Template talk:Nazi Germany-stub

Use of swastika as tag image

Can some symbol besides the swastika be found for this stub? Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Copied from File talk:Nazi Swastika.svg by Scott5114

I agree that it should be replaced; the use of the swastika is regulated in Germany to only educational use. Using such an image in a stub tag seems rather gratuitous. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am no fan of the Nazis, but this symbol is unmistakeably associated with the topic and seems entirely appropriate in this context. Otherwise where do we stop: ban all flags and emblems of historic regimes we don't agree with? Surely a recipe for confusion at the very least. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

See your point but I think it was the sheer number of stubs with the swastika on it that was bothering me. So it's the use as a stub image I guess that is the narrower question. Let me think a bit and perhaps I can propose something constructive.Mtsmallwood (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, Nazi-related subjects have always been popular which is probably why there is a plethora of stub articles. There is a fascination with the topic, which is fine if it helps us to ensure their particular chapter of history isn't repeated! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't germany and we aren't in the habit of banning images for no good reason. I would be worried if the swastika were being used in unrelated articles or on user/project pages. But in this case it is the most iconic image of the Nazi regime. What other image should be used? Maybe the Iron Cross but that isn't historically limited to the Nazi regime and also has some associated baggage. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to have the swastika used in the Nazi template. There is nothing wrong in having no image.  Dr. Loosmark  23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'm offended" is not a reason to remove something. Personally, I don't feel that running and hiding from historical images is useful either. If you can think of a better icon to denote articles related to Nazi Germany, by all means, propose them, but moral outrage alone isn't going to generate a lot of support for a change. Resolute 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As a thought though, perhaps using the Nazi Germany flag logo () instead, which would be smaller and de-emphazise the swastika slightly, might help? Resolute 23:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's hard to see and therefore serves its purpose less well. --erachima talk 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If we were to size it comparible to that of other nation stubs (i.e.: {{Canada-stub}}) it would work better. It's just a thought, though I doubt it would satisfy anyone hell bent against the use of the Swastika as a logo. Resolute 00:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolute seems to be right:

That looks right to me and might be more in line with other stubs about nations/regimes. Protonk (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• File link is here. Protonk (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As of now, four editors have backed that proposal, one opposed on ground of readability. I suggest we try it, and see if the shift provoked any reactions. --Soman (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

off with the swastika

I propose the removal of the swastika from the template.  Dr. Loosmark  23:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't. It's one of the most immediately understandable images in pretty much all mankind. This is the military equivalent of the golden arches. The point of the template is to show what the article concerns, and the swastika does that in spades. HalfShadow 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Any particular reason? I daresay it seems to me to be the image most associated in the public mind with all things Nazi, and thus best fit to do the job of communicating the message "THIS SHORT THING IS A SORT OF NAZI SHORT THING MAKE IT BIGGER WILL YOU". If not this, what? Some avant garde Albert Speer drawings? A tastefully abstracted Hitler 'tache? Skomorokh 23:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

About the only image I can think of that would be close would be the SS logo. Resolute 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Because we all know how inoffensive that is... Plus it's more specific, and thus less well-suited to a general Nazi Germany template. --erachima talk 23:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with this proposal. This template is placed on articles related to Nazi Germany. The swastika is the most prominent symbol of Nazi Germany. It serves its purpose in this template, as an immediate visual indicator of what the article is about, excellently. Also, any image which served this purpose comparatively well (i.e. a mugshot of Hitler) would be equally if not more shocking to the easily offended. --erachima talk 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• The image used is a cropping of the national flag used during the period of Nazi Germany. It is by far the symbol most strongly associated with Germany at the time, and it is factually correct. To substitute it with another symbol would essentially constitute historical revisionism, an attempt to rewrite history to make it PG13. What we could do is use the entire Nazi Germany flag (as suggested by Resolute above), which would make the swastika smaller, but I wouldn't see much point in that. --Soman (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• The swastika is far and away the most easily identifiable symbol of Nazism. The image is a perfect conveyance of the information the template is supposed to give, immediately recognizable to most if not all editors and as such is the ideal option to visually categorize the stub. Nothing else even comes close. It's removal would subtract value from the tagging. Can not support this proposal. -- ۩ Mask 01:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• I also have to object. If anyone was able to propose a suitable alternative, I'd support it, but honestly any suitable symbol would likely be just as bad. Anything that is easily connected to the Nazi party will always incite strong feelings in people, and that's not going to change any time soon. Sodam Yat (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia is not censored. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Another NO. I could argue for days the importance of the Nazi symbol, but at the end, this is not a legitimate proposal. We're not censored. Simple as that. We don't remove offensive images. Swarm^Talk 07:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Amazing that some of you equal not using the Nazi logo in a template with censorship. This is not about censorship it's about common sense. Just because something isn't de facto banned it doesn't mean it has to be used widely. There are for sure legitimate educational use of the swastika on wikipedia, for example an article about Nazi Germany can show how the Nazi flag looked like. Not showing that would be a way of censorship. Or a map about the Nazi Germany expansion can have a swastika as legend and so on. What I oppose is having a template with the swastika which can be then be attached to any topic connected with the Nazi Germany. For example a victim of the Nazis can have that template stamped on the article.  Dr. Loosmark  10:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To me it would be common sense to leave the Nazi logo in place. The template doesn't designate ownership by the Nazis, it just shows there was an association. A victim of the Nazis would be associated - not in a nice way, to be sure. I would think there would be more appropriate templates to be applied in those cases though. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; I think it'd be better to use the WWII-stub tag for people such as holocaust survivors/victims, for example, unless we have a specific holocaust-stub tag. I don't think the flag should be removed (and I like the proposal, above, to change the image to the uncropped flag), but no need to use this stub where other alternatives exist. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose the swastika was the symbol on the national flag of Germany in the period 1933-45. The alternative template using the full flag is actually better, but the swastika should stay. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The swastika symbol is prohibited in Germany; what are the implications of that? Would a Wikipedia editor in Germany who adds this template to an article be breaking the law? Ucucha 14:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A comment made earlier (perhaps in the ANI thread) was that the use of the swastika is prohibited except for use in an educational manner. I'd say this qualifies. Regardless, presenting the image of Muhammad is prohibited in various Islamic nations, and we don't cater to those prohibitions either. Resolute 14:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of the swastika is prohibited when it's clear that the bearer endorses Nazi-ism. The sign is certainly depicted in textbooks, on historic photographs and whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How is a template with the Nazi swastika "educational"?  Dr. Loosmark  15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, perhaps because it shows the Nazi German flag as it actually looked like? This, for example, would not be educational

as it does not show the actual flag/symbol employed by the Nazi German state. --Soman (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What's exactly the problem with having no flag?  Dr. Loosmark  16:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More than a dozen people have explained this to you; [redacted] HalfShadow 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has explained that to me yet, what was repeated a couple of times is that the swastika is an image that's best associated with everything Nazi. I don't disagree with that. The problem in my view is that the templates on wikipedia are attached to all kind of articles even those who aren't directly connected to the topic. To demonstrate my point: somebody might add that template to an article about a Jewish person who was a victim of the Nazi or something connected with their regime.  Dr. Loosmark  17:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If that happened, one could either 1) boldly remove it 2) replace it with a more refined stub or 3) expand the article beyond stub, negating the need for any stub templates. –xeno^talk 17:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

On articles where it is a miscategorization, the template would be made no less inappropriate by omission of the flag. On articles where it is a correct categorization, the flag adds value to the page. It is educational for the precise same reasons it offends you. You apparently do not understand this, but as you can plainly see from this page, as well as your ANI posting, the rest of the community disagrees with you and does see the educational value in the use of the flag. Consensus is clear here. Please move on. --erachima talk 17:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a touchy area, due to the various emotions the Nazi swastika can arouse. Project templates typically have an illustration. If not the Nazi swastika, then what would its opponents suggest? I thought maybe a picture of Adolf would work, but someone suggested that would be even more inflammatory. Now let's suppose some well-known holocaust survivor is linked to the project. Now you've got a holocaust survivor with a Nazi symbol on his page - which could certainly be construed as a BLP violation. Is there some relatively neutral symbol that can be used? (And although I like the cute irony of the rainbow, I don't think that will work). Or how about a little outline map of Germany with the twisted cross overlaid on it, minus the blood-red? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Less identifiable (OK class, hands up if you can identify Germany from a 30px outline! That's what I thought.) and is still going to offend exactly the same group. If anything it would be harder to defend, because our current use of the symbol of Nazi Germany to identify subjects related to Nazi Germany is straightforward, while the use of an unofficial offensive symbol of our own devising is just baffling. --erachima talk 18:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What about the BLP issue? Also, if you must use the twisted cross, lose the blood-red and just go with this from commons: ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the BLP-issue? The thing doesn't say "this article is a stub about a Nazi. Please write more on how this person single-handedly gassed Jews and Gypsies"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I just said this. We are using the flag of the country to identify articles related to the country. Also, removing the color would be a significant problem for our readers with vision issues. --erachima talk 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP issues have to do with being cautious to prevent wikipedia from being sued, among other things. If a well-known holocaust survivor sees a Nazi flag on his article's talk page, he might just pick up his phone and call his attorney. To be sure, of course, we should run it by Godwin, the legal eagle here. But what bothers me about the insistence on the blood-red flag is the implicit argument that it's OK for us, therefore it shouldn't be a problem for anyone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Said person cannot erase the tragdedy of history. If you were almost gassed by the Nazis, then your personal history is linked to this flag. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of like rubbing salt into the wound. Beyond that, he might claim that the mere presence of that flag on his page is damaging his reputation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not going to censor the page, and we're certainly not going to half-assedly censor the page in a fashion that decreases the quality of the article while not removing the offensive content, and we're all the more not going to half-assedly censor the page in a fashion that decreases the quality of the article, does not remove the offensive content, and weakens our educational defense in the event of the vanishingly small possibility that someone actually sues us. You're proposing a "compromise" that is the worst of all possible worlds. --erachima talk 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose per Mjroots.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment At the risk of seeming overly PC, I can certainly see why people might be offended about this. Those who feel strongly that Wikipedia ought not to be censored are, of course, going to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the neonazis on this, presumably unwittingly. But it is not censorship to exercise mature editorial judgment. Just ask yourself if you would rather build a Wikipedia whose Nazi articles have little swastikas at the bottom, or one where they don't. I'm not sure exactly why there needs to be a separate template for Nazi stubs, or why it should need any illustrative icon. Surely we can find a route through all these little bits of logic and policy to the Wikipedia we want to see? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do want to see this kind of wikipedia. Uncensored. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the blood-red Nazi flag off the pages of its victims is not censorship. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, that reminds me of something... One time, on the ANI page, I posted a tiny Nazi flag as a sarcastic response to someone who claimed wikipedia was run by Nazis or some such usual nonsense. It turns out that for some browsers, if you hover on the link you will see the first picture that's on the page. Guess what that first picture was - and boy, did they yell at me about that. I wasn't aware of that feature, and I zapped the flag from my comment. Now, was that not also "censorship"? Or was that somehow "different" just because it offended a different group of editors? The answer still is that the there is nothing neutral about the Nazi flag, and it has to be used carefully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Article space and project space are different things. Canonical example would of course be that we have an article on the word fuck, but if I go around calling everyone who disagrees with me a "fucker" I'm not going to be here very long. --erachima talk 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@SheffieldSteel; the problem is that Wikipedia is a global internet community, which transcends (or at least, seeks to transcend) cultural and national barriers. What is offensive to some is not offensive to others. The nazi flag is a highly controversial symbol in most of the Western world, but which itself is a minority region in the world. For example, the Star of David evokes highly negative feelings in the Middle East, should we avoid usage of that symbol too? I think the core essence of it is not censorship to exercise mature editorial judgment should relate to obvious BLP issues, not the usage of political symbols. --Soman (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a terrible reason to be concerned about not censoring an image. Because we'll make strange bedfellows? The ACLU sides with skinheads and other disreputable folks all the time in order to defend the right to assemble in america. If we gave up defending a principle because we find ourselves in agreement on some temporal matter with people we find unpleasant, then what principles would we have left? Also with respect to BB the holocaust victim argument is a canard. No person-stub should be classified as a "Nazi Germany" related article, which would be the only way the situation you describe would persist. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe there are people who don't see removing this as censorship. This action blatantly fits the definition of censorship. Wanting to remove the swastika on the grounds that it is offensive is blatant censorship. This is a symbol that represents an extremely important piece of world history. This is exactly why WP:NOTCENSORED exists. Swarm^Talk 00:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon Sheffield, surely you are intelligent enough to make an argument that does not rely on demonizing people opposed to censorship by claiming they are standing "shoulder to shoulder with neonazis". Well, I presume you are, at any rate. Resolute 00:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED. "This is not about censorship it's about common sense." Yeah, sure it is. Let's change the picture on Adolf Hitler to a furry caricature while we're at it. Vodello (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming soon on this channel...

• Please remove File:Flag of South Africa 1928-1994.svg from {{SAPresidents}} which is shown on the pages of Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, and others. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

An alternative approach

It seems from comments above that the main problem with the template is its usage in articles on people who were in fact not Nazis or even opponents/victims of the regime. Can't we agree on a consensus, rather than debating imagery, to limit the use the stub template for the instutions, officials, military units, etc. of the Third Reich. By such a logic a concentration camp could have the template, an individual inmate would not. --Soman (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this is how the template is to be used anyway. All the above discussion is predicated on the idea that the template might be first misused and then misunderstood. --erachima talk 19:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's restricted to Nazi officials, that's a somewhat different matter, even if posting the bloody flag also kind of serves to glorify them. I don't think anyone would inherently object to the Nazi symbol being on Hitler's page. But I still think the more subdued cross would be a better choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's in use on Barthel Schink, who was publicly hanged by the gestapo. –xeno^talk 19:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And? He was hanged. It's quite obvious he didn't endorse that, now did he? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just providing an example of the stub tag used on a victim. –xeno^talk 19:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I realize that. Sorry if that came across differently. I think it's absolutely correctly used here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. For the record I'm just providing the example, not an opinion either way. –xeno^talk 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Barthel Schink is exactly the type of article I had in mind when I first reported this template. IMO it is at least bad taste to have a Nazi swastika there, if not even flatly insulting.  Dr. Loosmark  19:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, that is a perfectly good usage. Mr. Schink was a hero who fought against the Nazi's. The Nazi's are fairly represented with their own party symbol. I literally have no idea how this is supposed to be "flatly insulting." Are you inferring that the presence of the swastika on his article somehow brands Mr. Schink as a Nazi? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. What I find problematic is that the article of a hero is "stamped" with the symbol of the murderers who killed him.  Dr. Loosmark  19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And... what? You think that the nazi flag being present on a page describing an incident in which they executed a dozen men without trial somehow supports their ideology? Frankly, Loosmark, you baffle me. Do you think so poorly of our readers that you do not believe they can understand the context of the article? --erachima talk 20:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you find this problematic, I am more curious as to why. He is famous for having fought against Nazi's. His page has a Nazi symbol on it, because he is famous for fighting Nazi's. What is "problematic" about this simple, clear communication device? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, everything about your language on this topic suggests that you are objecting on the basis of your own morality -- that you are offended. This is where I still believe this comes back to censorship -- you are proposing the censoring of something which you find morally offensive. You find it morally offensive that a man who fought the Nazi's has a swastika on his page, even though there is a perfectly good, rational reason for including this symbol. Is that accurate? Or is there some more purely rational reason I am missing? I say all this with all due respect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur that this seems a perfectly valid use of the template. Victim is not 'stamped' with anything. What is your problem with this? -- ۩ Mask 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Nazi-victim-stub}}

Problem solved. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing could possibly go wrong with this approach! --erachima talk 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a preponderance of Nazi-victim-stubs anyway - stub templates are usually created only after they will have 20-30 members right away and more expected. –xeno^talk 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) (though a case could be made to ignore this rule)

I was gonna suggest

or some other picture. Not all victims were Jews... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although that picture points to a specific victim, the entire nation were victims of the Nazi madness. Maybe that illustration would work as the symbol in the Nazi template? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You can barely make out what it is. –xeno^talk 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that graphically labeling people as "nazi victims" is just as if not more potentially offensive than labeling their article "related to Nazi Germany". Using the yellow badge as the icon of course being one of the more blatantly obvious missteps one could make. --erachima talk 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)How so? How is being called a Nazi victim when that's clearly documented offensive? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Insulting to who exactly? The victims? They would likely agree. The Nazis? Who cares what they think? So who's the "victim" of such an alleged "insult"? "Related to Nazi Germany" is very insulting, like they had a choice in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an issue of labeling. Emphasizing a person's identity as a "victim" can lead to said victimization dominating their life. I would be opposed to any "victim" template on these grounds. --erachima talk 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If they're a Nazi victim, they've already had their life pretty well defined by now. What about the plain cross instead of the bloody-red version? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. {{nazi-victim-stub}} is no more appropriate than {{rape-victim-stub}} is. Also, what does your apparent phobia of the color red have to do with anything? --erachima talk 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So what about this or this  ? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Harder to identify for those with sight issues and less iconic, respectively. --erachima talk 19:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I hardly see how a topic that was started by proposing the removal of the swastika altogether is solved by replacing the current image with one that is literally just a swastika :). I think it has the same "offensive" issues as the current (and, IMO, completely un-problematic) one, while being simultaneously less clear. As for the second, I share erachima's concerns. For one thing, viewed as a tiny image, that might as well be a symbol of Ancient Rome. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that accomplishes an effective compromise and if there's actually consensus that some compromise needs to be achieved (I'm seeing strong consensus for the status quo, at the moment, but perhaps I'm being less than objective), that's a clever solution. My own preference would be for no change at all but if there's some emerging consensus for making a change, I'd pick this, sure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even harder to see, less iconic, still a swastika. At this point you seem to just be complaining about the use of the color red, which to me seems completely nonsensical. Please explain. --erachima talk 20:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be easier to see with proper coloration. This was just a quick-and-dirty test. How many times have I said "blood-red"? Several, I think. Colors evoke strong emotions, and the blood flowed in Nazi Germany. The best symbols I can think of for Nazi Germany are the swastika and Hitler. If Hitler won't do (and probably too small anyway), that leaves some kind of swastika, maybe a more subdued kind like I've demonstrated. There are other symbols you could use. Maybe a guard tower from a death camp? Again, might be too small. The eagle is not bad, because the swastika is very small on it, and maybe that would be a good thing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your use of emotionally loaded language like "blood red" is precisely why I'm having a difficult time taking you seriously. You appear to be more concerned with political and emotional rhetoric than the actual question we are here to discuss, "what is the most educational, illustrative image for the template {{nazi-stub}}?" If we are talking educational value, then the color is a positive attribute because it makes it easy to see. If we are instead talking ideological value, then I refuse to live in a world where we cower eternally in fear at the sight of a few hex values and simple geometric shapes. --erachima talk 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we write wikipedia for ourselves, or for our readers? How is their education level improved by seeing Hitler's flag over and over again? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The eagle really is a symbol of Ancient Rome, though -- we really can't use that. And I don't think anybody else in here is concerned with the "blood red" bit -- I've seen you mention it a number of times but nobody else. Other folks are more concerned with the swastika. As for guard tower, Nazi Germany was about more than the Holocaust. That's definitely not a solution. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

More than just the color, the flag itself is used by hate groups to glorify Hitler and Nazi Germany, and plastering it all over the place in wikipedia just feeds into that. A more subdued version of the twisted cross might be less inflammatory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Educating the world about the past, and the failures and atrocities that the Nazi flag oversaw, has the precise opposite effect from glorifying the Nazis. Propaganda is all about symbols without context, and training the public to, when they see them, react rather than think. Instant endorsement of anything branded with the flag and instant revulsion towards anything associated with it are BOTH propaganda-trained emotions, and the enemies of clear thought and freedom. --erachima talk 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting the Nazi flag everywhere effectively endorses it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a disingenuous line of argument and you should be ashamed of yourself for attempting it. We are not discussing posting the Nazi flag everywhere, we are discussing posting the Nazi flag on articles about the Nazis. --erachima talk 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you confine it to actual Nazis and not to their victims, that might be OK. If you attach it to their victims also, you should be ashamed. And what about my illustration below, of Nazi Germany with the swastika? Got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As before, hard to identify, less iconic, still has a swastika on it.
What pages properly fall under this template is a separate matter (some pages it is currently used in may be inaccurate or redundant templating), and regardless of the conclusion of that discussion I have a very hard time believing that you honestly think that associating the Nazi flag with the pages of people they murdered glorifies Naziism. --erachima talk 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have a very hard time believing that you honestly don't think that repetitive use of the Nazi flag glorifies Nazism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I don't. Why would I? How could I? I don't buy into a fear-addled worldview in which an abstract combination of colors and shapes can become inherently offensive no matter the context. That is, as I explained above, the mark of a propaganda-driven mindset, and it is fought through education. --erachima talk 22:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This might stand out a little better: ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we start an {{anti-fascism-stub}} template? That could be quite useful, and be used in pages not apt for the nazi Germany stub. --Soman (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-fascism is a political movement, might be a useful template to have depending on the number of articles we have on the subject, but it has an independent meaning from "got killed by the Nazis", so would probably not address this concern. --erachima talk 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But it would be a useful alternative in the case of Barthel Schink, for example. --Soman (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We could just not essentialize people who were victims of the regime with a stub like this. There are enough german or russian or jewish or french or polish person stubs to go around. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This would be a redundant stub template. Resolute 20:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of fylfot

Rather than saying it in half a dozen places, can I please oppose the use of the fylfot (the swastika symbol without any appendages from a flag). This is because that image is not just associated with the Nazis, it is in use in other parts of the world with a benign meaning that is frequently overshadowed by the association with the Nazis. I would much prefer we use the flag icon, as it is then really clear that this is an article relating to the Nazi regime. Individual victims of course do not need to be tagged with it - they are people, and the stubs will also be Jewish related or Polish related or LGBT related or whatever. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That is another very good point. We should not allow the Nazis brief use of the symbol to overshadow thousands of years of history by teaching "swastika = nazis" without qualification. (This was also the subject of a prior debate with respect to Template:Hinduism.) --erachima talk 22:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It has come up before. The scarlet flag, white circle and swastika only has one associated meaning - let's stick with that. Its clear, works well at a small scale (which the stamp certainly doesn't), and everyone knows what it is. Make rules about when to use the 'Nazi-related' stub, if that's the issue-I would have thought that tagging short articles about Holocaust victims as 'Nazi-related' would be more of a potential offence than the flag would.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Very good point indeed, I agree completely. Swarm^Talk 00:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)