![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I'm under the impression that the terms folk and volk, and the terms folkish and volkish are used interchangeably. Gringo300 10:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
the völkisch movement shouldnt be included in the nazism series, its just not fair to make that asosiation 201.220.99.89 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Tagging the article with {{Nazism}} is improper as the article covers a wider context than just the ideology that was (mis)used by the Nazis. -- Matthead discuß! O 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
i personally disagree with the above statement and think the article should remain tagged with Nazism. the Nazi's misused and bastardized a multitude of symbols and philosophies. one cannot separate Nazisms relationship with the volkisch movement just as you cannot separate Nazisms relationship to the swastika. neither in their traditional meaning condone or imply fascist beliefs but unfortunately have been manipulated to do so which should not be ignored.
I see no reason for a disproportionate part of the article to focus down on the Teutonic/Germanic Order (Germanenorden). Germanic mysticism was a much broader movement and this particular organisation was a small part of it which merits no more than a passing mention. The block of GO material here nicely plugs a gap in Germanic mysticism and I intend to move it there, to be replaced in this article with a summary of the Germanic mystical movement more generally.
There is also rather too much focus on the Nazi connection at the expense of 'left-wing' völkisch thinkers like Gustav Landauer and indeed the ultimate founder of the movement, Johann Gottfried von Herder. Not to mention all the neo-pagan stuff that went on with the Social Democrats! Only I don't feel qualified to write it yet, but I might well have a go sometime if nobody else takes it on. Gnostrat 03:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The introduction emphasizes on populism, romanticism, folklore and being organic, and completely leaves out the nationalist and racist aspect, which is emphasized on de and nl, which seem to have evolved independently of each other. I suspect this might be a misinterpretation of the translaction of "Volk" as "people", with "people" having distinct meanings in English:
A point against a "populist" interpretation is that populism claims to be egalitarian, while the völkisch guys were openly monarchist, i.e. anti-egalitarian. Unfortunately I don't have sources at hand. -- dealerof salvation 07:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's get a few things straight here. I am not attempting to "censor" this Germanenorden material. I moved it for good reasons a few months back, and it is now to be found in the Ariosophy article, where some of the blatant inaccuracies have been pruned away.
What you have restored is in the wrong place, as it interrupts the natural flow from the first to the second paragraph. Part of it violates WP:NPOV, because even if you think it is "pathological nationalism in an extreme form", you cannot simply slip that in as if it were objective description.
Furthermore, the order is wrongly described as a splinter-group from the Germanische Glaubensgemeinschaft (which is a neo-pagan organisation, not a masonic one, and is not even correctly translated). Goodrick-Clarke's authoritative Occult Roots of Nazism makes no connection whatever with the latter. The Germanenorden was set up as an inner circle of lodges within the Reichshammerbund and is therefore not a splinter-group from the GGG.
While I haven't been able to determine the correctness or otherwise of all the remaining details, that has nothing to do with why I removed it for the second time. It seems to have escaped your attention that there is already a short summary on the Germanenorden and similar groups further down in this article, with a link to the fuller and rather more accurate treatment of this group in Ariosophy. For a tiny organisation that was fissiparous and moribund for most of its history, it doesn't warrant the disproportionate emphasis of a whole paragraph here, even if it were 100% accurate, which is far from being the case.
I am all for adding balancing material, but this article already has a proportionate emphasis on the Nazi connection and the racism angle. Re-adding a whole pointless paragraph which needlessly duplicates material in another article in the interest of inflating a barely significant grouplet into something that pretends to epitomise a very diverse movement, only serves to unbalance this article further and misrepresent its subject. As a reasonably "informed and responsible editor" I therefore took the necessary step to help restore balance, which is one of the reasons why I originally moved (not deleted or "censored") it in the first place.
The article adequately addresses the ambiguity of the term Volk, and the complaint about too much weight being put on the 'folksy' aspects will not bear examination. Even now, as I observed in a previous post, there is nothing much in the article about the left wing of the movement (it wasn't all "monarchist"), other than some general and, I would suspect, simplistic remarks about how the left took Volk to mean something proletarian. If there is a problem with neutrality and balance in this article, it lies there. With regard to its origins in the writings of Herder, the völkisch idea is wholeheartedly non-racist, and people like Landauer and Mühsam (the leading German anarchists of their time) represented a continuing current of völkisch anti-racism. It's understandable if the German page focuses on the racist version — a culture of guilt towards Romanticism seems to be one of Hitler's legacies — but these other aspects need to be looked at too. Gnostrat 07:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Völkische Block and the Völkisch-Sozialer Block: these extreme right-wing political organizations are not mentioned in the article so far. JBarreto ( talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Völkisch has only partly to do with neopaganism as there have also been and still are christian völkisch movements. Völkisch is a nationalist concept on a harsh racist and antisemitic/antislavic basis. That's the core meaning of the term. -- de:benutzer:hagenk
Ok, "Völkisch" is untranslateable, but what would be the nearest translation: nationalist, populist or something else? JBarreto ( talk) 12:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It uses an different meaning of Volk already compared to people and combines it as well with aspects of folk lore. Quite difficult to translate. -- Polentario ( talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm returning Lutzhöft's book to the library today, since a lot more things on WP are more urgent than expanding the Nordic race article. But Lutzhöft also has a definition of völkisch, and it seems we need one here:
I will see how I can get this into the article. Zara1709 ( talk) 06:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean: "In a narrow definition it can be used to designate only groups that consider human beings essentially preformed by blood." What does preformed by blood mean? Is there a way to write that sentence more clearly? 68.231.215.66 ( talk) 06:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This is metaphor I guess for 'many colours' , meaning I guess 'many interpretations' here ? Wouldn't it be better in plain English ? What does the original Author mean here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.23.130 ( talk) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The following observation no longer appear in the current version:
I have read things that indicate that the Nazis put such huge amounts of efforts in building outdoor amphtheatres, etc., early in their leadership of the government was due to the huge influence of this movement on Goebbles and other senior Nazis; these things were deemphasized later on as not being seen of huge importance to Hitler. This would belong in the article if good sourcing can be linked. 75.252.119.134 ( talk) 21:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Völkisch movement/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The external reference linking the concept of Volk with the Ummah should be removed. It is out of scope of the article. |
Last edited at 02:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I added it here is because "Völkisch" is used mostly in the United States among neopagan groups to refer to far-right and racist movements within paganism, but their definition also applies to other groups in other countries with similar beliefs, including Rodnover groups in Russia and Artgemeinschaft in Germany.
PulauKakatua19 ( talk) 19:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I'm under the impression that the terms folk and volk, and the terms folkish and volkish are used interchangeably. Gringo300 10:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
the völkisch movement shouldnt be included in the nazism series, its just not fair to make that asosiation 201.220.99.89 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Tagging the article with {{Nazism}} is improper as the article covers a wider context than just the ideology that was (mis)used by the Nazis. -- Matthead discuß! O 00:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
i personally disagree with the above statement and think the article should remain tagged with Nazism. the Nazi's misused and bastardized a multitude of symbols and philosophies. one cannot separate Nazisms relationship with the volkisch movement just as you cannot separate Nazisms relationship to the swastika. neither in their traditional meaning condone or imply fascist beliefs but unfortunately have been manipulated to do so which should not be ignored.
I see no reason for a disproportionate part of the article to focus down on the Teutonic/Germanic Order (Germanenorden). Germanic mysticism was a much broader movement and this particular organisation was a small part of it which merits no more than a passing mention. The block of GO material here nicely plugs a gap in Germanic mysticism and I intend to move it there, to be replaced in this article with a summary of the Germanic mystical movement more generally.
There is also rather too much focus on the Nazi connection at the expense of 'left-wing' völkisch thinkers like Gustav Landauer and indeed the ultimate founder of the movement, Johann Gottfried von Herder. Not to mention all the neo-pagan stuff that went on with the Social Democrats! Only I don't feel qualified to write it yet, but I might well have a go sometime if nobody else takes it on. Gnostrat 03:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The introduction emphasizes on populism, romanticism, folklore and being organic, and completely leaves out the nationalist and racist aspect, which is emphasized on de and nl, which seem to have evolved independently of each other. I suspect this might be a misinterpretation of the translaction of "Volk" as "people", with "people" having distinct meanings in English:
A point against a "populist" interpretation is that populism claims to be egalitarian, while the völkisch guys were openly monarchist, i.e. anti-egalitarian. Unfortunately I don't have sources at hand. -- dealerof salvation 07:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's get a few things straight here. I am not attempting to "censor" this Germanenorden material. I moved it for good reasons a few months back, and it is now to be found in the Ariosophy article, where some of the blatant inaccuracies have been pruned away.
What you have restored is in the wrong place, as it interrupts the natural flow from the first to the second paragraph. Part of it violates WP:NPOV, because even if you think it is "pathological nationalism in an extreme form", you cannot simply slip that in as if it were objective description.
Furthermore, the order is wrongly described as a splinter-group from the Germanische Glaubensgemeinschaft (which is a neo-pagan organisation, not a masonic one, and is not even correctly translated). Goodrick-Clarke's authoritative Occult Roots of Nazism makes no connection whatever with the latter. The Germanenorden was set up as an inner circle of lodges within the Reichshammerbund and is therefore not a splinter-group from the GGG.
While I haven't been able to determine the correctness or otherwise of all the remaining details, that has nothing to do with why I removed it for the second time. It seems to have escaped your attention that there is already a short summary on the Germanenorden and similar groups further down in this article, with a link to the fuller and rather more accurate treatment of this group in Ariosophy. For a tiny organisation that was fissiparous and moribund for most of its history, it doesn't warrant the disproportionate emphasis of a whole paragraph here, even if it were 100% accurate, which is far from being the case.
I am all for adding balancing material, but this article already has a proportionate emphasis on the Nazi connection and the racism angle. Re-adding a whole pointless paragraph which needlessly duplicates material in another article in the interest of inflating a barely significant grouplet into something that pretends to epitomise a very diverse movement, only serves to unbalance this article further and misrepresent its subject. As a reasonably "informed and responsible editor" I therefore took the necessary step to help restore balance, which is one of the reasons why I originally moved (not deleted or "censored") it in the first place.
The article adequately addresses the ambiguity of the term Volk, and the complaint about too much weight being put on the 'folksy' aspects will not bear examination. Even now, as I observed in a previous post, there is nothing much in the article about the left wing of the movement (it wasn't all "monarchist"), other than some general and, I would suspect, simplistic remarks about how the left took Volk to mean something proletarian. If there is a problem with neutrality and balance in this article, it lies there. With regard to its origins in the writings of Herder, the völkisch idea is wholeheartedly non-racist, and people like Landauer and Mühsam (the leading German anarchists of their time) represented a continuing current of völkisch anti-racism. It's understandable if the German page focuses on the racist version — a culture of guilt towards Romanticism seems to be one of Hitler's legacies — but these other aspects need to be looked at too. Gnostrat 07:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Völkische Block and the Völkisch-Sozialer Block: these extreme right-wing political organizations are not mentioned in the article so far. JBarreto ( talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Völkisch has only partly to do with neopaganism as there have also been and still are christian völkisch movements. Völkisch is a nationalist concept on a harsh racist and antisemitic/antislavic basis. That's the core meaning of the term. -- de:benutzer:hagenk
Ok, "Völkisch" is untranslateable, but what would be the nearest translation: nationalist, populist or something else? JBarreto ( talk) 12:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It uses an different meaning of Volk already compared to people and combines it as well with aspects of folk lore. Quite difficult to translate. -- Polentario ( talk) 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm returning Lutzhöft's book to the library today, since a lot more things on WP are more urgent than expanding the Nordic race article. But Lutzhöft also has a definition of völkisch, and it seems we need one here:
I will see how I can get this into the article. Zara1709 ( talk) 06:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean: "In a narrow definition it can be used to designate only groups that consider human beings essentially preformed by blood." What does preformed by blood mean? Is there a way to write that sentence more clearly? 68.231.215.66 ( talk) 06:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This is metaphor I guess for 'many colours' , meaning I guess 'many interpretations' here ? Wouldn't it be better in plain English ? What does the original Author mean here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.200.23.130 ( talk) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The following observation no longer appear in the current version:
I have read things that indicate that the Nazis put such huge amounts of efforts in building outdoor amphtheatres, etc., early in their leadership of the government was due to the huge influence of this movement on Goebbles and other senior Nazis; these things were deemphasized later on as not being seen of huge importance to Hitler. This would belong in the article if good sourcing can be linked. 75.252.119.134 ( talk) 21:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Völkisch movement/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The external reference linking the concept of Volk with the Ummah should be removed. It is out of scope of the article. |
Last edited at 02:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I added it here is because "Völkisch" is used mostly in the United States among neopagan groups to refer to far-right and racist movements within paganism, but their definition also applies to other groups in other countries with similar beliefs, including Rodnover groups in Russia and Artgemeinschaft in Germany.
PulauKakatua19 ( talk) 19:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)