Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

How can a movment that was "neither right nor left, but a third way," be considered "far right"?

There's a lot of weasel language in the Nazi Party article. Why is Nazism considered "far right" wing when it was socialist in nature? Recommend removing the "Far Right" or any sort of "right" or "left"-wing language from Nazi ideology and politics article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.167.190 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

^ Because it wasn't socialist in nature. They just called themselves that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.220.110 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 June 2010

Again, you are confusing economic and social issues. The Nazis were extreme right only in the social sense, but economically centrist. This makes them extreme right. The economic position of the party is not what they are remembered for, they are remembered for their far right views on race, immigration, homosexuality, abortion, and other key social issues. ReignMan (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis were not economically centrist, but decidedly rightist, destroying unions and abolishing workers' rights.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

But the Nazis were still centrist, albeit slightly right of center, in economic issues. I know what you mean though. Their so called socialist acts were generally aimed at racial purity. 11:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReignMan (talk • contribs)

The views of the Nazis on workplace relations, work-related negotiations, political organization of employees, the structure of social security, were all clearly right-wing. The only point that could be seen as not being right-wing is their collectivism, but extreme individualism is a relatively recent form of right-wing thinking. Also, the Nazis always saw the owner of a factory as the leader of the factory, quite similar to the position of the Führer in politics. During the war, many companies were de facto subordinated to political orders (just as in the US), but this was not the ideology of the Nazis. Some "socialist" tendencies in the Nazi movement, that never had any influence on actual policies, would need to be discussed a bit differently, but that would be another article.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think you've convinced me. Heretofore, I had mostly known about the economic policy speeches given by Hitler, but not much about his actual enacted economic policies. Now, if I understand correctly, Hitler used the core tenets of Keynesian economics to get the country back on its feet, and then proceeded to rule from the right once the economy was stable. This would mean the socialist cant of the party was merely a corrective measure. Is this a fair assessment? ReignMan (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Hitler maintained Keynesian policies even after the stabilization of Germany's economy in order to run a strong war economy. Corporations, however, while privately-owned and managed within a capitalist setting, were still subject to the regime's frequent interventions. When you look at Nazi economics, in my personal opinion, you're more or less looking at social democratic economics, minus the primary concentration on the working class. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

At the beginning, I think that much of the macro-economic policy was not really guided by theory, it was about stabilizing output in any way that appeared possible. Just like the last months of Hoover's administration saw some developments in economic policy (the creation of cartels) that were effective in stopping the downward spiral. Later on, the war spending dictated increases expenses by the state, and I don't think the Keynesian effects were more than a by-product. Probably the Nazis were of the opinion that any German, or "Aryan", who supported their ideals and was willing to work was entitled to more social security than what some neo-liberals would consider sufficient today. My argument would be that the basic economic thinking, as well as most of the specific views of the Nazis on economics was right-wing. For a more detailed analysis, I would have to have a closer look at the literature. Certainly, the economic ideology and actual economic policy was not identical to the policies that would have followed from other right-wing ideologies.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What I find the most interesting is that the Nazis supported somewhat social economic practice among only Aryans. This is a hard thing to quantify. Suppose you have a country where all whites live in an economic structure where they receive welfare, social security, medical care, etc, but all blacks are left to fend for themselves. Is this society economically right wing, or economically left wing?

What you're telling me is, this is why the Nazis are considered right wing. I think I get that. Economically, among those who were racially Aryan, they were a centrist economic party, but among those who were not, they were much more right wing. So, it's more important to understand that their social views eclipse and, indeed, rule their economic beliefs. A little confusing, but it was a confusing movement. ReignMan (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A somewhat analogous situation took place in South Africa under the apartheid regime; some of the pro-apartheid factions were almost social democratic for whites, but "let 'em starve" free-marketers for non-whites. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Take it up with mainstream historians who refer to the Nazi party and fascists as extreme right movements. We don't go with what editors might view as the truth, but with the sources. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

some of the pro-apartheid factions were almost social democratic for whites, but "let 'em starve" free-marketers for non-whites.

Orangemike are you a socialist? Because such cartoonish view of free market capitalism is very funny.

The Nazis were extreme right only in the social sense, but economically centrist. This makes them extreme right. The economic position of the party is not what they are remembered for, they are remembered for their far right views on race, immigration, homosexuality, abortion, and other key social issues.

You continue to attribute a number of policies to the "right" even when they were applied by both left-wing states and so-called right wing states.

Though I admit socialist states never had to worry about inmigration as much as "emigration".

The Nazis were not economically centrist, but decidedly rightist, destroying unions and abolishing workers' rights

Cs32en would you be terribly shock to learn that the Soviet Union like most socialist dictatorships that existed also destroyed unions, abolished worker rights and killed dissidents?Agrofelipe (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Church Welfare??

This section is wacky and very misleading:

The Party believed that Social Welfare was the business of the state. Before the Nazi movement, the churches administered charity. The government enforced a collection of a 10% tithe which was paid directly to the churches. This charitable bureaucracy was shifted to the State.

This claim, which is unreferenced, makes it sound as if Wilhelmine and Weimar were theocracies that the Nazis wanted to secularize. This is highly misleading.

Already in the days of Bismarck's chancellorship the (central) German state played an active role in welfare. The churches did provide some welfare but did not constitute a charitable bureaucracy.

Payment of the Church tax continued throughout the Nazi period. Norvo (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph now. Sourced information on this issue is welcome, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Before you try to claim Extreme Left/Extreme Right, Read This

I've noticed a lot of misinformation and guessing going on about whether the Nazis are "extreme right" or "extreme left". The answer is not that simple. This type of thinking is two dimensional, and useless. The Nolan Chart is the best way to describe political philosophy...

The political spectrum is broken into two distinct axises, economic and social. The Economic axis refers to the views on economic matters, like taxes, healthcare, land ownership, etc.. In this case, the left wing represents collectivism, while the right represents capitalism. The Social axis refers to the views on social issues, like censorship, freedom of speech, capital punishment, etc. The left wing here represents libertarianism, while the right represents authoritarianism.

The Nazis were economically centrist, but socially, extreme right. [1] shows an example of some popular leaders on a Nolan chart. The Nazis are therefore more conservative than the Republicans on social issues, yet more liberal than the Democrats on economic issues.

Americans have a hard time understanding this, as both the Democratic and Republican parties represent the right side of both the economic and the social spectrum, but the Democrats are closer to center than the Republicans in on both axises.

Many Americans have a hard time believing all of this, but it is true. The United States is a very conservative country, as are many European nations. Wikipedia is meant to be written from an internationally unbiased point of view. For this reason, it's imperative to keep in mind that most U.S. Democrats are indeed conservatives. Because of the highly polarized nature of American politics, most would refuse to believe this.

However, it's wise to remember that one's own beliefs always appear as centrist. People with right wing views tend to want to call the Nazis left wing, while people with left wing views tend to want to call the Nazis right wing. The hardest part is understanding that one's own beliefs do not need to be quantified or affiliated with any other group that may be considered within the same sphere. If you have right wing beliefs, that doesn't mean you need to worry about being in the same quadrant with Hitler. There is no need for any of this, as both Hitler, Bush, Obama, Thatcher, Blair, Clinton, and McCain are all in the same quadrant.ReignMan (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. You think American politics are highly polarized? The Democrats and Republicans are almost indistinguishable and only argue about petty issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.23.251 (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

American politics are highly polarized, yes. That doesn't make what you said any less true, in fact, what you said is quite true. Polarization implies that a small gap has been magnified to represent a major one. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are very similar, one is a basic conservative party, the other is a basic labor party, both more similar than dissimilar, but Americans believe they are polar opposites. ReignMan (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the Nolan Chart biased to favor capitalist libertarianism?Smiloid (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The chart itself was designed to explain capitalist libertarianism. Whether it was skewed or not, I can't say. The way Nolan drew it up did probably favor his own position, but that doesn't make the chart any less useful, if not in his form, in the form of the Political Compass or other similar device. ReignMan (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Nazi Party" Article Edited To Be More Neutral and Current

I edited the article more neutral and current. For example, the Neo Nazis, BNP, and Stormfront unfortunately exist and are offshoots of the Nazi Party. Also, ethnocentrism, racism, nationalism, Anti-Semitism, and similar ideologies are adhered to by people on both all sides and neither side of the political spectrum. For instance, Strom Thurmond was a racist Republican, and Jimmy Carter is a Democrat and still seen as an Anti-Semite (even though he claims to apologize for having been one).

Ah, not to be a stickler, but both Thurmond and Carter are right wing politicians socially speaking. There is a notorious American belief that the Democratic party is liberal, but only a handful of Democrats are actually considered liberal (Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Mike Gravel). American Democrats are widely a conservative party, favoring almost no left wing social ideals; e.g., they believe in censorship, they don't fully support gay and polygamous marriage, they favor drugs being illegal, they are opposed to unlimited gun rights, etc. Wikipedia is supposed to be from a worldwide neutral point of view, not American neutral. ReignMan (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, UNSC Trooper, I hope that I'm wrong in thinking that you tried to log me out of Wikipedia when I was editing the article at one point; and that instead of your abuse of special user privileges, I logged myself out by accident.

Nickidewbear (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you can relax. I am pretty sure he couldn't do that even if he wanted to. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I had to undo your revamp as it had two big problems:

• This is meant to be about the Nazi Party as an organisation not Nazism as an ideology, which we cover separately. While organisations like the BNP and Stormfront can quite rightly be called Nazis for having inherited the Nazi ideology there is no direct organisational link between them and the original Nazi party.
• Serious POV problem with the left-right issue and that discursive paragraph that you added. The Nazis are generally attributed to the far right by the majority of historians.

There are a few rescuable elements such as the categories, which I will redo. In general though, I recommend to take care when making controversial edits like this. It would be better to discus them here first. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Like Daniel said, I don't have any blocking privileges. For the record, Nick; you opined somewhere that Socialism is a far-left ideology. I've seen this theory crawl its way into this article, too. Socialism is not a far-left ideology itself, it's simply a basis for a wide range of left-wing and center-right beliefs: Marxism-Leninism, Marxist socialism, Democratic socialism, Social democracy and Christian democracy, respectively. So, even if the Nazis were "true" socialists as their title implies, they would never have adopted a far-left Marxist Socialist (communist) program, because they were violent anti-communists. They'd still have been called far-right due to their unchanged racism and ultra-nationalism, like, for instance, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Enough with my political philosophy, though. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ section

The far-left or far-right issue has been brought up more times than I can count and has led to unsubstantiated editing of the article. Therefore, I'd like to propose that we include a collapsible FAQ section at the head of this talk page, similar to the one on Talk:British National Party, explaining why the Nazi Party is almost universally labeled far-right instead of far-left. I'd imagine we could avoid future discussions on the issue as well as - if people care to visit the talk page and read the annotation - hinder unsupported edits. Regards, UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We're thinking along the same lines here. I added a section at the top trying to explain why the Nazis are called far right with a referenced, logical, and neutral explanation. Maybe that could be the basis of the text in your FAQ idea? I think most people may calm down a bit if they read that both Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Hitler are all considered within the same political spectrum (which is, to put it lightly, very broad). ReignMan (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've finished the FAQ and inserted it on top of the page. I've also included one of your explanations from that section as an additional point to prove the Nazis were far-right. The FAQ template is here. Feel free to edit it in case you want to add something. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thenazivotes&votedate numberofvotes %votesgained successful votes 1928年5月20日 810,000 2.6% 12人 1930年9月14日 6,410,000 18.3% 107人 1932年7月31日 13,750,000 37.3% 230人 1932年11月6日 11,740,000 33.1% 196人 1933年3月5日 17,280,000 43.9% 288人 1933年11月12日 39,655,288 92.2% 661人 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.3.25.240 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it, it's clear, maybe a few internal links could solidify it, but other than that, it's very well done. ReignMan (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd personally avoid relying on the compass sysem entirely, it is not universally accepted and certainly far from universally used. It also is slightly irrelevent. What matters to us is what the sources say. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Compass system (Nolan chart) is gaining popularity. It's clear and effective. I used it in college, and have lectured on it in the past. While it's not currently universally accepted, we must factor in that what is universally accepted is ambiguous and often misleading. The Russo-communist parties could surreptitiously be called far left. Their highly authoritarian social views, however, are in direct conflict of the highly libertarian social views of the true far left, anarcho-communists. The two groups are opposite ends of the spectrum, yet both deemed far left.

Wikipedia's articles about communism, however, are quite unambiguous, and quite clearly lay out that communism is purely an economic term. This is the same kind of clarity we need in this article. The Nazis were socialist in the vein that the center of the economic axis is referred to as socialism (though some argue socialism and communism are synonymous, I don't personally know the answer), they were not in any way representative of the left wing of the social axis (libertarianism). ReignMan (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In my arrogant opinion, the ultimate truth for something like this is who somebody chooses as allies. The Nazis were funded by the far-right elements in the Abwehr, and allied exclusively with the right and right-center parties against the Social Democrats and the Communists: thus, they fall in the far-right, not far-left. In the same way, most alleged libertarians in the U.S. ally with the Republicans and conservative Democrats, and therefore empirically fall in the right- rather than left-wing column, to the extent to which such a classification is useful. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're not wrong in this, the Nazis did form their allies on the extreme right. No one here (who's sane) is actually insinuating that the Nazis were extreme leftists, or leftists at all. Indeed, as I said before, "socialism" is a component of centrist economics by some syntax.

I think it's so important to clarify the two dimensional political axis! None of these problems would exist with its general usage. Anyone would be able to look at the chart and see that the so called "evil" governments were spread evenly throughout the left and right economically, but they all shared the extreme authoritarian views (generally classed as right wing). Even Stalin could be described as extreme right and extreme left wing, and both would be true. Hitler, on the other hand, was in no way extreme left, but he was extreme right.

The only way to really clear it up is to use the Nolan Chart. ReignMan (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or one simply goes with what historians say. Which is that they are ultra right wing fascists who utilised double speak like National Socialism. We don't need to be encouraging debate (which is what the Nolan Chart does) we need to be simply using wikipedia policies. Reliable sources identify the Nazis as far right. If people can bring a series of reliable sources that say they are left wing, then that is a different thing, but until then we go with what the vast majority of RSs say. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Narson - well put. Shot info (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't disagree with that, in fact, I don't think one sane person does, but the term "extreme right wing" itself requires explination, otherwise you get that annoying march of very conservative people who try to defend their own views by calling the Nazis extreme left wing. The Nazi party did not lie on the proverbial right/left axis, so the extremity takes priority. If they were indeed an extreme left wing party, they would have been encouraging gay black Jews to marry blonde haired Aryians, and adopt hispanic children. That's left wing. Eugneics, ethic cleansing, nationalism, those are all right wing ideals. ReignMan (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, eugenics and ethnic cleansing were all very much present in left-wing regimes and their leaders' ideologies, from Ceausescu, Slobodan Milosevic to Pol Pot, the last two having been accused of genocide. Not to mention the various Marxist movements in Africa and the genocides that came with their rise to power. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All three leaders you mention are not leftists. Ethnic cleansing is not an economic issue, therefore the economic positions of these leaders is totally irrelevant. This has to be the most common mistake laymen make in thinking about poltics, they assume that left is left, and right is right. There are two, totally valid, and totally unrelated "lefts" and "rights". Stalin was both an extreme leftist, and an extreme rightist. He was extreme left in economic matters, and extreme right in social matters. This is why it's so important to use the Nolan Chart to describe political positions. ReignMan (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but what defines the social right? We usually refer to social conservatives and christian democrats as the social right, because they concentrate on preserving traditional right-wing social values, and we refer to today's extreme conservatives (in the US) and extreme nationalists (in Europe) as far-right on social matters. I see the accuracy in your statement that Stalinist leaders were more socially "right-wing," and it's something I believe should be given weight to when categorizing a certain regime on the political spectrum as well, (Ceausescu and Pol Pot both hated religion, but differed greatly in their nationalist approach to the national question from the mainstream of internationalist communists; Ceausescu (I'm not sure about Pol Pot, though, as I'm not very documented on his life) vehemently opposed the practice of abortion for demographic reasons, not religious, pretty much upheld the basis of the traditional family, and didn't really give much attention to the feminist branch of communist ideology). These apparent socially conservative policies are an inherent product of Stalinism and the nationalist variation of communism. Generally speaking, however, Stalinist leaders like Ceausescu and Pol Pot don't ascribe to what we call generic social conservatives, and their regimes are always called leftist - their ties to original Marxism are far too great for them to be considered anything else but communist, (Ceausescu's nationalism was still rather moderate compared to that of Mussolini. :P) Regards, UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point there. To me, the idea of traditional "conservative" ideals is a moot point though. The real question is authoritarian or libertarian. You will find many social right wingers that vehemently disagree on most points, take for example, The Catholic Church and The Palestinian Liberation Organization. Both are right wing in social views, and left wing in economic views. Both groups are right next to eachother on the Nolan chart, but still disagree quite vehemently on many issues. You can find many (better) examples of this, groups that sit right near eachother, yet have totally opposing philosophies. ReignMan (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my point is that it doesn't matter what we tink or what users argue etc etc. If the reliable sources explain that the Nazis were infact highly involved members of the Dolphin Plot To Kill Us All, then they were part of that plot. In the same way, if overwhelming RSs refer to them as adjective A, then they are A. It just so happens in this case that A is Extreme Right Wing. If people want to understand why historians say that, they should read history books and not an Encyclopedia. We are not a substitute for specialist knowledge/discourse, just an aid to general knowledge. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"ceased to exist"

"When the German armies surrendered to the Allies in May 1945 and the German state ceased to exist," - the German state did not cease to exist, at least not to most legal theories. See also Debellatio. --JensMueller (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The dominant viewpoint of the German authorities (in particular the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany) is that the German state did not cease to exist, but debellatio is not part of the reasoning on which this position is being based. See, for example, de:Rechtslage des Deutschen Reiches nach 1945#Untergangstheorien (in German).  Cs32en Talk to me  21:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone with an account please revert the vandalism, it's a shame it's semi-protected: Apparently some are annoying enough to create an account specifically to deface an article -- and I, being too lazy to create an account, can't revert it myself. I'm talking about this edit by "Grey2100". 87.78.3.205 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Article title

In order to be accurate, would it make more sense for the article to be retitled "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi Party)", as that is, after all, the actual name of the organisation, with Nazi Party being British slang abbreviation for the same? DiverScout (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No. We've gone over this dozens of times over the years. Articles are to be listed at the most commonly-used name for the subject, and that is "Nazi Party" in this case. (The English didn't coin the term Nazi, either, by the way.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this simple question has arisen because a German editor working on a FA linked to this article has insisted, and gained consenus, that Nazi Party is not an acceptable derivation, so it seems strange that the title is fine for the main but not for a link. No need for a vote - although, just to correct you, while Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische, the British speaking countries did create the term "Nazi Party" as used for the title. DiverScout (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a different standard different places on Wikipedia. The Ramones article is titled Ramones because that's what the band calls their band. The Eagles is called Eagles because that's their name. In both articles, what the bands called themselves are given heavy weight. In the Ramones discussion, the argument that "the band name is Ramones. There is not a single album in their entire discography that uses "the" on the cover" is among those made to counter claims that the band name is THE Ramones. Had the same standard been accepted here, the name of the article should NOT be "Nazi Party".

The argument that the most common name should be used obviously has some merits. In some cases, there are clear deviations between the original name of something/someone and the name used in articles. Bill Clinton, for example, is really William Clinton, but Bill is more commonly used. North Korea is another example where there's a deviation betweem the long name and the shorter name used in the article and the shorter name is just fine. A lot of people, with Slash (Guns n' Roses) or Iggy Pop being just two examples, are obviously titled correctly. I have no idea what their real names are and neither do most people. In these cases, however, the names are accepted by the entities or people in question (North Korea even uses that short term in public documents in the country).

The problem arises when the term is primarily used by opponents or those who don't know any better. Would Bill Clinton, for example, be called Bill Clinton on wikipedia if he hated the name Bill and it was only a name used by his opponents? Should W. Axl Rose be Axel Rose if it's the more common name used on google? Or should Barack Obama be Barack Hussein Obama (or what about Barry?) because his opponents call him that? What about the Sozies, the Social democrats in Germany? Had that term prevailed, should it be used too? It was just as derogatory as Nazi... Finally, should the Nazi Party be the Nazi Party when their opponents called them that?

The Wikipedia answer to these questions are no, no, no, no and yes(!). In the first four, I believe there's no real dispute. No one would change the name of a politician because opponents call them a different name. When it comes to the Nazi Party, however, the opponents won. The name was used by the Nazis themselves, but from 1933 and onwards, it virtually disappeared. Hitler seems to have disliked the name and it simply was not used officially by the party. Opponents retained the name, however, and so did Wikipedia.

The problem should be obvious. The Nazi Party article retains a name not used by a party while the Ramones article does exactly the opposite. In one case it matters that a specific name was used while in another it doesn't. Two articles, two standards. That's Wikipedia! 212.251.179.170 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Everybody else called them that. We don't care what the verdammte scheißkopfen wanted to be called; we have no obligation to maintain a neutral point of view towards the Nazis. That is the common name for them. End of discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. Are we obligated to maintain a neutral point of view towards the pinkos, though? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Must be about time for the "they are far-left" discussion to rear up again :-) Shot info (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Far-left discussion is made on completely faulty terms and that decision is right. This decision is not right, however. I still know it will end with no one willing to discuss this and I am 100% certain that I am wasting my time. Wikipedia has a very weird way of making decisions. It has turned into an organization where "facts" are upheld even when they struggle to face reality or principles established (and accepted) in other articles. A name cannot be replaced if it a new name doesn't gain consensus. Consensus, not facts, dictate the name of this article. But consensus here is not retained across articles, because the name of the Ramones article is Ramones exactly because other people are wrong when they call them the Ramones - because it was never used by the band. Here other people are right when they call it the Nazi Party. Makes sense, doesn't it?

I won't even try to make the neutrality issue. I seriously doubt anyone cares about that and I'm convinced there's some technicality that allows a name like this. My problem is still that other articles hold completely different standards. There is of course a chance that I should head over to the Ramones discussion and propose that they change the name to the "common usage in reliable sources" (there's many, many such sources). I may try that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.179.170 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, your post now suggests that POV dictates the article title, when it ought to be, as the other editor states, academic standards. I know that it is hard when the article is about scum like these, but standards ought to be being followed. The Kmer Rouge, for example, is a correctly titled article for an equally offensive organisation. That said, I'm not going to be losing any sleep over this. DiverScout (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But that's also the problem with these discussions. I've read through discussions in the past and while people see a problem with this name, they don't want to go the point of changing it. Now people don't even want to discuss this despite the obvious un-academic flaws. Sure, that prevents any test of whether there is consensus. This name is therefore locked even if there is no actual consensus going either way as people has just given up. But votes has sometimes been very close and this is in no way settled.

Wikipedia lists five ideals for titles. The first, that it is recognizable, is perhaps in place here only because this party is the biggest Nazi Party. The second, that it is easy to find, is also fine because all the different names are linked to this article. Under that ideal, however, it says that the article title should reflect what editors will most naturally link from other articles. I think few articles link the "Nazi Party" because it is deemed as too flawed for article contents (as seen earlier in this discussion). This represents a real problem. The 3rd and 4th ideal is that the name is precise and consise. I'm not sure how precise a name is when it has nothing to do with what the party called itself, but that's fine. The fifth, however, is much more problematic. The article name should be consistent (follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles). I think there's not a single other article about a party where the name of the party is listed to be something completely different from what the party called itself. This name is like naming Social-Democratic parties Socialists if opponents call them that. In sum, I have a hard time not seeing this as a clear violation of wikipedia's ideals.

It is not entirely clear either that google hits show how "Nazi Party" is that much more common that "NSDAP" or any other form of this abbreviation. Google Scholar searches shows that NSDAP returns more results than "Nazi Party". Google Books returns about 7000 and 4000 hits for the two (english only), but "American Nazi Party" returns almost 1000 hits alone. It is therefore questionable whether all results fro "Nazi Party" actually refers to Hitler's Party. On normal google searches, the same pattern may very well be in place. While "Nazi Party" returns more results than NSDAP (with "wikipedia" excluded, english only), the same search with "neo nazi party", "American Nazi Party", "British Nazi Party" etc returns many findings too. While "Nazi Party" is therefore very impresise, I seriously cannot believe that any other organization would think the abbreviation NSDAP "sounds just fine". The likelihood that the google search for NSDAP returns actual hits is therefore much higher. It is therefore not obvious that "[e]verybody else called them that", as Orange Mike argued above here. It is far from true and very, very questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.179.170 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to the time Mel Brooks sings "Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the NSDAP!. Shot info (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there you've got a really reliable source. I was looking at books about this but I forgot Mel Brooks was singing about this party. It ruins my whole argument, doesn't it? 212.251.179.170 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it does Shot info (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Read what that link actually says: NORMALLY the most common name used by RELIABLE sources. There has never been presented ANY evidence that it is the most common name used by reliable sources. You just claim it is. That's not reliable either. I know people has tried to use google to show this, but methodologically, that is flawed too since google only really shows that sources uses the two names. It speaks nothing about whether they are reliable. To draw the conclusion that one is more common than the other based on the information we have is a fallacy. It means that personal experiences and personal habits of what we read is affecting the standard of Wikipedia. That's not right.

That a name is common is NOT the only principle of wikipedia titles. Just above that section in your link, there's listed five ideals that should also be upheld. I believe the Nazi Party title unquestionably violates 2-3 of those ideals. It is evident that people don't link "Nazi Party" because it simply is too vague. That violates the principle of the article being "easy to find" (effect reduced by redirects). It means, however, that the title is probably also too imprecise. Finally, it also violates the standard upheld in other articles about political parties. While my language skills are less than desired now, I looked at Czech, Russian, Portuguese, German, Norwegian, Swedish and some Spanish political parties to test this assumption. The article titles of all the current political parties in those countries are in line with what the native name is. There is not a single example in those countries of a party with a clear deviation between the name used by the parties and the name of the wikipedia articles. To my knowledge, the Nazi Party is the only known party that goes under a completely different name than what was used by the party. Is there a good reason for that? Sure, Mel Brooks must be able to use words that rhymes! 212.251.179.170 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I call bullshit on this 'un-academic' label being attached to 'Nazi Party'. I have sat in lectures by scholars on fascism and had them use the term Nazi Party repeatedly and not NSDAP. They are referred to the Nazi Party because that is how they are known. And yeah, that might be less than ideal because we might want to use the less emotive term National Socialist German Workers Party or what have you, but people have Nazi arty so embedded into their psyche and education ad we are not here to set trends or lament forks in the road not taken by the English language (I for one hate that we no longer make use of the Æ/æ ligature in regular usage). Personally I go with people like Roger Griffin. Yes, NSDAP is used often interchangeably with Nazi Party, however Nazi is often used, both as a party name and also as an adjective (Nazi leadership, Nazi ideology, Nazi ethics etc). Though I will admit trends in academia do change and at times Nazi Party is avoided while at others it is used freely. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And I've never said that it's not used academically. I'm just saying that among reliable sources, both names are used. The reality is, however, that a number of names are used academically even if they are short forms or incorrect forms. The Republicans are often called the GOP in academic works or reliable sources, but I doubt anyone would want to change the name of the party's article to that. As someone who has spent a great amount of time studying political parties, it's completely common that a short (or alternative) form is used to describe the party in academic works. When I write about the NSDAP academically, even I have used the term "German Nazi Party". But I also write about the Swedish or Spanish Social Democrats. I don't use those names because they are right, but because they are common (and sure, they are easily understood). That's enough for me, but it's not enough for an encyclopedia where facts and knowledge stands at the center. That's also why I believe Wikipedia has five principles, not one. It's simply not enough that a name is commonly used (by reliable sources). It must also follow the other four ideals. Those principles are currently violated as is evident from the fact that a different article does not link "Nazi Party" because it is not acceptable to link that name. It is also a problem that I cannot find a single article about a political party where the name is in violation with what the party called itself. That's not consistency which is an ideal here.

And no, this isn't an attempt "set trends or lament forks in the road not taken by the English language". It's an attempt to make the article title follow Wikipedia standards. 212.251.179.170 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I gather that the denazification movement of the late 40s and 50s has worked well so that now even the infamous Nazi Party itself is to be no longer refered to as such by a vocal minority. This matter has been discussed to death and since there is clearly no consensus to change there is no consensus to change. Moral is - the denazification movement needs to get themselves better published out there in the English speaking world to have a chance of altering common usage in the Anglosphere. Sure is may not be "right" (for a given level of whatever people perceive as "right") but thems the rules. Shot info (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not sure but it seems you accuse those who dislikes the current name of trying to label the Nazis as not so dangerous. If that's what you say, it's not the case and it amounts to an unfair way to label those who disagrees with you. My rationale is simply that the name is wrong. I believe it is wrong that this particular party should have a name different from any other party. The current name hides the fact that threats to a democracy can come from parties with normal names. It doesn't need to have a cartoon name to be dangerous. Those issues may partly motivate my willingness to waste my time here, but it's not about wanting to change the English language or wanting to make the Nazis look like friendly people. That's just absurd.

Another point: "Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus". If I'm right that the ideals are violated with the current title, that should - if I understand this right - mean that the consensus within this article is not worth much since there's consensus on Wikipedia that dictates that those ideals should be upheld. This should fall down to people seriously thinking about whether the ideals are actually upheld. 212.251.179.170 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of some abstract "ideal" being violated; it's a commonsense rule of thumb being applied. People who come to Wikipedia looking for an article on the Nazis are highly unlikely to even know what their official name was. They will look for the common name in English, and that's where they will find it: under Nazi Party! It's called the "Principle of least astonishment"; and WP:COMMON is part of it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if there is a redirect from Nazi Party to National Socialist German Workers Party, that wouldn't matter. UserVOBO (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But other articles uses the term NSDAP or the long form of the name. Then there can be no consensus that the "principle of least astonishment" matters here. As far as I understand, a term cannot be too complicated for one article if it's perfectly fine in another, can it? 212.251.179.170 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You know - I wonder why it's called Denazification and not ... say Densdapification? Hmm, perhaps some policy can help us? Shot info (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a completely different thing. It's called something similar to denazification in virtually every language because nazi is a word in virtually every language. If you look at article titles in most other languages, they also have a name of the party that is not the Nazi Party. I'm not arguing that nazi is not a word and I'm not arguing that nazism and everything that has something to do with it should be nsdapism. I'm just arguing that the title should be NSDAP, not the Nazi Party, which is a completely different thing. I also think the common sense argument should not be made here. I have no problem seeing how common sense can lead to the "Nazi Party" name being perfectly acceptable but there is disagreement about this name (as is evident from past discussions) exactly because both positions has some merits. 212.251.179.170 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(political_parties) and it seems clear that the name of this article is in violation of the standard: "For articles on organizations (like political parties) the general rule applies. That means: Name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name on the first line of the article." 212.251.179.170 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of that page. And while we are on the subject, could we stop with the wikilawyering? It is clear consensus is against you, continuing this on serves no purpose. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked through this discussion and just for the record, I think 3 people spoke in favor of retaining the name while four people spoke against it. Consensus is defined as "general agreement" by Dictionary.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.124.40 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again...

I have taken the liberty of editing the infobox to make it more neutral (taken from my userpage), and added several additions to it. Please feel free to debate but do not immediately revert my addition. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• EDIT - I did return several parts of the original infobox to the revised version (much better with the specifics on anti-communism and anti-capitalism), though the political positions section needs to be revised. The Nazi Party was in no way "centrist", seeing as how it opposed free-market trade. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Another edit, the Nazis, while they did note the similarity between fascism and Nazism, the nazis were not ideologically fascists. Saying that they are is like saying that Communism is a aspect of all left leaning party (Again, not suggesting that the communists or the Nazis are alike in any manner). Corporatism is a broader term for non-egalitarian, non-welfare state socialism so I replaced fascism with corporatism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthehook (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Scholars say they were fascist. Corporatism is often just a word used as part of the fascist double speak lexicon. Just like third positionist or whatever else they want to use (Anti-Fascist is quite a popular hidey hole for it too) --Narson ~ Talk • 23:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

On the position debate

I understand that the info box is Far right because that is what they are historically classified. However it should be mentioned that during their reign they considered themselves third position. We need to put more emphasis to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthehook (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

^ What they claimed to be is irrelevent. Hitler claimed to be a good Christian too but I can't think of many who would agree (with the possible exception of Fred Phelps). They were extreme far-right, have been generally considered as such for over sixty years and the topic wouldn't even arise here if very conservative people hadn't decided that absolutely everything bad should be blamed on the left and entirely rewritten the political spectrum (mixing up Communism's aims with it's results in the process) for the sole purpose of blaming them on the left. They were extreme right-wing and no amount of hissy fits from present-day conservatives is going to change that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.220.110 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 June 2010

Right wing?

Non-constructive and partially uncivil arguments

These posts are certainly lacking balance. The problem is simply that the term "right" has a very different meaning today, particularly in the political debates of the US. Also, the use of "right wing" to describe extreme nationalism/racism etc. is very unfortunate since it does not have a polar relationship with "left wing" as it is currently defined. This term needs to be rejected or more clearly defined. Economic issues are primary when you talk of a "left" and "right." I am happily right wing and the way this term is used to refer to my political beliefs as something akin to the Nazis is absurd and intellectually irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wupeide (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way, but the term right wing has not changed at all. The Nazis were extreme right wing then, and they are extreme right wing now. Racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism are all right wing. Anything that takes away personal freedom is right wing by definition. The right wing favors less individual rights (but more economic rights). There are indeed, polar opposites to this on the left wing. They are anarchy and lawlessness. While the Nazis split down the middle on some economic issues, their social stances were nearly 100% right wing. When you remove the element of extremism from the ideology, it becomes much more clearly right wing. Lets look at an example. I'll give you an issue, and three major platforms. Stance American Left Wing American Right Wing Nazi Homosexuality is? Acceptable Immoral Immoral Your views on illegal immigrants? Let them stay Deport them Deport them What language should people speak? Any English only German only Security or Privacy first? Privacy Security Security Dealing with enemies of the state? Court System Guantanamo Auschwitz Invading a sovereign nation? Unacceptable Acceptable (Iraq was a threat, 9/11) Acceptable (Poland was a threat, Reichstag fire) If the chart above seems skewed to you, it's not. The big difference here is the level of extremism. No one is trying to say that means the Nazis are comparable to the Republicans. What's funny is that when conservatives try to claim that the Nazis are liberal, they always go to the word "Socialist" in the party name, but never the actual Nazi Party Platform. ReignMan (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I'll take issue with at least 3 things in the chart ReignMan because, to me, the chart does seem a bit skewed: 1. Enemies of the state. The example of Guantanamo vs Auschwitz is simply way off base. First off, Guantanamo is not a death camp. Second, most on the right believe, like the left, that the detainees should face a trial, but a military trial. So, both believe in a trial. To continue the analysis of enemies of the state, why did the chart not include Wilson's Sedition Act or FDR's detention of the AMERICAN Japanese? I doubt that it could even be remotely argued that either men were on the Right side of the political spectrum. 2. Invading a sovereign nation. Poland was never an actual threat to Germany. Of course, the Germans might have made this argument but Poland was never an actual threat. Those outside of Germany understood and knew this. And the Reichstag Fire? This occurred in 1933 and was used by the Nazi's to consolidate their power and check the Communist Party in Germany. The fire had nothing to do with invasion of a sovereign state. Iraq, however, did appear to pose a credible threat to the world. According to the intelligence at the time, both the Left and the Right (politicians) in America, came to the same conclusion. On top of that, whether Iraq posed a threat or not, by the UN agreements, any UN Member State could have gone in at anytime for Iraq's violations of it's obligations to disarm (UN Security Council Resolution 1441). The sovereignty of Iraq was not the issue. The issue was their failure to live up to UN resolutions. I find it interesting that the chart contains no references to civil rights. Germany certainly violated civil rights of many of it's people and other nations. Abraham Lincoln, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Eisenhower's support for the Little Rock 9 and Civil Rights Acts of '57 and '60 are examples of the Rights non comparison to Nazi Germany. However, Wilson's adoption of a segregation policy for parts of the federal government and FDR as mentioned above are certainly comparable to Nazi Germany. Additions: A. Homosexuality - This is really more of a religious issue. Of course you see on the American Right lots of Christians, hence, the assumption of the chart that the right sees this as immoral. The left does as well. Consider the defeat of Proposition 8 in California recently. This defeat, in a definitely left leaning state should never have happened according to the chart. This issue is certainly not as black and white as it appears. B. Illegal Aliens - Definitely this can not be wholly considered right wing issue. A 2007 Gallup poll showed that 29% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats wanted deportation of all illegals. I would say these numbers are not all that far apart. And, consider Pres. Reagan and the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Over 2 million illegals were given a quick access to becoming legal residents to the US. Pres. Reagan was quite right of center. C. English language - in a 2009 Rasmussen poll, 84% of Americans felt that English should be the official language. If this were a left/right issue, the split should be closer to 50%. Again, this is not a wholly owned issue of the Right. The problem is that it is not possible to draw straight line correlations from one nation to the next let alone in different time periods (1940 to 2001). I'm not saying that the NSDAP was not a right wing party, rather; that they are not in fact comparable to the politically right, or left, in America. In Wilson's administration or Bush's. Tyler3559 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Tyler3559 You've missed the point entirely, and by miles at that. It's intentionally skewed to show how extreme and mild should never be compared. Your point, however, is discredited because you made the classic mistake of assuming what should never be assumed. You look at a little "R" or "D" next to a name, and start to make conclusions. This is totally incorrect. The Republican party was the liberal party from <1860 to 1912, and then they were more of a libertarian type party until about 1957, when they took on their modern forms. You point out Woodrow Wilson as an example of a "left wing" politician. I don't know where you heard this, but it's laughable. Wilson was a classic, down the line right wing populist Democrat. Lincoln was a down the line liberal, maybe economically somewhat conservative. The other mistake you make, is to assume that people all conform to a certain perfect party ideal. This is just totally false. Some democrats hate abortion and love tax cuts, does that make these left wing? Some Republicans want gay marriage and social healthcare. Does this mean those are suddenly right wing values? No. It means people are free to take whatever stand they like. It doesn't, however, make those beliefs any less right or left wing. The cold hard political science states that anything that increases personal freedom is left wing, and anything that decreases it is right wing. The opposite is true of economic values, anything which increases economic freedom is right wing, and anything that decreases it is left wing. These simple definitions get bent and convoluted because people all want to believe that they are always for more freedom (or quite the opposite). Conservatives don't want to believe that their banishment of gay marriage is infringing on another's freedom, but it is. Liberals don't want to believe that their taxation on gas is infringing on another's freedom, but it is. And therein lies the problem. People are so poisoned with their own stigmas, that they point the finger and cast the blame anywhere to shed it from themselves. It's upsetting to me that so few people can come clean and admit that they are willing to let their beliefs take another's freedom. We all have beliefs that limit another's freedom, or we'd be anarchists. ReignMan (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC) "English should be the official language" is not the same as "English-only", although in my opinion it leads down the same slippery slope. You can't compare the two as if they meant the same thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (who believes that if you want English-only, you should go back to England with your fancy foreign ways and leave this country to the Cherokee, the Ho-Chunk, the Quechua, the Dine and other real Americans) Racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism are all right wing. Anything that takes away personal freedom is right wing by definition. The right wing favors less individual rights (but more economic rights). This is TOTAL NONSENSE. By your own definition the classic liberals, the founding fathers of the US and the libertarian movement that advocates individual liberty and free markets are "left wing" and the soviets that persecuted jews and the cubans that persecuted homosexuals were all "right wing" while the USSR and Cuba were tyrannical communist dictatorships. That's absolutely correct. Cuba and the USSR were socially extreme right wing dictatorships while economically communist. By your logic, Libertarians and Republicans are both the same, or maybe Libertarians and Greens? Again, you're thinking in a single dimension, not in the more realistic two dimensional political spectrum. ReignMan (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Furthermore it is absurd to have more "personal freedom" while the state takes away your economic freedom, this is just an illusory distinction. There are not 2 kinds of freedom, THERE IS FREEDOM, period.Agrofelipe (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC) ^ This is absurd. Even Wikipedia has sections about personal and economic freedom. I guess we should just sweep those topics under the rug, eh? Where did you go to college anyway? ReignMan (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) These discussion miss one of the main differences between "left wing" and "right wing" political systems, and that has to do with the difference between public or collective ownership of property or capital, and private ownership of property or capital. Since the time of Marx, the term "left wing" has referred to a political system that emphasizes collective ownership, synonymous with "socialist". By that standard, the old Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc European countries, Cuba, N. Korea, Viet Nam, etc. and previous regimes of the PRC (China), were socialist countries. Their politics were "left wing". And by that same standard, Germany under Nazi rule could not be called "socialist" or "left wing". Banks, private capital and property were not seized or nationalised. There were friendly, cooperative ties between the totalitarian Nazi dictatorship of Hitler and German business leadership, but the dictatorship did not own the land or capital. German business leadership profited financially through contracts with the Nazi regime in the war machine, often with the use of slave labor. The name NSDAP includes the word "socialist", but clearly the Nazi regime did not concern itself with promotion of primary socialist ideals. [[[User:Maurice-san|Maurice-san]] (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)] This is all idiotic. Who cares what the modern American right says, or whether Nazism is particularly similar to it or not? This is like trying to argue about whether Stalinism is on the left by comparing it to the positions of Dennis Kucinich. The terms "left" and "right" did not emerge from contemporary American political debates, but from the political disputes of the French Revolution. It is only relatively recently that these terms were even seen to apply to the US at all (certainly describing either of the political parties as on the left or right before the New Deal is inappropriate - both contained conservative and liberal wings), and US politics have never been the principal referent for the terms. If we want to see whether Nazism is left wing or right wing, we need to compare its ideology with the usage of those terms in continental Europe in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This partisan point-scoring is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with the Nazis. john k (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC) How can Guantanamo and Auschwitz be compared? This comparison is irresponsible. How closely related is Wikipedia and Wiki-Leaks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.233.193 (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK folks. That's quite enough of that!

We are here to discuss improving the article not to argue politics. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and that means we write about the established views on out subjects, rather than argue about them ourselves. To this end, any productive discussion of article content has to involve people bringing reliable sources that can support their proposed changes, not just pouring out their own personal opinions and analysis. Personal opinions and analysis should be pursued through blogs, message boards, newsgroups, writing letters to newspapers and arguing in bars. See WP:OR and WP:TRUTH

I would also remind some of the participants to remember to remain civil when discussing things on Wikipedia. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't mean you can attack them personally. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent and strange source formatting

Is there any logic behind the fact that some of the sources are formatted to come out like this (1):

     ^ Jablonsky, David. 1989. The Nazi Party in Dissolution: Hitler and the Verbotzeit, 1923–1925. Routledge. Pp. 57
     ^ Jablonsky, Pp. 57

or:

     ^ Carlsten, F. L. The Rise of Fascism. University of California Press. Pp. 91
     ^ Carlsten, Pp. 91

but others come out like this (2):

     ^ ab Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridg... etc. 

The second version seems more straightforward because otherwise the source is just unnecessarily being cited again in a slightly unorganised manner. I changed the sixth source from (1) to (2). Should I change the rest of the sources as well? Jay-Sebastos (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting this article to GA

Hi there. Firstly, I'm sorry I messed up the addition of the new material - hit the rollback button by mistake. Secondly, I really think that this article should be made into more than a C-Class rated one. It really is a very significant modern topic which has revolutionised the world. I really want to get it to GA status and really need some help to do it, especially since although I am quite an experienced historian I'm not such an experienced wikipedia editor. I've made a start in the origins section and in going through it I've found it to be a little sparse and needing more reliable references. A few particular things which I'm concerned about are:

• In the version before I edited it said "On 5 January 1919, Drexler, together with Gottfried Feder, Dietrich Eckart and Karl Harrer, and 20 workers from Munich's railway shops and some others met to discuss the creation of a new political party based on the political principles which Drexler endorsed." Apart from not being particularly well phrased, it's also quite ambiguous from the sentence whether "Gottfried Feder, Dietrich Eckart and Karl Harrer, and 20 workers from Munich's railway shops" were part of the party which Drexler founded in March 1918, the Committee of Independent Workmen or the party which merged with them in 1919 The Political Worker's Circle. We need to find out who was with who. Some are obvious from the article later on but I can't find sources for all of them. Can anyone else?
• I've put the citation needed template next to "This ideology was explicitly anti-Semitic as it declared that the "national community" must be judenfrei ("free of Jews")" because although clearly the anti-semiticism was there in Drexler, I'm not sure if he wanted a completely Jewish-free state yet - Hitler wasn't on the scene yet. I couldn't find anything my self about it. Can anyone else?
• Was it really 60 members that gathered? I'm pretty sure it was less and I've cross-referenced it with a few sources which say it was more like in the region of 30-40. Apart from anything else this was before Hitler had been made a member and since he was effectively made the 55th member they would do well to already have 60!? Sorry just realised it said "few than" 60. That sounds a bit more like it. Will add reference.

Will continue to improve the article when I can. Again: help much needed! Feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• The other thing I forgot to mention is that the references are not arranged in a great way (see my other section above this one too): They are pointlessly repeated in different formats and should probably all like back to a sources heading- I'm no expert with references on wikipedia yet but if someone is it would be great if you could fix them! Otherwise I'll try but I may fail :) Jay-Sebastos (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the history section is way too long and also unreferenced, and should thus be transferred to its own article. We need more info about the policies of the party, especially after the Machtergreifung.Mvaldemar (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

2D?

The following was removed from the Political Position section with the comment "Not sure why personal political charts designed to reflect the creator's beliefs favorably are listed; seems non-scholarly and a slippery slope":

On the [[Nolan Chart]], the Nazi party would be described as politically extreme authoritarian, and economically centrist.<ref>http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2</ref>

I am not going to add it back as it was because I can see problems and scope for improvement here. I think we should discuss what to put in there.

That said, I don't agree that these 2D political charts are cynically designed to reflect their creator's beliefs. At least some of them are academically respectable and even most of the less academic ones, like Political Compass, are honest attempts to understand the nuances of political position, not to push a POV. I am not sure what the "slippery slope" concern is. If the fear is that we risk legitimising the addition of the fringe opinion that puts Nazism on the left by allowing this, then I disagree. Those who would put Nazism on the left have nothing academic or theoretical to back them up. It is just an unsupported assertion. We can let the 2D analysis in, because it is a legitimate academic view, and continue to reject those who demand that we include the "left wing" claim.

These 2D classifications are interesting and relevant because they help illuminate the way that Nazism and Fascism was able promote itself as a "third position" separate from the traditional left and right wing positions of the time.

Here is my first suggestion for a replacement text:

Two dimensional political models, such as the Nolan Chart, attempt to separate political position into two orthogonal elements, typically concerning economic and social policy. Such systems tend to describe the Nazi party as extremely socially authoritarian but economically centrist.[2]

This is essentially the same claim but it is generalised beyond the specific Nolan chart. What I would like to see before we add it is a second reference. I don't have a problem with the Political Compass one, it illustrates the claim nicely, but we also need another reference, with more academic clout, to prove that this is more than the view of a single website.

We should also include something about how the Nazis self-identified their political position, although with the obvious caution that you can't take much of what they said at face value.

If there is concern that the resulting text gives more space to these views than is given to the more mainstream view, that puts then Nazis firmly on the far right of the 1D political model, then I would suggest to expand that. At the moment we only have two sentences on it. I am sure there is more to say. It would be good to explain when they were first placed in that position, and by who, and then rattle off a few examples to show that this has been the mainstream view ever since. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything to object to this so I am going to put it in as suggested above. There is still scope to improve this further but I think it is better in than out, if only to attract interest in improving it. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Such information, if reliably sourced (which is doubtful in this case), would need to be included in articles on theories about fascism, for example. This particular chart seems to imply that economically right-wing positions would necessarily include support for individual economic freedoms. This is not a consensual among experts. Furthermore, even if it were, there is disagreement about whether the economic ideology of the Nazis was individualistic or not. (The fact that the state finally had a large influence in economic matters is often seen as a consequence of the war economy, rather than as a result of the Nazis' ideology.)  Cs32en Talk to me  13:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you have completely misunderstood the two dimensional models. The whole point is that they separate out the left-right economics from the issue of social freedom so there is absolutely no assumption "that economically right-wing positions would necessarily include support for individual economic freedoms". I agree that it would be an invalid assumption if it was being made. I also agree that we would do well to get a second reference on it, however these 2D models are notable and academically respectable and do present a valid alternative way of looking at politics. Any model is reductionist and must encode some assumptions but these are genuine attempts to model politics in a fair and realistic way. They are certainly not part of the pernicious revisionism that seeks to encode false assumptions and/or reclassify Nazism for political ends. If that is your fear then you can relax.

I would also point out that the Nazis were interfering in economic matters before the war and, besides, war was pretty much part of Nazi ideology from the outset so there is no clear separation to be made anyway.--DanielRigal (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that these models themselves are notable. As you may have noticed, I have written "individual economic freedom", not "individual personal freedom". Most of such 2D models assume that economically right-wing would equate to some kind of neo-liberal economic position, while left-wing would be a collectivist. Of course, war was part of the programme of the Nazi ideology, but the ideology itself did not include a continuous state of war that would necessitate widespread state intervention in the private economy. These 2D models are generally based on an approach that does not account for the specific historical political controversies and struggles. They do not represent a universially agreed tool that could be used to describe a subject in an encyclopedia, and therefore any presentation of these and other such models should be included in articles about politological theories, not about historical events and actors. What you are doing here is pushing a specific political theory - note that I do not accuse you of introducing "pernicious revisionism" or "ideology", as your comments seem to imply.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

By that argument shouldn't we also eschew the standard one dimensional model as an even blunter instrument that is also quite widely disputed in its interpretation?

Political modelling is a bit like the blind men examining an elephant. It is intrinsically reductionist. None of the models captures all the details but each provides different elements of valid description. It seems beneficial to include multiple viewpoints on this. I must admit that I don't fully understand the distinction you are making between "personal economic freedom" and the left-right economic axis but I do accept that the two dimensional models are not universally accepted, and it was not my intention to imply otherwise. Could you bring yourself to accept the reintroduction of this text with additional caveats or other modifications?

I think you are mistaken to say in the edit summary that removal restores the status quo here. The coverage of 2D models is the status quo in this article although maybe you did not notice it until it was removed and put back. It has been in the article for more than a year (in fact it was actually in the lead section for quite a while) and was only removed on 2010-09-18 by an editor who has made no other edits to this article or talk page (which is not to accuse him of bad faith or anything, just to say that he was not reflecting a discussed consensus). The presumption should be that it goes back unless there is a consensus against it.

Please can other editors give their views here and help break the deadlock. I will go along with whatever the consensus is but I think it reasonable to add it back if there are no comments from other editors after a few days. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The views of other editors are very much welcome. As there is a need to build consensus for inclusion, not for exclusion, of content, you can't simply put back the text after a few days, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume there was a consensus for its original inclusion, or the fact that it was allowed to stay for so long implies one, but I didn't bother to check the Talk archives. I have a vague recollection that I had a role in moving it out of the lead but I don't think its original inclusion was anything to do with me. Also please note that if I had simply reverted its removal on the spot when it was removed a couple of weeks ago we wouldn't be having this discussion. Anyway, lets not assume that nobody else cares. Lets hope that we will get some more opinions. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, nobody else has any objections and I feel that I would be justified in restoring the text, however I am prepared to go the extra mile to establish consensus on this so I will be starting an RFC on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for this statement?

Party composition ...

General membership

The general membership of the Nazi Party, known as the Parteimitglieder, mainly consisted of the urban and rural lower middle classes. 7% belonged to the upper class, another 7% were peasants, 35% were industrial workers and 51% were what can be described as middle class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.49.103 (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

6 million jews

Offensive attempt to introduce long-debunked revisionist theories

This number is highly disputed? How is this in the opening paragraph? Vey biased against facts here. Article does not contain nuetral POV. There is no detailed report. The red cross official report agrees on about 271 thousands. Not six millions. http://www.historiography-project.org/weblog/1979/05/red-cross-concentration-camp-r.html 2 years ago The Hoax of the 20th Century "The famous French historian and geographer Paul Rassinein [sic, reference to Paul Rassinier] tried to confront this falsification and lie from the outset. In 1948, he published an extremely important history book about this falsification, called 'Crossing the Line.'(2) In his book, he used exact numbers and statistics about the number of Jews in Europe - particularly in Germany - prior to and following World War II. He carefully compared these [with the number of victims], and concluded that the number of killed from among them as a result of the war or as a result of Hitler's persecution of them and others who were not German subjects did not exceed a few hundred thousand. [Rassinier wrote in his book], 'The number did not reach even one million killed, at most.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.211.97 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to pursue this nonsense further, and I really don't see any point given how thoroughly debunked it has been, please take it to Talk:Holocaust denial where at least it is on-topic. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help break the deadlock over whether 2D political models can be briefly mentioned

As we all know, and nobody here is disputing, there is an academic consensus that the Nazis are to be classified as extremely right wing in conventional political terminology. For more than a year this article has also briefly covered a different way of looking at this using 2D political models. For a while this was even included in the lead section before getting demoted to a section called "Political position". I feel that this complements rather than contradicts the consensus and helps to illuminate distinctions that often cause confusion (e.g. the tediously repeated objection of "How can the Nazis be called right wing when they are nothing like some other right wing groups"). While, I agree that its inclusion on the lead was excessive, I feel that it does merit brief inclusion in the body of the article. That is what we had for quite a long time as the status quo in the article.

A couple of weeks ago it was removed without discussion (by an infrequent editor who gave what I believe to be a poor reason given in the edit summary) and rather than put it back right away I explained why I disagreed and suggested a slightly improved version on this talk page. Nobody objected so I put it back with my "improvements" but then Cs32en did object strongly and removed it again. We have been unable to resolve this between us or get anybody else to give a damn either way. See discussion above in section "2D?".

Text that was removed:

On the Nolan Chart, the Nazi party would be described as politically extreme authoritarian, and economically centrist.[3]

My suggested replacement that was also removed:

Two dimensional political models, such as the Nolan Chart, attempt to separate political position into two orthogonal elements, typically concerning economic and social policy. Such systems tend to describe the Nazi party as extremely socially authoritarian but economically centrist.[4]

Questions we need help with:

1. Is it legitimate to cover, very briefly, the 2D analysis in the "Political position" section at all?
2. If so, is my suggested text better than the old text?
3. If not, should we go back to the old text or should we cover it differently from either version?

--DanielRigal (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It is legitimate to cover briefly with the newer text being preferable to the older text. Weetoddid (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One problem I have with the model is that it was prepared by a website that is not an established academic center (university) or by an historian of some noted published work (such as Ian Kershaw or even Chris McNab, who, for example, has many models and graphs in his book "The Third Reich". So it has WP:VERIFY problems. If the one who wants to include it can back it up by published known historian authors it would help. If in the end, it is included by consensus, then the "suggested replacement text" by DanielRigal is better for it has a caveat in the text. Kierzek (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If we can find some additional examples with greater authority backing them up then that would be excellent. Do any of the political models in the book you mention fall into the 2D category? If so, where do they place the Nazis? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I find it anachronistic to compare the policies of a party that ruled from 1933-1945 with current political parties. If we were to apply the Nolan Chart to the Weimar Republic we would find that the liberals were economically "right-wing" while the conservatives were economically "left-wing". On the other hand if we rate post-WW2 parties that emerged from the original fascist parties, like the Poujadists, we find that they are the most economically right-wing parties. Also, the Nazis did practice economic liberalism, but became more statist as they prepared for the Second World War, and diverted production to armaments. TFD (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that social scientists in the U.S., following Adorno's publication of The authoritarian personality, applied the term "right-wing" to American groups like the John Birch Society. When Lipset later said that fascism may be extremism of the center, he was including groups like the JBS as well. Incidentally the Nazis did sit on the far right in the Reichstag, where political parties were arranged from left to right according to where they were seen to fit on the left-right political spectrum. TFD (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The 2D political models are trying to create an objective, universal terminology and mapping space (independent of time and place) within which all political views can be plotted in a way that sheds some worthwhile light on their relationships (even if it lacks quite a lot of nuance). It is nothing if not ambitious and probably not wholly successful. Even so, the very fact that thinking in terms of Nolan Charts can help us to discover and communicate unexpected results like those you highlight is one of its main strengths. So, do you think it is OK to include this subject, briefly, in the article? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See the article left-right politics. There is continuity in the political families, even as policies change. The UK has the same three major parties it had 100 years ago and they occupy the same place in the political spectrum they did then. From left to right, they remain Labour, LibDems and Conservatives. Using the Nolan chart however, the parties would change positions constantly as the preferred policies of elites, the middle class, and labor changed. TFD (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I am being thick, but I am still not sure if you are saying that including the 2D analysis is useful here or not. I would say that it is useful because it enables us to become aware of and track the changes you mention but I am not trying to put words in your mouth. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Following TFD's assumption that the left-right polarity occupied different positions on a 2D-model over time, it would be inconsistent to equate the two axes on the 2D-model as left-right axes. Instead of having two "left-right" axis, it would be better to distinguish between culturally liberal vs culturally authoritarian, and economic freedom vs. economic equality, for example. But then, where does the notion of "collectivism" fit in? The Nazis are said to be "collectivist", however, they generally thought of the firm as a collective body under the (dictatorial) leadership of the enterpreneur, so the collective is just supposed to follow the decisions made by the individual. Then, of course, fascists see the individual as a member of its family, so we don't have the same kind of individualism as in social theories derived from neo-classical economics, of course. Individualism vs. collectivism may easily be thought of a third axis in a 3D model, but it's quite hard to pin down all the different ideas in this regard on a one-dimensional scale.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My sense here is that some editor here has a meta-agenda (they want to connect or disconnect modern right-wing groups to/from the generic evil of the Nazi party). If that's true, please stop.

National Socialism is not anti-capitalist. in fact, the Nazis were quite sanguine with private enterprise; collectivism only entered in with respect to the loyalty that individuals were supposed to give to the nation and the race (capitalism in the service of national interests was A#1). Left/Right is primarily a distinction about the relationship between the state and social classes: leftists believe that the state should defend the interests of the populace in its broadest sense while rightists believe the state should defend the interests of the limited class(es) of people who wield significant political or economic power. disentangling political and economic factors (as the 2D model aims to do) only works in cases where politics and economics are actually separable, which is generally not true in any post-19th century nation. fascism is a particular political model that tries to create an abstract class (under the rubric of a national identity) whose interests are the interests the state should defend; usually it does this through strong ingroup/outgroup boundaries (conformity/exclusion principle). This is not a unique insight - communists did much the same by trying to develop a "worker's class" - but fascism expressly aims at constructing an elite class over and above other classes. Liberal/conservative is a very different concept, having to do with relationships to progress. the Nazis were highly liberal - socially, sexually, technologically - while the Italian fascists tended to be social and technological conservatives (which is one of the major reasons the Germans were so much more successful militarily).

This educational moment was brought to you by Nabisco. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever disagreement there is between Cs32en and myself, neither of us is seeking to do the "meta-agenda" thing you mention. I initially thought that Cs32en thought that I was doing that but I was mistaken. Neither of us is trying to undermine the established consensus that puts Nazism on the right of the conventional left-right (1D) spectrum or to taint or rehabilitate any political ideology by associating or disassociating it with Nazism. We do get that sort of thing cropping up here from time to time and it is easily dealt with without an RFC.

I don't agree that economics and social policy can not be unentangled, although I accept that there may be some difficulty. I must also disagree with your comment that "the Nazis were highly liberal - socially, sexually, technologically" because I think that is a misunderstanding of the term "liberal". Liberal is not the sole opposite of conservative. While some of the Nazis social values were certainly not conservative, they were certainly not liberal either. "Liberal" implies a respect for individual choice in social values, tolerating the diversity that naturally results. The Nazis were just the opposite. They sought to coerce a new set of social values on all people and if allowed to continue that would have resulted in complete social conformity.

The RFC question here is whether it is legitimate to mention the way Nazism is seen in 2D analysis which is a different, and in my view worthwhile, alternative way of looking at the same facts. I understand that you may be a bit cynical about the validity of the 2D models but do you agree that their analysis is worth mentioning here, without actually endorsing it? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear there's no meta-agendas. Life is good.

You're using 'liberal' in the modern American sense, as a generic term for 'social progressive'. That's only been in use since maybe the 1970s; prior to that, liberalism was a forward-thinking philosophy which held that all of society's aspects should be open to investigation and improvement through the application of science, technology, and rational discourse (as opposed to conservatism, which held that tried-and-true social aspects should not be discarded lightly in favor of new-fangled innovations). I can't think of anything the Nazis opined or did that doesn't fall under the 'liberal' rubric, in that sense of the term.

With respect to the 2d graph... While I don't object to Nolan-type graphs as a rule, I don't think there is a lot of clarity about what the term 'economically centrist' means. Clearly the Nazis were not economically collectivist (in the manner of communists) nor were they exclusively economically individualist (in the manner of pure libertarianism); they followed the fascist ideology that bound the fortunes of the individual to the fortunes of the state. In other words, they encouraged economic individualism (individual dominance was part of the Aryan ubermench motif) but expected it to be applied to the interests of the state, nation, and race. That doesn't strike me a particularly centrist (economically speaking). I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, of course, but you'll need a stronger source than the political compass to make that case. --Ludwigs2 16:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there is an agenda to connect or disconnect modern right-wing groups to/from the generic evil of the Nazi party in this discussion either. My take is that DanielRigal assumes that the 2D-model he would like to use is both applicable to describe the political position of the Nazi party, and that there would be widespread consensus that it would be applicable. I disagree on both points (only the second one is relevant for the decision here). I would agree to add the 2D-model, if (a) if there is a statement from a reliable source saying that this reflects consensus (b) if a survey of reliable sources shows multiple sources supporting the application of this model to the Nazi party, in this case probably including critical statements about the applicability of the model (based on reliable sources).  Cs32en Talk to me  18:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

On the recent etymology-and-pronunciation edits

Hi everyone—Just came here to explain more thoroughly, because everyone who edited was acting in good faith and might not understand the whole answer. English got Nazi from German Nazi (/ˈnɑːtsi/), which came from the initial syllables of Nationalsozialist (/ˈnɑːtsionɑːlzotsiɑːlˌɪst/) and is parallel to aka analogous to (not derived from) Sozi (/ˈzotsi/) coming from the initial syllables of Sozialist (/ˌzotsiɑːlˈɪst/). If you click through to the ref given, it does not contradict the full story given here (which is good, because if it did, it'd be wrong). It just goes into less explicit detail. Basically, the development in German would be directly parallel to if the following had happened in English: Calling socialists "sōshies" and then later calling national socialists "nashies". The reason the German abbrev spelling is Nazi rather than Nati is because Nati alone looks like /nɑːti/ ("t" only sounds like /ts/ in certain combos, e.g., -tion, -tional). Cheers, — ¾-10 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong translation of party name

It is not correctly translated "Worker's Party", but "Labour Party" in UK English. For instance the Norwegian party Arbeiderpartiet is the Norwegian equivalent to the english party called Labour. Members of the Norwegian party have had appearances to provide support statements at Labour Party conferences, and they are both broad-based social democratic parties. The translation Worker's Party indicates a fringe nature, such as the british party called Socialist Worker's Party which is Trotskyist. In the case of NSDAP it started out as a fringe party (at a time when Arbeiderpartiet also was a far-leff fringe party and a member of Komintern), but Hitler's goal was to transform it to a Volkspartei or in Norwegian Folkeparti, or People's Party. German historians (academic ones, not nazi hobbyists) studying voting records, of which most are well preserved from 1933, have shown that he succeeded in creating such a party - a broad-based "big tent" with (what was at the time) centre-left Keynesian economic policies and a wide voter appeal among working class and middle class voters. During this phase from ca. 1928-1938 the party engineered a socialist revolution in Germany in the form of a class struggle where the ruling elite was largely displaced by people coming from a working and lower middleclass background. In a third phase beginning around 1938 the party shifted to a right-wing imperialist set of policies, driven by hubris among one or two cliques near the center of power. The question of far left or far right is not entirely straightforward, and it is not obvious in which way it had a centrist phase either. Was it seeking the center ground, or was it a jumble of populist far left and right positions that on balance landed it in the center sweetspot? Specialist literature appears not to be entirely unbiased on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlatkodecoding (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. What verifiable reliable sources can you provide to support your position, and what changes would you make to the article to illustrate them? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"Work" and "labour" are synonyms so the choice of translation seems arbitrary but I have never seen it translated as anything other than "Workers'" when translating NSDAP. I guess "Labourers'" (although not "Labour") might make as much sense but clearly there is a long standing consensus on this and it is not for Wikipedia to impose its own translations, whether they make sense or not. Quite apart from anything else it would confuse people. Arguments by analogy with other political parties in other countries are completely irrelevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the correct translation of Arbeiter, Arbeits would be translated as "labor". (Arbeits=of work/of labor, Arbeiter=workers/laborers) If you have any sources that explain why this translation was used it could be interesting, but we cannot speculate on this or correct the translation. TFD (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vlatkodecoding. For what it's worth, I just wanted to let you know that I can see that there are substantial truths being grasped in your comment. But also, unfortunately, a name and its long-established translations tend to become fossilized in natural languages and are not open to nomenclatural revision. (An area of language that is not the same as, but is a cousin to, the ideas discussed at the article "fossil word".) Just to give another instance as an example, Americans no longer consider the word "colored" with the same connotations as they did when the NAACP named itself, but the arguments that the NAACP should change its name have never carried the day, because many people say "yeah, we take your point, but it doesn't matter; the name is well established and can stay." Very true that regarding translation, synonymity is not a simple denotative matter. There are blurry connotative overlaps in how various words convey pieces of meaning both within languages and across them (and, on top of that, the overlaps also gradually shift over decades), and I've no doubt that you've nailed this particular one, although I'm not in a position to confirm on this particular instance. But it sounds exactly like the class of instances that any good translator constantly runs across. People who have the right mix of multilingualism, writing talent, and linguistics acquaintance will know what I am talking about. However, the word "worker[s']" rather than "labour" has such a history of being the English translation choice for the NSDAP's name that there's no chance of changing the usage now, with Wikipedia as part of the change. In my view, it's the kind of evolution in understanding of the topic that could only be argued for by an academic in his/her own work. In other words, it's original research (OR), and OR can be very frustrating to a Wikipedian when he can clearly see that it's not wrong—that it reflects a superior iteration of human understanding of the topic—but by definition Wikipedia can't provide a place for that piece of knowledge-gain until it has been published elsewhere and Wikipedia can cite that occurrence as a reliable primary/secondary source. It's frustrating when you can see a piece of reality and you comment on it, and people tell you you're wrong because they misunderstand your idea or they figure it must be wrong because they've never heard any expert say it before. (Eventually we may have Wikipedia-like places where academics can share OR with each other and with whatever fractions of the public are interested and capable.) Regarding the political mix that you discussed, I think you're spot-on, and it's an interesting (complex) mixture, because what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 30s always has little spark-like analogues (or another metaphor could be staticky, indistinct echoes) in other times and places since then (including the USA), and it's endlessly fascinating to analyze why the spark ignites an explosion in one time and place (Germany 1930s) but merely starts limited pockets of smoldering or flames in other times and places (Britain 1930s; America both then and now). Happy editing all, — ¾-10 17:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Are "Legends" relevant to a wiki page?

In the last paragraph of the Rise to power: 1925–1933 chapter the following is stated: "At this time, there is a legend that Hitler met with the nominally Jewish mystic and psychic Erik Jan Hanussen..." - Is this really relevant for a Wiki page? What do we care about "legends" with no scientific proof, that they ever happened? In my opinion the entire "Legend" segment should be purged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.61.117.242 (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps lacking balance?

It would be good if the piece talked a little about internal opposition to the Nazis. It was there, it did exist, and it's an important part of the story. I see that there isn't much on Wikipedia generally about this. What do others think?

Roger 17:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. One might even put even more than just a little! Critic9328 02:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I also see a lack of balance with continuing to attempt to classify the Nazi Party as far right. The Nazis held to many far leftist views (i.e., moving charity entirely from the Church to State, naming themselves the "National Socialist German Workers' Party") as well as, at least some claim, far rightist views. Does anyone else think that some here have a far-left bias that provokes the continuing edit wars here?

Nickidewbear (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nickidewbear. The Nazi Party was far left, not right. Read the Nazi party platform and there are many items to which a "right winger" would object, but which a "left winger" would not. We need to stop thinking in terms of right versus left and understand that the better terms would be freedom versus totalitarianism or a Republic versus an Oligarchy.

TooMuchTime (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

^ That's a complete rewriting of the political spectrum just for partisan purposes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.220.110 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 June 2010

How can "Nazi ideology stressed the failure of both laissez-faire capitalism... " be associated with Right wing politics? There is a definite prejudice in the way the phrase "formed alliances on the right" being tacked on to the party description. What does this even mean? That it's allies were on the right? I think this needs to be clarified, and as mentioned elsewhere left-right is not a good way to describe the party. Jtjathomps (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You are ALL confusing economic issues with social issues. Economically, the Nazis were centrist, so some of their ideals reflect socialism, some capitalism. What made them far right were their socio-political ideals, which are the epitome of far right. ReignMan (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because "laissez faire capitalism" was never a defining feature of the right? Laissez faire capitalism was a defining feature of liberalism. Until about 1870, liberalism was distinctly on the left. From 1870 to 1945 or so, liberalism was, at worst, in the center of the political spectrum. I love how people trying to claim Nazism is not on the right seem to think that the appropriate model for what "right wing politics" was in the 1920s and 30s is Thatcherism, rather than actual historical right wing movements that were contemporary with the Nazis. john k (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point, John. North Americans, in particular, assume that conservatives and right-wingers will be freemarket extremists (Randroids or those influenced by them), because that is the posture of the majority of such people in the first world today. That is, as you say, an extremely a-historical mistake. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong Reignman, you have not even proven that such "social policies" (which are inevitably linked to economic issues) were "right wing" to begin with.Agrofelipe (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but the scholars have, and that's what matters. ReignMan (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No they haven't, a silly argument from authority without any substance. The Nazis were a group of socialists, who rejected the internationalism of the marxists, hence national socialist. Any attempt to call them right wing is a product of "right wing = bad, her der." The idea that they are right wing comes from the fact that mostly marxists are doing the interpreting, and nazis are indeed to the right of marxists, and it also comes from Stalin's propaganda. The Nazis were certainly different from Marxists, for example, they did not reject private property, they rejected internationalism (and so, an element of fascism is that it usually gets a particularly national character, italian fascism is very italian, national socialism is very german), and they tended to have a hero's version of history, instead of the Marxist material one, ie great people/ideas drive history and not the material conditions. Other than that, it was essentially the same. The Nazis would be offended to be considered on the right. Read Nazi Sozi, a tract written by Goebbels, which shows this quite clearly, and outlines that Classical Liberalism (ie, the right) is their first enemy, and then the Communists (for they were on their turf, much like a Crusading Christian might hate a Muslim, ie, they're fighting on the same ground). In fact, the very origin of the anti semitic base they could exploit (it was, in part a hate that 'they killed jesus' for some, but mostly came from the following) was because the Jews were bankers, and thus associated with this evil capitalism that is causing all the collapses and the world wars. You can still hear plenty of the rhetoric today of "oh the soviets were just corrupted by *pick silly reason that will get the label of 'capitalist'* and the soviets are not like me, for I am a true socialist," well, the Nazis felt the same, realize the association of capitalists with the Jews, and hence Jewish Bolshevism. Try to name one social view of substance they held that would be considered on the right, that the Soviets didn't, or any other totalitarian socialist network. It gets into this silly "oh if they were socialists then they'd be by definition good" to call them of the right. What, because they put people in camps, or hated jews, or benefited those who could get close to government? Lots of socialists governments (maybe most), ones nobody would deny were on the left, did the same. Read the Platform of the Nazi Party, or Nazi Sozi, and I dare you to pretend any longer they were not on the left. Also, the third way point is a very good one. The fascist rhetoric was often seeing themselves as a middle way (ie, between the communists and the "right" which was often something like a Catholic Center Party), so how are they far right as they remain in the middle?

And the fellow claiming things as ahistorical is dead wrong. Liberal meant what we call classical liberal (indeed, that's the whole point of the term, it acknowledges at one time, this is what liberal meant) for quite some time, you start in the middle of the story. It was in the late 19th century when liberal meaning 'free market' went to mean people on the left, those such as John Stuart Mill, not that the term liberal was somehow invented in 1870, that's around when the first redefinition happened. I can give even a left wing source for this, historian RR Palmer, History of the Modern World. Lucky for us, the Nazis made it clear it was the classical liberals, those for a free market, who they felt contempt for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.239.65 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Source for Far Right

Hey, everyone. I know the common consensus on the Nazis' political position has been generally ascertained as "far right" by most historians, however, the Nazi Party's political position is still subject to debate. I'm not thoroughly documented regarding this issue, but is there any sort of source we could add to the "far right" claim in the infobox? Reliable source, that is. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And by "debate" you mean primarily by libertarians and Jonah Goldberg. It's just like saying that conservatism and social democracy were "social fascism" in Marxist discourse; a specific political group mincing words to enhance their position doesn't necessarily count as "debate." 18.244.7.149 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Far Right? What part of "National Socialist" and "Workers' Party" don't these people understand. Everything this party stood for was far left, as the far right continues to fight against these ideals to this day. Exhibit 1) National Socialized Healthcare in the USA. Exhibit 2) Obama's nationalization of GM and Chrysler Exhibit 3) Obama's attempts to nationalize of the Banking Industry... It goes on and on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.68.2 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First, the name "Socialist" is irrelevant, names are merely names. By the same token, we could conclude that the "Democratic Republic" of the Congo is, in fact, a Democratic Republic. Far from it.

Second, you're confusing economic issues with social ones. National healthcare, nationalized companies, and nationalized banks are all economic issues. We're concerned with social pos:::itions, not economic ones. Economically, the Nazis were centrists.

The Nazi party represented the extreme right wing of the social spectrum, and the middle of the economic spectrum, as I made note to in the article. The Nazi social views were all right wing, and many could be compared to modern American right wing views; they shunned homosexuality, they were opposed to immigration, they believed their country was superior to all others, they believed in a strong military, they opposed abortion (unless the child was non Aryan), they ignored international treaties and the League of Nations (like Kyoto and the U.N.?), they agreed with freedom of religion, but opposed religions that they didn't agree with (like Islam today?), they believed that their movement would last a thousand years...

The fact of the matter is, there are no liberal (socially left wing) authoritarian dictatorships, because the liberal ideals all oppose exactly those ideals which are considered evil. Liberal social ideology in its extreme would be an anarchist society, with no laws, where a man could marry a woman, man, jellyfish, or a cardboard box. Drugs would be legal, censorship would not exist, and there would be no land ownership. The extreme left wing country (if it ever existed) would be viewed more as a country of hippie weirdos, not 1984ish big brother.

Many right wing individuals try to rationalize the Nazis being right wing by tagging extremely authoritarian governments as left wing, but this is only in the economic sense. People who do not understand politics don't understand that social and economic beliefs are not related. ReignMan (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism, racism, antisemitism, and elitarianism are far right. And even if some communist parties acted another way, even totalitarism, dictatorship, and militarism are not far left.--188.192.109.241 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the Russian Communist party was far right socially, but far left economically. ReignMan (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. During the first years, the Russian Communist party instituted a number of womens' and gay rights. That was reversed later, and abolished as Stalin came to power. I'd call the political position of the Nazi Party "fascist", in preference to "far-right", as it's ideology is not simply an extreme form of conservativism or reactionary thinking. ("National Socialist Party" would be better, as "Nazi Party" is unspecific - there are a number of Nazi parties around today.)  Cs32en Talk to me  22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A-ha! But that's the interesting point here, isn't it? The Soviets were originally a left wing socialist party, but the leaders began to slowly chisel away at the libertarian cant of the party. George Orwell's book "Animal Farm" is a great tool to help people understand this. Most extreme right political parties masqueraded under the guise of "socialism" because socialism was seen as a positive word, like "patriotic." This is why so many Americans are weary of the word "socialism", because it's so often associated with extreme right wing (in this case, authoritarian) parties. As was pointed out, the Italian Fascists, the German National Socialists, and the Soviet Communists all used the word "socialism" to try and sell their ideology. Today these parties use the words "Democratic" instead. ReignMan (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But fascism is an ideology, rather than a "position". --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, of course, but Political spectrum, which is linked from the infobox, says "According to the simplest left-right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right."  Cs32en Talk to me  00:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

When it is said that the name is irrelevant, and is in form compared to the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" is a true fallacy. The "National German Socialist Workers Party" was in itself a true description of the party itself. Every industry was nationalized and collective under Nazi Totalitarian rule. True Communism does not exist in an imperfect world. Nazi Germany and Communist USSR are in fact two forms of Socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.233.193 (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Democratic Republic" usually means "Socialist Piece Of Crap Of A Country," but for one, that's the socialist's doing, and two, that's not the name of your own party, and one's own ideology. Silly analogy, the Nazis called themselves socialists and comrades, they would be quite offended at the mark of being capitalists. That's what right wing means, a capitalist, yet the article will admit they scorned capitalists. Obvious double speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.239.65 (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Citing

The last thing we need is vague and ambiguous statements that are not properly cited refined statements. This to avoid confusion, for RS and to avoid both WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems. It is not Wikipedia:Content forking to ask and put in proper inline cites for a contention or sentence making a claim. What I am asking is not creating multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. To just link an entire article is not proper inline citing. That is all I am requesting. Kierzek (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to seek RSs that show how left–right labels are inadequate to describe Nazism

Kierzek, I've cooled off a bit and realized that there's no need for me to add any more text to the "political position" section. Rather, what I need to do is to start looking for WP:RSs that show how even trying to apply left—right labels to Nazism is an inadequate way to describe or explain it. Surely someone must have written about this by now in the world of journals and books. This to-do task would normally not make it far enough up the priority of my to-do list, but I think it may be one of those topics where I allow it to take some time away from other to-do items, because it seems important to me that people can come to this article and realize that the whole argument is unfounded, from both sides. Regards, — ¾-10 18:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A good point and an important query to follow up on to reach the cited conclusion. BTW-I would suggest checking Richard Evans books; specifically, "The Third Reich in Power 1933-1939", comes to mind; I have not read it in years but it may be one place to start. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your post assumes an answer, o fractionated one! There aren't reliable sources to support your position. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm hoping I can prove otherwise, and I don't think it's as unlikely as you might believe. The relevant WP:RSs, if they exist, would come from literature that critiques the very idea that the left-to-right metaphor is even adequate to model reality. I know such literature exists; I'm just not an expert in it (or in political science at all). But I'll see what I can do. Even if I come up empty-handed, I'll report back to admit it. Regards, — ¾-10 23:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ay, I just looked at the main article on this topic, "political spectrum", and it's gonna be some dense going down inside that rabbit hole. We'll find out ... — ¾-10 23:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirection and disambiguation with National Socialist Party

The way that navigating to this page versus navigating to the page on other "National Socialist" parties, here: National Socialist Party -- is kind of weird. If you enter "National socialist party" into the search bar, you end up here on the page about the Nazi party, whereas if you enter "National Socialist Party" (note the capitalization), you end up on the list/disambiguation page for other National Socialist parties. It almost seems like that should be the other way around, or better yet, the other article could be renamed and a disambiguation link placed on this page. As it is, it's pretty confusing. 158.104.202.171 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this "Article" National Socialist Party is a list - should be renamed to "List of National Socialist Parties or similar. Plehn (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

page move

the party was never officially called the "nazi party." NAZI was short for national socialist german workers party, ie- the "party" comes from the original name, not the acronym. thus a redirect to the proper name from "nazi party."Lihaas (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. That, sir, is an ex-dobbin! It is no more! It's pushing up alfalfa! It has joined the herd celestial! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

To be a little less bitey on this, WP:UCN makes it clear that we should use the most commonly used English-language name when naming articles and describing things. This is true even if the most commonly used English-language name is wrong, such as a mistranslation or something like that. We call the article the Nazi Party because nearly all English speakers would recognize it as such, even if it was never called that contemporaneously. See Byzantine Empire for a similar situation; the term was not used by those at the time, but it is still the most commonly used name so we use it for the article. Likewise, regardless of what the Nazi's called themselves, or their official title was, english-language sources overwhelmingly use the Nazi Party, so Wikipedia does as well. --Jayron32 04:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The term Nazi, i agree, but not necessarily with the party suffix. In fact the term is known way beyond the "party" term (hence another redirest to Nazism), and this would also be listed int he lead as "party" but along with and following the proper name, with this "nazi party" page redirecting thereof. No real cenorship/deletion. Much as it currently stands where the actual name is int he lead and nazi party following.Lihaas (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone into lengthy discussions on this position in the past and I've attacked it from every possible angle. The reality is, as far as I can tell, that the use of the "commmon name" principle on Wikipedia, is used as it is seen fit. Most people would, for example, call the bands Eagles and Ramones, THE Eagles and THE Ramones, yet when discussing names on those articles, the fact that the bands use Ramones and Eagles on their album covers seems to determine the actual naming of the article. This merely shows how different the principles are used.

My belief is that the principle is misrepresented here. The purpose of this principle is not to get incorrect names. No one would object, for example, to the argument that Bill Clinton should be Bill Clinton on Wikipedia, but if Axl Rose is more commonly referred to as Axel Rose, no one would want that name posted on Wikipedia. The strict application of this principle could, however, legitimate such a change.

This problem only grows when people start referring to Google searches to show they are right. Sure, "Nazi party" gets far more hits in Google searches (english only, -wikipedia), but on Google scholar and Google books, the results are not as clear. It is also problematic that the second result I get for "Nazi Party" when searching Google is a page for the "American Nazi Party". This problem finds an analogy in the US with the Republican Party. The Republican Party is not known as the GOP on wikipedia, even if they have registered GOP.com, have a GOP logo AND the name GOP is more common on Google than "Republican Party" (english only, -wikipedia). Can someone explain to me why the "common name" principle should determine the name in one case and not the other? 84.215.96.217 (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain (speaking of Bill Clinton), because everything you said above is intelligent and true, yet nevertheless, there *is* ground for the other naming choice, too, for reasons that I will attempt to explain better than anyone else yet has. It has to do exactly with your last question, "Can someone explain to me why the 'common name' principle should determine the name in one case and not the other?" You have just highlighted the very rub right there. There is no one general principle that can govern all the cases; because to describe what's happening linguistically, it takes a multivariate algorithm rather than one rule. Linguistically speaking, there is a gradient here, and different cases are on different parts of the gradient; yet language only has discrete (quantum) moves to model the gradient with. Here's what I mean. The example that you gave with Axl Rose (which was a great pick for an example, by the way) is a case that lies on a region of the gradient where the common usage cannot reasonably be allowed to determine the pagenaming, because it represents what a strong consensus among all reasonable people would classify as an error. This is because of the principle, which pretty much all reasonable people respect, that the way a person spells his own name *defines* the correct spelling of it for his case. Therefore a common misspelling is recognized by consensus as a *mis*spelling, no matter how common it is. However, not all cases fall on that region of the gradient. On other regions of the gradient, there are cases where what people usually call an entity (whether a proper noun or common noun) is something that cannot be classified as erroneous by a strong consensus of reasonable people. Just to get away from the heat around this article and look at a different example (that will generate more light and less heat here), consider the word "heroin". That word began as a trade name coined by Bayer, but it eventually lost all claim as a non-generic name in the minds of most reasonable people. Therefore there can be no strong consensus among reasonable people that we must rename the article pagename "heroin" to become "diacetylmorphine" (the INN name for the compound)—even though there's probably at least a few people out there in the world who would insist that we should. But no consensus. So here we have had two cases, the pagenames "Axl Rose" and "heroin", where each one clearly lies on a different end of the gradient as far as whether most reasonable people agree that an "error" has been made, depending on the tension between common usage and [someone's idea of] prescriptive "correctness". Now here's the disappointing part: The case of "NSDAP"/"Nazi Party"/"National Socialist German Workers' Party" is a case that lies somewhere in the middle of the gradient, yet language can't do anything with it except apply a discrete (quantum) model to it that shoves it over toward one of the poles—either treat it like "Axl" and say that the entity's own name for itself is the "most correct" one, or treat it like "heroin" and declare that common consensus usage defines acceptability, which in the end is to say, defines correctness (more accurately, it defines the absence of any correct/incorrect distinction). It depends on how different people define "correct" when there's more than one reasonable way to do so. In other words, it goes to the dynamic tension between linguistic prescription and linguistic description, which cannot be dispelled with any handful of simple, general rules. It would take an AI algorithm to constitute an accurate model of the multivariate reality (as opposed to a practically-human-communicable set of rules). That principle is why linguistic science has to exist at all: because nonscientific modeling of language (such as traditional grammar [i.e., "grammar-ology" as it existed before linguistic science]) is inadequate to describe the reality of how language works. If it were adequate, then there would be no such thing as linguistic science. There's no "one right answer" in this case, which is both unfortunate (for someone looking to dig down to the "one right answer" or persuade others of it) but also, in the bigger picture, very fortunate (because it means that we can all relax and not worry about it, because the thing to do, then, is just to let it be as acceptable either way). I hope this is useful! — ¾-10 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with much of what you say here, but I have a problem with the your conclusion. You seem to argue that since this discussion falls between the other two examples, both "Nazi Party" and NSDP are correct, and for this reason "we can all relax and not worry about it, because the thing to do, then, is just to let it be as acceptable either way." This sounds well and good, but I don't think it's reality. I think you're right that this debate falls down between the other two examples, but this only heats the debate up further (unfortunately), and it may have negative implications for the chance to reach consensus - which I think is impossible in this case. More on this below:

I've seen it argued many, many times here that there is consensus concerning the title of this article. I am not sure how consensus is defined on Wikipedia, but my impression is that "consensus" here simply means "simple majority". Consensus goes further than that, however, and it should mean "general agreement". While I am certain that there would be consensus about keeping the names Axl Rose and heroin, I am not so certain that there actually is any form of general agreement on the title of this article. My understanding from discussing this issue is that there is a group of people who are loud and who claim consensus, whereas there are others who disagrees. In my last discussion, I counted three supporters and four who raised questions about the name of this article. That's not what I call consensus. In these cases, I would much prefer to retain self-identification as a norm of the naming standards.

A problem with these debates is that any attempt to raise the question is met with a type of responses that I think do not belong on Wikipedia. There is a trend towards ridiculing those who disagrees, attempting to claim foul motives (as if changing the name would make the party sound less mean) and a general tendency towards being loud. There is also a tendency that arguments are met with responses that seems to aim at making those who supports a move, look stupid. My arguments in the past have been met with questions like whether I think Nazism should also be renamed NSDAP-ism too. I am not saying that proponents of a page move may not utilize the same "tactics", but I do believe that this weakens any discussion of the issue and may scare people away from discussing it. 84.215.96.217 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at the archives. This has been exhaustively and extensively discussed in the past, with consensus for the current title. Asher196 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it only was the case. I don't know how to link to the archives, but actually looking at it, what I see in the most recent archive is debates where a good amount of people vote to have the naming of the article use some form of NSDAP. The last vote seems to have ended 6-7 and there were older ones that ended with one or two votes leaning the total towards either one of the alternatives. The last discussion I was in gave me the same impression: Three people spoke in favor of keeping the current name, while four spoke against it (no vote though). The issue has also been raised NUMEROUS times by a lot of different people and the name of this article has also been changed at least a few times. All of this indicates that there simply is no consensus, since consensus really does not mean "simple majority". A WP definition of "consensus" would help, but there is none. The guidelines says, however, that"[m]ore than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes." 84.215.96.217 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To me it seems like something where there ends up being no point in advocating one way or the other, because, as you said, there's no consensus, so there's no way to define one as better than the other from Wikipedia's NPOV perspective. We may as well settle it with a coin flip, in such a case (not being facetious here—it seems like a good enough way as any). Imagine (by way of thought experiment) that a coin has already been flipped and the current title won. In such a case, you could allow yourself not to care much. That's how I would look at it. Of course, you're entitled to your own preference—not trying to deny you that at all—I'm just suggesting a way to look at it where you don't feel dissatisfied either way. That's it for my two cents! — ¾-10 03:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's exactly how I look at it: The current result is basically the result of something like a coin flip and both alternatives stand a reasonable chance of winning any new coin flip. I doubt it's possible to reach anything near consensus here at all. But while I do think people have valid reasons to support the Nazi Party name, I find it strange to retain a nickname that was never used by the party - since there seems to be no evidence of any kind of consensus. In this case, it would make more sense to me to follow the actual guidelines for naming articles of political parties. Those guidelines states that while common sense can be applied, the standard should be a political party's original name (translated). But even if this makes far more sense to me, the obvious problem is that if it was actually changed towards that, the next coin flip could result in reversals. If that was the case, the situation would hardly be improved.

My problem still stands: The last poll with a relatively large majority in favor of a name was what seems to have been the third last one where NSDAP was supported by a clear majority. After that, slim majorities decided to change the name. If that constituted major changes, then I wonder if they could have possibly been made against Wikipedia guidelines. I think this is a reason why it keeps coming up and I think it shows that people should be willing to take the debate. 84.215.96.217 (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Seems like one of those cases in life that rises above the local discussants and ends up before a judge, because neither side is clearly the loser. I'm sure there must be some way of referring this case to some sort of WP admin noticeboard or "WP:Articles for moving" or "WP:Articles for renaming" or something like that. Unfortunately I'm fairly ignorant of the due process for such things. (I have a mental block about acquiring enough metapedian experience—of that particular type although not all types—to decipher them; I think my personality hates the lawyering mentality [which too often pursues speciousness as a virtue] too much to be able to muster the positive attitude for it!) But I think you've got a reasonable argument to be made. Best of luck if you decide to pursue it. — ¾-10 19:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter for "votes"; it is a matter for discussion based on our guidelines and operating principles. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the title of this page has been determined by votes in the past, it is a little strange how it is no longer an issue for voting when you like the current name.

I do agree it's a matter for discussion based on guidelines and principles, however. Any discussion of this name thus has to start with whether the current name follows WP principles. The rationale for the current name seems to be the common name principle. This principle dictates that WP should NORMALLY use common names, but that there are exceptions. Such exceptions are found in the naming of political parties like GOP/Republican Party, Labour Party/Labour and Conservative Party/Tory Party. Translated examples include the Norwegian Labour Party (which would likely never be identified by that name and should, by the common name principle be named Labour Party (Norway)). These examples shows that there are times when the common name principle should be neglected.

When it is this clear that there is 1) no consensus about the current name, 2) the guidelines do not prevent a name change and 3) the old decision to change the name towards Nazi Party was a) perhaps done in violation with WP guidelines and b) did not have that much support, a new poll seems to be well in place. I'd sure like to hear what others think about this. 84.215.96.217 (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish people who like the Nazi Party to be called something else would devote some more time to other areas of WP that need some care and attention... Shot info (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think if you feel strongly enough that you can't accept the current coin flip (because of the principles you mentioned, eg, the Norwegian example), then seeking some kind of judgment from above is the only way to get a final choice that can "stick" and not just be re-challenged again a few months later, over and over. It's like a supreme court case. People could argue a principle back and forth forever, taking a new referendum every year, because neither side is exclusively wrong or exclusively right. But deciding close-run decisions via that method is an insane lifestyle to endure, so you have an institution like a supreme court to basically make the final coin flip. Everyone has to accept the outcome, and it is final in the medium term. (Rarely it can change in the long term, for example, dumb decisions like Dred Scott v. Sandford, but those are the exceptional examples; in general, this kind of institution allows humans to coexist despite the fact that some topics defy a "satisfying" kind of consensus.) HTH. — ¾-10 17:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "judgement from above". Who are you referring to?Asher196 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably our Dear Leader; some folks think he's an ayatollah or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to what I mentioned earlier, that is, whatever "X for Y" process (XfD etc) Wikipedia uses for such cases. No ayatollahs. — ¾-10 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think ¾-10 raises a good idea and it seems to be in place - at least in some form (see Wikipedia:Consensus). That page lists a few things that could perhaps be relevant here? The ideal thing in this case would perhaps be to involve people who knows naming conventions and practices well and that can help build a larger consensus around either one of the two names. I don't know if this is possible, but avoiding a 10-7 (or 8) or 7-6 majority is quite important, I think, since few people would consider it "consensus". Although a new consensus CAN be challenged at a later stage (WP guidelines indicate that "there was consensus" is a bad argument), getting to a place where the support for either of the alternatives is clearer, would be preferable. To even stand a chance of getting to this stage, I think everyone involved should recognize that there are valid rationales for both names: 1) "For articles on organizations (like political parties) the general rule applies. That means: Name your pages with the English translation and place the original native name on the first line of the article", 2) "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources". Without this recognition, one name would always seem to be "wrong", while the other would be "right". Finding a new name that is supported by arguments and people, not getting whatever name we might prefer, should be the goal according to WP guidelines. I think that would be the only way to actually build something remotely similar to a consensus here. 84.215.96.217 (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)