Talk:Carl Schmitt

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, on the grounds that there is indepedent notability and the topics are distinct. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katechon overlaps and is not wp:notable. Proposing merger to here. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, both because the article has sufficient references to establish notability, and this page isn't an appropriate target given that other groups have studied the topic. Klbrain (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Theological aspects provide additional (independent) notability. Biohistorian15 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Nazi Party"

Can we please stop to communicate this in low brow language? The name of the party was NSDAP.... Only intellectually challenged folks would call it "Nazi Party". 105.12.6.190 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, many would think NSDAP was an opaque term for most readers and could be used to hide the word Nazi. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

"His ideas remain highly influential, with many scholars arguing he has influenced modern governance in China and Russia, as well as the movements of neoconservatism and Trumpism."

Citation(s) needed for this statement. You cannot just say "many scholars argue [x]" without providing evidence. Who are these "many scholars?" A citation to a specific scholar or scholars who make this claim would greatly benefit the article -- as it stands now it is merely anecdotal.

Thank you. 2601:CF:0:BEB0:28C8:551C:907C:C296 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are provided in the body per WP:MOSLEAD. JDiala (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not fixed

The statement is still not fixed. This is an assertion without providing the facts to back it up. What is the Who, What, When, Where, Why, How? This cannot be a general consensus of academics. The facts and the historical record does not support it and requires a discussion of the nuances of Romantic and German idealist philosophy surrounding Schmidt’s ideas. For example an argument can be made that neoconservativism was an out growth of left wing Progressivism since many members were previously Progressive but found conservatism later in life. Further, the philosophical father of the movement, Francis Fukuyama, was a Hegelian. Example Fukuyama’s “End of History” theory. Hegel, who was partially inspired by Rousseau, was an inspiration for Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Bakunin. All promenant politically Left thinkers. therefore, there is either a connection between Schmidt and Progressive thinkers found in the nuances or this statement is The Statement is still not fixed. This is an assertion without providing the facts to back it up. What is the Who, What, When, Where, Why, How? This cannot be a general consensus of academics. The facts and the historical record does not support it with out discussing the nuances of Romantic and German idealist philosophy. For example an argument can be made that neoconservativism was an out growth of left wing Progressivism since many members were previously Progressive but found conservatism later in life. Further, the philosophical father of the movement, “Francis Fukuyama, was a Hegelian. Example his his end of History theory.” Hegel, who was partially inspired by Rousseau, was an inspiration for Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Bakunin. All promenant politically Left thinkers. therefore, there is either a connection between Schmidt and Progressive thinkers found in the nuances or this statement is not entirely true. Either way, there is no consensus and needs a citation. entirely true. Either way, there is no academic consensus and needs a citation. 2600:8806:3402:3E00:3D4B:979C:57DA:1CB3 (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Briar patch sentence

This sentence is a grammatical briar patch:

Most notably the legal opinions offered by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo et al. by invoking the unitary executive theory to justify the Bush administration's legally controversial decisions during the War on terror (such as introducing unlawful combatant status which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions, the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance program and various excesses of the Patriot Act) mimic his writings.

The actual core sentence: [Certain recent] legal opinions minic his writings.

Ideally, "which purportedly would eliminate protection by the Geneva Conventions" would be parenthetical to "introducing unlawful combatant status", but this is already nested inside a parenthetical detour of extreme duration. This would help to make it clear that the verb "eliminate" does not also govern "the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse" which follows (where only semantics guides the reader, not the grammatical frame or the orthographic rails). The writer was quick and clever, while the reader is left to suffer. — MaxEnt 06:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Schmitt