issue fully". You have questioned a number of the participants as to whether they fully or correctly understand the issue, apparently in the belief that if they fully understood, they would have to agree with you. This is, frankly, insulting to the intelligence of those editors, and you need to stop.
  You have accepted nothing of the evidence and arguments that have been offered in opposition to your position as being valid, which has begun to appear to be an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is not constructive behavior. In fact, it is the very definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, in particular per WP:REHASH

  If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a long, hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.

  You really must stop this, you're beginning to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. Yes, certainly, it is legitimate to attempt to build a consensus, but you are not doing that, because every single editor who has become involved in this discussion has rejected your position. You cannot "build" a consensus if no one agrees with you.
  I implore you, please WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You have made your point, we all understand your position, we recognize that your arguments are serious ones, and that you believe them to be true, but the fact of the matter is you have failed to convince anyone that "fascist state" should be removed from the infobox, and your repeating your arguments ad infinitum is not going to change that.
  Please take a moment to reconsider your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You are certainly overeaxaggerating again. There are much more longer discussion and debates in WP, and the strenght of the arguments matter, you base everything one the number of editors. I did not say everybody have to agree with me, but try to separate things ok popularity vs. exact matters. Sorry, just because in an issue more editors do not understand something, it's not my fault, not even an insult, since at certain areas WP:CIR is required. WP:HEAR is not on me, on the contrary the opposite would seem (and yes, not construtive indeed). WP:DE WP:TE does not hold, with this accusations even another editor failed. I brought always new aspects of the arguments, and if an editor did not understand, I tried to explain better. I examine evertything with extreme care and computational/logical precisity, I am famous about, but you have to understand at the field of the "exact" areas which cannot dealth like we would vote if what color we would like in the infobox. I had never problem to acknowlegde if I have wrong, but this could not be proved. I told you about the engineering view, which is sharp and exact, like in mathematics/logics, what you try to demonstrate here would may be valid in non-exact fields. Consensus building is a process, and just because at a certain point there is no agreement, it does not mean we could not go on or in the end establish a point (again, there are much more longer discussions with a much more bigger duration time).

Moreover, I think you are to sudden, a to much caring about me, chasing me, instead of concentrating on content issues, and with this you not just steal time from me, but yourself (because instead of replying you again, I could have improved other articles, and could only once engage hear a day). Unfortunately it appear like you'd hunt me, just because you don't like my arguments or whatsover, and insisting to suppress me, this is against wikietiquette, especially after the useless SPI show I kindly asked you to return here with good faith and give time, despite you again can't just stop! I am discussing with now a newly engaged editor, please in the future just and only approach me with content issues.

P.S. See your own blockquote put here, did you apply that? Would you acknowledge that a government is not a state? (outside the fascist/nazi terminology)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

No, KIENGIR, we are not going to set up false equivalences, this is about your behavior, not mine. I've already gotten a "Thanks" from one of the other editors in this discussion for posting this appeal. If you're not going to take the steps I suggest, to reconsider your behavior in this discussion, then I'll have to take other steps. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

On WP:AN, I've requested that someone close this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is not about yours, because I don't chase you and I did not do any steps against your often unfriendly behavior, although I could, but my time here is very precious, and I have applied the utmost good faith towards you, but I am sorry you ignored the same towards me, especially after today's SPI you could really put yourself a bit more moderate. I also got thanks many of my edits, I am sorry you ignore content issues. Not professional, not elegant I am heavily disappointed. You can do anything you want, I never intended to limit you by any means (it would be unprofessional). Would you also request to close the issue at Talk:List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation?(KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

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.

RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox

Should Poland be listed as a predecessor or successor in the infobox of Nazi Germany? RFC posted 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Neither (RFC initiator) due to lack of sources using the words "predecessor" or "successor" to describe Poland and Nazi Germany. This RFC has been advertised at WikiProjects MilHist, Politics, Germany, and Poland. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither. I don't see how a (temporarily!) annexed state can be counted as a predecessor or successor of Nazi Germany - the Polish government in exile continued to exist as well. It would be another thing if the Nazis had managed to annex Poland for any extended period of time, but the thousand year reich didn't last that long in the grand scheme of things.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:, please the read above section (in case you did not) of the initial discussion (Predecessors and successors), it has nothing to with legal/recognition etc. issues, just solely territorial coverage, you may as well review my other comments, feel free to debate me :-) (KIENGIR (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

• Both The navigation box correctly indicates that Polish areas were annexed into Nazi Germany, as well as the fate of these areas. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Two questions about that rationale: If both Poland and the Weimar Republic are listed in the infobox as "predecessors", in what way does the infobox tell the reader that one of those was a predecessor state, and the other was an annexed territory? Is there any source that refers to a territory annexed by Nazi Germany as a "predecessor" or "successor" of Nazi Germany, or is calling these annexed states "predecessors" and "successors" an example of original research? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  See my vote below. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, did you understand from the above discussion that by the pred/succ list it is irrelevant the entitity's status, if it was annexed or not or anything, since it's about territorrial predecession and sucession?(KIENGIR (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

• Neither. General Governorate for the Occupied Polish Region (Part of Nazi Germany ) is correctly labelled with predecessor and successor. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither, and trim the others tooSee clarification below. We don't (or shouldn't) have post-WWI France as a successor of the German Empire because of Alsace... Same logic here. Simply because of territorial claims/annexation (which are issues too complex to be convincingly covered in an infobox) doesn't give us free rein to engage in WP:OR about the matter. Were any of these recognised as successor/predecessor states of Nazi Germany on more than just the territorial/annexation level? Don't think so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Per the reliable sources I found, we should remove everything except Germany and Austria for the successors and the predecessors (which particular variant might be ironed out through the regular editing process). Also dubious whether we should include Austria in the predecessors (the Anschluss is also a complex process for which an uncommented line in the infobox might do disservice), but that is also another discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• Say what reliable sources say - Kinda a revolutionary idea, but perhaps we should follow what the RSs say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Mind being a wee bit more direct in your viewpoint? While I guess you intend to say what we're all saying, ... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't really say that I've thought all that much about the specific information in the field. All I'm saying is that, in general, information in infoboxes has a tendency to be very OR-ish, whereas it's not actually exempt from the same WP:V requirements as any other information, even if it's seldom explicitly referenced and relies instead on having been referenced in the article (much like the lede). Therefore, when there's a dispute like this, the disputed information should be referenced, and if there's no references in reliable sources, should be deleted - and that goes for all the predecessors/successors.

It seems to me this RfC is putting the cart before the horse, since there's nothing, really, for a consensus to determine, because none of the information is verified or referenced, and we're all sorta relying on our common sense and personal knowledge and PoVs. I'd say, remove all the pre/suc information, add back only that which can be referenced, and if there's a dispute about those references, then have an RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, when I take an article to GA, everything is checked/sourced, including the infobox, so it was pretty correct at that point. Some of the infobox (you likely recall the issue with the map) has been edit-warred in and out several times. I don't always take part in these, so sometimes things stay in that are not actually my preference, or the way it was when it passed GA.— Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't take my comment as a criticism of your stewardship of the article, I was speaking more generally about infoboxes throughout Wikipedia, in which people have a tendency to play a little fast and loose with information because it seems obvious on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Neither Infoboxes are not meant to capture such complex matters. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither, and remove the others too. I suggest Weimar Republic → West and East Germany.— Diannaa (talk) 21:39, March 1, 2021 (UTC)
  • Despite my comment above, that would seem to be the simplest and cleanest option, which I believe would already be referenced in the body of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • The infobox said Weimar Republic → Flensburg Government at the time it passed GA, so that's another option.— Diannaa (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The Flensburg Government was not a "successor", it was a continuation of the Nazi regime. Hitler personally selected the President (Admiral Dönitz), Chancellor (Goebbels) and ministers (Bormann, Seyss-Inquart, Giesler, et al.), and they were all ardent Nazis, including Dönitz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I withdraw the Flensburg Government suggestion in that case.— Diannaa (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuation and succession does not differ in this context, the article's scope and timeline determines what will be predecessor or successor (see the equation of the above discussion).(KIENGIR (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

• What Beyond My Ken said. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither for Poland and some other countries listed as well, per User:RandomCanadian.--Darwinek (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both, per common practice for infobox former country which treats preceding/succeeding fields as a purely geographical question. Not sure why Poland is being singled out either, there are plenty of other currently listed polities which were not political successors to Nazi Germany. CMD (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both, and anyone who vote here has to read and understand completely the above discussion (Predecessors and successors) in order to consider their vote having a serious weight, since even this local question and one of it's results could cause serious discrepancies which could have an effect over thousands articles. As outlined, that part of the infobox is for navigational, chaining/linking purposes, having predecessive and successive entities which anytime shared a drop of the actual entity's territory, hence we may follow up the events and fate any of it. This entity had territories from Poland, and Poland had territories as well from this entity, so the actual situation is correct (and I did not enter any recognition/entity status issue, because if we would, it would cause endless debates, since sources will justify even conflicting viewpoints, hence the very easy approach of anytime having territory without taking sides is the most easy and adequate approach, and the most neutral one). I also cannot pretend that the Ottoman Empire did not occupy?/annex?/gather?/by treaty? (irrelevant at this point) or did not have a share of Hungary at the certain point of history, eliminating from the chaining as it was not recognized would be stupid. I feel here the some arguments have a stress pattern that the subject is Nazi Germany, and people approach thus question by emotion, ohh, we cannot even make such look like than any drop of territory this entity had would be by any means correct, since the result may depict supporting such, and we hate Nazis, beat 'em, it just cannot happen, and we behave like an ostrich. Summa summarum, I am not surprised, why this issue did not came up at the Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526) article, e.g. to eliminate Ottoman Empire. Professionality means, we don't judge by emotions or expected trends/ideas to follow, but neutrally, as is, shall we like what happened in history or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC))
• Neither I prefer to mention legal predecessors and successors, not territorial. Btw: Should "Saar" be mentioned as successor? At least it was kind of independant for 12 years? Nillurcheier (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither, and delete the rest. Concur with Weimar Republic as predecessor and → West and East Germany as successor. This is what is historically recognized as significant in this regard. --Obenritter (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither, and trim the others too As others have said, this seems an odd way of describing conquered nations. But if we have others we should also have Poland. If we keep the others then I would have to yes, as Poland does not deserve special consideration.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither and remove all countries except Austria and Occupied Germany and fragments from both preceded and succeeded lists. All the countries named (even Luxembourg!) retained legal governments in exile, and German occupation was never internationally recognised. By this time successor states had a specific legal meaning which implies a transfer of legal obligations. No legal obligations from the Reich were transferred to the "successor states". Also, no reliable sources, so there is no valid argument whatsoever in terms of WP. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither - An RFC is not a way of getting around WP:V. Do we have sources saying that Poland was either a successor or a predecessor of Nazi Germany? No. End of story because WP:V says anything on Wiki has to be verifiable in reliable sources. The similarity between the arguments made here and the arguments being made in this RFC about whether Poland should be listed as a member of the Axis powers are striking, and it appears to be part of the same phenomenon. FOARP (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both - Why remove clear info that shows nothing but what countries whos territory was gobbled up (into being a direct part of Germany, not just occupied) and then "de-annexed"? How is this confusing anyone or necessary to remove? I can guarantee this will also only introduced further arguments of removing nuance both here and at other places with stuff like "West/East Germany should be the successor, not (the several year-long period of) occupied Germany!" or "No country claims legal succession of this country, so it shouldnt have any "successors"!" --Havsjö (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, the infobox does not say "these countries territory went on to be part of Nazi Germany/Nazi German territory went on to be part of these countries". It says "predecessors"/"successors", which are terms with fixed and definite meanings quite different to the mere ownership of territory - terms which make this a statement for which there is no evidence. FOARP (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

FOARP, I hope you did not miss infobox parameter naming and appearance are bounded sometypes by the template, riding on words is not useful, if we rename to "predeced by" etc. will solve it for you?. Btw. don't say there is no evidence, and again do not mix legal successors with territorial successors. Easily you can find sources, reflecting facts, e.g. which territory became under other states as well, so this is again still an artificially created problem, becase some e.g do not like territories from Poland or France or anwhere else became part of Germany. We won't have a source that the Ottoman Empire would be successor state (either in legal manner) of the Kingdom of Hungary, but we will that some of her the territory became part of that.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

This, just adjust the wording to "preceded by" or whatever if that detail is where the "problem" lies --Havsjö (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It already says "preceded by"/"succeeded by". The problem is no sources use those words to describe Poland (or the other countries) and Nazi Germany (or the words "predecessor"/"successor"); these WP:INFOBOX parameters are being used as a WP:NAVBOX. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not true that no country claims legal succession of this country: West Germany did. It was the official, legal successor state to Nazi Germany, inheriting its treaty obligations and so forth. This is extremely well documented in reliable sources: unanimously, RSes say West Germany was the legal successor state to Nazi Germany. Further, even though East Germany disclaimed legal succession, reliable sources say East Germany was a successor state anyway. Occupied Germany is not a successor according to reliable sources because occupied Germany was not a state. Some reliable sources also say Austria was a successor state. At bottom: reliable sources explicitly discuss what Nazi Germany was "preceded by" and "succeeded by". We can't just make up new meanings for these words, we have to follow the sources. People can make arguments all they want, but if their arguments aren't based on sources, then those arguments are disruptive. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant other cases (where this precident will spread) like Independent State of Croatia, for example. --Havsjö (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just because we did something in the past is no reason to keep doing it. I had seen those "preceded by" and "succeeded by" flags and not asked whether there was any support for them or whether they were making a statement way too complex to be properly done in an infobox, but now the question has come up it is plain that they are saying something that needs to be properly sourced, and is probably too complex anyway to say in an infobox. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"This is how it's always been done" - appeal from tradition. And in this case it is, as FOARP points out, rather clear that it might just have been a case of "nobody bothered to complain until now..." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is solved guys, Levivich we have also many reliable sources that parts of Poland or France became part of Germany (fact), so I have the point with Havsjö, cure the problem where it really is, not to turn upside everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Nobody disputes that parts/whole of Poland or France were annexed during the war; or that parts of Germany went to these countries and others after the war. The dispute is whether that is what should be listed in the infobox; or whether we should trim it, and keep only the most important information, which is the political/legal successors only. We disagree; clearly we're not going to convince each other so better move on to something else. As for you other comment, that this will do "irreparable damage" to chaining between articles, then again that is the purpose of regular wikilinks or navboxes; not infoboxes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Neither - the term "successor state" has a particular meaning that does not apply here. I'm not sure if "predecessor state" has an established meaning, but it would most likely be interpreted in a similar manner. --Khajidha (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither The other countries that are mentioned should also be removed.Sea Ane (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither per the absence of a sufficient amount of sources that treat Poland in such a manner. The arguments above advocating for consistency's sake are unconvincing. Though consistency at its core is useful on Wikipedia, we're talking about the same site where you can reference an article in a thousand different ways—clearly reliable sources trump consistency. Aza24 (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Aza24, what are the reliable sources that have a similar manner of infobox field treatment for any of the states in question? CMD (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean, I only see a couple (Weimar Republic, Yugoslavia, third Czech republic, DFY & PGRF) that include Nazi Germany. Regardless WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Aza24 (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
      • How does OSE apply to reliable sources? CMD (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • We're having an RFC on the infobox of Nazi Germany, you're bringing up those of others (if I understand you correctly, which the vagueness of both of your comments means I may not) and using them as a rational for why this one should be different, hence WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Even then though, a majority of these countries do not treat the situation in such a matter, making that argument flawed regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Aza24 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No, you apparently did not answer to the CMD question, anyway we have myriads of sources of which former territory of Poland went where.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC))

• Neither per FOARP - Idealigic (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why are we singling out Poland here? The same arguments for or against Poland equally apply to any of the non-German states that were annexed into Nazi Germany. Nobody refers to Yugoslavia as a predecessor or successor state either. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Then Yugoslavia shouldn't be listed, either. We don't know for certain that the arguments that apply to one entry will apply to all entries, and we have to start somewhere. Poland seems to be the most obvious place to start, although I don't think we should stop there, because I agree there are multiple countries that should be removed or added; see the diff in my comment below. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Surprised there's no complaints about the Baltic States being included among the Soviet Union's successors states. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  They are. DOn't you want to know where the Soviet Union disappear? On the other hand articles Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia do not list predec / succ. They have "INdependence" section instead (first from Russia then from USSSR), which makes sense. You cannot have one fit-for-all straightlined template for all complicated politics. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm too well aware of the retro history of the Baltics, being pushed on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  Do I see an irony here? This is not a political wrangle, but a work on encyclopedia. Please speak clearly. During 1940s-1990s the Baltic states (and Poland) had split history: de-jure and de-facto. Both were important. Do you agree or not? These complications cannot be possibly expressed in a single linear list. Do you agree or not? Lembit Staan (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Do we have alternatives? What articles actually proceeded in content...as in what articles follow the timeline?--Moxy- 18:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  I changed the infobox to what I felt matched the article body [4] but it was reverted. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• What was missed, Parsecboy, the subject is not about non-German states that were annexed into Nazi Germany, the subject is about entities sharing territory. Consequently, from Yugoslavia a few territories were annexed, as well after taken back, so the actual listing is correct. GoodDay, your example fails, since the Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia or Hungary, Germany or anyland article that reflect the time-invariant present-day entity is never included in the chain listing, it is the ultimate target result (it is another thing, the Baltic states are poorly chained, because they don't have much articles, or so deep long exitence of statehood back in time, etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

The infobox says "predecessor" and "successor". These terms when referring to states have clear meanings, of usually political and international relations (treaties, ...) significance. That is what you will find in WP:RS. France was not a "successor state" of Nazi Germany. It was occupied. Poland was not a "successor state" of Nazi Germany: it was occupied, and a good chunk of territory was exchanged, but the historical territorial disputes between these two countries are such a complex matter that resuming it to a flag in an infobox would be misleading. Infoboxes are not exempt from WP:OR. Simply because a few (or a larger number; doesn't really affect the status as successor) square kilometers were exchanged does not make a state a successor of another. These two academic article list, directly or indirectly (the second one is written from modern day perspective, so mentions only an undivided Germany and Austria) only three successor states: West Germany, East Germany, and Austria. Failing another reliable source which says otherwise that is what will be kept. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

None of your quoted phrases are actually quotes from the article. What the infobox says is "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by". This wording is generic, and it is clear from the context of the states included that the infobox is not dealing with the very specific and legal issue question of state succession. The infobox is not trying to convey the specific legal point you seem to want to make with it. Instead it conveys what states/polities preceded the land of the state in question, and what succeeded the state in controlling this land. CMD (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

So is there any source that says Nazi Germany was preceded by or succeeded by Poland? Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Succeeded by" implies that the entity listed is a "successor". Anyway, that's an irrelevant matter of terminology. Find me a WP:RS which says that Poland (or any of the countries except Austria or [divided] Germany, since I've already found a source for those) was a "successor state" (since that is very clearly what is implied by the infobox, whether intended or not, and it is the most logical use for such a parameter) of Nazi Germany. WP:SYNTH based on territory is not enough. Infoboxes should contain a summary of the information in the article, and preferably remain short. Issues of territorial exchanges such as happened after WWII are too complex to be left as unexplained flags in an infobox (and note that there is no mention of it in the article). And that still doesn't explain the irrelevant predecessors. WP:V and WP:NOR are not negotiable, and frankly I must note that simply because of some territorial matters listing countries as predecessors/successors of each other seems to be completely missing the forest for the trees: the real, relevant encyclopedic information is that which can be found in reliable sources, which generally prefer the definition I give, since that is far more relevant to understanding the situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The specific legal term you quote is not used in the infobox, or anywhere else in the article, and the long-standing practice among former state articles is that this section is not meant to cover the legal topic of state succession. The information of territorial expansion and annexations is included in the article. Territorial matters are quite important, and very relevant encyclopaedic information. I would suggest territorial control matters far more than political/legal continuity in most cases. This book is structured around the various Nazi annexations, for example. If you want to remove flags I would support this. CMD (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that on the page German Empire there is the same issue with successor entities and today somebody added Czechoslovakia as a successor state due to the fact that in the Versailles treaty the Hultschiner Ländchen (a very small county) was taken from Germany and became part of Czechoslavakia. Whatever will be decided here, we should apply same rules for same situations. --Nillurcheier (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunk, in short: no. Your interpretation relies on WP:OR (especially since you seem to disregard academic sources on the matter) and, as Nillurcheir points out, and as I'll repeat using my own language, it misses the forest for the trees: minor changes are not a piece of crucial information that should be summarised in the infobox. "If you want to remove flags" might have misspoken, my point was not about flags, my point was about how a line in the infobox without further commentary is misleading. "Long standing practice" seems like WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and in any case it cannot justify failing something as obvious as WP:V - can you provide sources which say the Poland/whatver was a successor of Nazi Germany in a meaningful way (not via the indirect WP:SYNTH of "Poland gained some of Germany's territory")? An example of how this can be done correctly is Austria-Hungary (not an invitation to revert, please), where the main (i.e. most important and suitable for an infobox) bits are in the infobox, reliably sourced, and there is a whole section, Austria-Hungary#Dissolution, which includes those and the more nitty-gritty details of smaller more minor changes. The bigger problem, as far as this article is concerned, as that including successors in the infobox is also problematic because the infobox needs to summarise content that is in the article; yet there is no such content... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't see where any source has been disregarded by anyone here. That the territories have changed is already sourced, so WP:V is met. It is not OR, or synth, to use different words for something. If you feel the link to the legal idea of a "successor state" is too close you could argue for followed by, conquered by, replaced by, or other wording. As for local consensus, that is what is trying to be achieved here, a change to a single article "at one place and time", against the current practice across Wikipedia in multiple places at multiple times (eg. the reversions here and at German Empire). Regarding lead guidelines, as I noted before, much of the relevant content is already covered in this article. Anything missing could take up a sentence or less. CMD (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

re "Local consensus" please point, then, to a discussion which establishes that the usage of these fields for what are mostly relatively minor territorial changes is acceptable. Otherwise, I fail to see your objections: the RfC is advertised at multiple Wikiprojects, and well it's an RfC which has already attracted quite a few contributors, not a discussion between 2 or 3 editors. Also, even if the supposed consensus does exist and is more than just "nobody bothered to complain until now"; WP:Consensus can change (for example, through an RfC such as this one). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is again asking me to support something I didn't say. In response to your suggesting I was referring to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I stated the long-standing practice is not something agreed "at one place and time" as worded on the Local consensus subsection, but is in fact quite widespread. I did not say that consensus couldn't change, nor object to the existence or advertisement of this specific RfC. CMD (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Provisional Government of National Unity....Roosevelt and Churchill agreed with Stalin at the Yalta Conference (February 1945) to create a Provisional Polish Government of National Unity. Its core was the Lublin Polish Committee of National Liberation (already recognized by Stalin as the government), to which some politicians from Poland and abroad were added. Britain and the United States recognized that government on July 5, 1945, ....[5].--Moxy- 15:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

On further look, that just seems like a WP:PRIMARY source and I fail to see it's relevance to this article. Maybe in an article about the history of Poland in that particular time period, but again such a document is surely discussed in proper WP:SECONDARY sources. Unless you got the wrong talk page and wanted to post this somewhere else? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

CMD has fully right (preceding by, etc.), and some users are riding on words, despite I already said infobox parameters and their appearance are not necessarily the same, in a way bounded by the template. Just because of this, a consistent chaining and linking system which guide us through the happenings should be damaged and open a can of worms to generate endless debates, I am sorry Levivich opened this. If this view trials, we will have many orphan articles with no chain, no possibility to trace and follow/navigate. And those minor issues, mistakes which Moxy referred may easily be fixed without harming the structure.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

It's not generating endless debates. This RFC is the first RFC about this and will hopefully be the only one required. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are using these infobox parameters as navigation links to "chain articles", then that is misuse of said infobox parameters (better if the relevant bits were wikilinked in the relevant sections). If this orphans some articles (unlikely, they probably have links from elsewhere), then that might be a better indication that those articles are about (probably ephemeral) entities which might be better served by being merged to something else. As for your argument that the geographic information is verifiable (despite it likely being WP:SYNTH), then I think I'll need to reiterate that that is irrelevant to my position, which is that such information - especially about the annexed countries or those that got some small amount of territory - is not a "key feature" that goes in an infobox; i.e. per WP:INFOBOX, "An infobox is a panel that summarizes key features of the page's subject." - geographic (unlike political) successors are not such a "key feature". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, they will on legal successors, predecessors at many instances, you just don't know - even without deliberation - how many worms fallen out from the can and how big they will grow in time...this RFC will be binding only here, not elsewhere. RandomCanadian, geography/territorial info is not synth, not by any means, we have as well the sources for that. The chain system will be heavily damaged, and not just touch so-called small amount-negligible entities or annexed countries (this is even terminologically false, since these pred/succ list never included all occupied or administrational territories, but only those that were incorporated into the state proper - and such like a whole country would be entirely annexed is almost non-existent). Disprupting the well navigable chain system goes beyond the key feature you try to stress on.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Disrupting the well navigable chain? I'm pretty sure my intent at this point is to dismantle the WP:SYNTHchain. If the sources say that Nazi Germany occupied Poland, and based on that we say that Nazi Germany was "preceded by" Poland, that's WP:SYNTH. That's drawing a conclusion that no source draws. If the chain is built on SYNTH, it must be fixed. No more discussions about it. The only relevant question is: is it sourced? So far, the answer is "no".

And another thing. That chain, if it says Poland (and the Baltics and other countries) preceded or succeeded (especially succeeded) Nazi Germany, then that chain creates a link of predecession/succession from Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union, which of course would be ahistorical and unsourced SYNTH. I'm still WP:AGFing, but I am going to point out that this is the fourth time in recent months that I see a content dispute about whether fascists and communists are the same thing: whether the Nazis were socialists and Soviets were fascists. Here I see a bunch of Soviet-bloc states listed as predecessor/successor to Nazi Germany. Earlier on this page was the discussion about whether Nazi Germany was fascist. Not long ago was the discussion about whether the Soviet Union should be listed as one of the Axis powers or a "co-belligerent". And earlier this year was the very long discussion about whether Category:Communism is a sub-category of Category:Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism, and whether Communism should also be in those two categories. I'm starting to see a pattern here and I am starting to run out of patience for arguing that history is history and that our basic WP:CCPOLs like V and NOR must be followed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No SYNTH here, if the inclusion criteria is set, especially as argued for the current, share of of territory. Poland was not jut occupied by Germany large parts were annexed and intergrated into Germany proper (same goes to the Soviet Union), some territories were not and other entities were created, etc. and yes, it sourced as well. Your another example also fails, since chaining is projected and interpreted on the anytime current aticle's perspective, hence it's scope and timeline (it has been evident that through the chain system you may arrive to any entities per your interest, if there has been a territorial share anytime, it contradicts nothing). The rest you wrote has nothing do with the issue (as well your patience should not be connected to unrelated issues), I never said fascist or communists were the same, neither that Nazis were socialists and Soviets were fascists. The rest three discussion I participated however, many editors there did not follow the policies you cited or were not even accurate, better followed emotions in several cases, so I could argue the same way about patience, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC))

I never said fascist or communists were the same, neither that Nazis were socialists and Soviets were fascists. The rest three discussion I participated... This is at least the fourth recent unnecessary discussion caused more or less by your article edits. When you reverted me and restored Poland and other countries to the infobox, that's what prompted me to launch this RFC. The three other discussions are:

• Years of removing "fascist" from this article Nazi Germany [6] [7] [8] [9] led to this discussion
• Years of adding Soviet Union as a "co-belligerent" in the Axis Powers infobox [10] [11] [12] [13], led to this RFC and discussion (which finally removed it)
• Twice removed "Authoritarianism is considered a core concept of fascism" from Authoritarianism in July 2020 [14] [15] and then throughout 2020, repeatedly added Cat:Communism to Authoritarianism [16] [17] [18] [19] and Totalitarianism [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28], and sub-categorized Cat:Communism under Cat:Totalitarianism [29] [30] [31], which led to this RFC, after which you still removed Cat:Fascism (and others) from Totalitarianism while adding Cat:Marxism-Leninism [32] [33]

It's pretty obvious how this RFC will close—just like the others. We really can't keep having RFCs like this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)