Talk:Defeatism

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

list[edit]

I am not sure if anybody is going to read this, but let me ask anyway. Would it be ok for me to list people that were called defeatist at some point? Or would it be too politicized? --Dejan Cabrilo 17:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good, but how will they be chosen? Defeatists called such by the media, or from another source?

Well, I don't know. E.g. Daniil Kharms was sentenced for being a defeatist. Some are calling Sharon a defeatist. I mean, media can call anyone a defeatist, so if we are listing names, let's just use examples of people who were proclaimed to be defeatists with some consequence following. --Dejan Cabrilo 00:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about Jesus?--Amir E. Aharoni 15:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making an actual list or naming notable people who have been dubbed, categorized, or is "known" for being defeatists, would be extremely political and non-neutral. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why Nazi generals were accused of 'defeatism' in 1945[edit]

I think the article does not do enough to explain why Hitler prosecuted his generals in the final year of World War Two. I tried to add the simple explanation "for pointing out the truth that Nazi Germany was losing to the Allies." however it has been removed by two editors who feel this factual wording is "original research". This basically is accusing me of making up information myself, which is not the case. I am giving those two editors a chance to explain their rationale and motivation here in discussion. KZebegna (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research means something closer to "the statement cannot be sourced" instead of "it is made up". I reverted your edit because it was not supported by a reliable source, and it is not an undisputed fact. If you can verify the truth of your statement (using a reliable source), I will leave you be. Thank you! JJP...MASTER!...MASTER!!! master of puppets, i'm pulling your strings (0-3-5)_{[talk about or to] JJP... master? master? where's the dreams that i've been after (0-3-6-5)} 15:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can easily be sourced, because it would be much harder to find anywhere a detailed discussion of Hitler's use of "defeatism" giving any other explanation for it. That's why I could not believe anyone would call this "original research". KZebegna (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source then. JJP...MASTER!...MASTER!!! master of puppets, i'm pulling your strings (0-3-5)_{[talk about or to] JJP... master? master? where's the dreams that i've been after (0-3-6-5)} 15:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]