Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 7

Translation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
National Socialist German Worker's Party is a false translation of it into English. National is a prefix to sozialistische, Nationalsozialismus means (according to the Nazis) it's a Nationalistic form of Socialism, this is also why for example in the Dutch NSB, the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging there's a hyphen-minus (-) between Nationaal and Socialistisce to indicate that it's part of the same word. Translating it to "National Socialist German Worker's Party" makes it sound like they emphasize that it's a national party, as opposed to a regional party. If you would translate that directly to German it would become "Nationale Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei". It of course was a national party, but that's not the intent of that word and therefore it's a false translation. I think this is fundamentally and honestly in my opinion quite shockingly (I do mean to play on your emotions) wrong and should definitely be changed, how it should be changed I don't know. I think there are two options, either we should translate it to "Nationalistic Socialist Worker's Party" or "National-Socialist Worker's Party", the latter being more true to the style of the name without losing the meaning whereas the former is more emphatic of the actual meaning, especially when read aloud orally (as there's no audible difference between National Socialist and National-Socialist in English), by for example Alexa as seen in this viral YouTube video with over 4 million views. Linguisticallly and politically speaking I prefer the former one (Nationalistic) for the reasons I've stated and alluded to, however, since said video by Steven Crowder is so popular people will undoubtedly notice at some point and it's quite likely Crowder or other right wing influencers will react and attempt to discredit Wikipedia for being "SJW cucks who hate science" or something.

Maybe I'm overlooking something, maybe this was the official name of the NSDAP in English, but even then it's a faulty translation and their opinion should not be used since their intent might have been to come across as less radical to foreigners. This should also in my opinion be changed on the article "National Socialism" though there it's more clear that it's a separate ideology and therefore I frankly don't care as much because it's not as political, but linguistically speaking that one should also be changed. Dapperedavid (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can assure you the former is not going to happen as there’s too many WP:RS sources that disagree with you. And also one needs consensus for such a change, which you do not have at this time. Further your opinion is just that, opinion. See WP:OR. Nobody’s opinion here matters, it’s verification WP:V and reliable sources that carry the day, along with consensus. So I suggest you read the links; that is what is required. Kierzek (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're saying it's time to stop repeating a mistranslation that has perpetuated for nearly a century now, I'm with you. What'll be required is to get all the scholars in the world to start using "Nationalistic" instead of "National". Once that happens, Wikipedia will update its article. But WP won't lead this charge; rather, WP would only make that change after the scholars did. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm sort of new to editing Wikipedia, I do it casually, but this false translation really ruffles my feathers and makes me quite emotionally invested so forgive me if I'm being an idiot right now. I thought for small translation related things like this one that can be figured out by anyone who speaks both languages, editors are allowed to apply their own logic a little bit? Like, you don't wanna get into arguments about whether the holocaust happened because there's too much to go through, but isn't a small thing like this different? Doesn't Wikipedia have a guideline for that, like that there are exceptions to all guidelines because guidelines aren't rules? If not, since we both agree that the translation is false, how would we go about fixing it? Which scholars do you mean? How many of them are Germans whose works have been translated to English by non-experts? How many of them don't speak German? How many of them use the official English name of the NSDAP (if that exists). Is the opinion of any historian equal to that of any language expert? What's the source you guys use for this translation? I can't find it. What is it I don't know, that I have to know to understand why you guys don't want to change it? And why do you think personally, not that it matters for this discussion but I'm just curious, that this mistake is so widespread? Dapperedavid (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't speak German, so actually I have no idea what nationalsozialistische means. What you wrote makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. What I do know is that it's been translated by almost all scholars as "National Socialist", and changing it to "Nationalistic Socialist" would not be a "small" thing. That would be a major change. For example, you'd also have to change it here, here, here, here, here, here, and many other places.
 * Wikipedia does have policies on this exact thing, which were put in place to address this exact situation: where there is an apparent mistake in the scholarship. In such instances, the community has agreed not to allow editors to make the corrections themselves (no original research), and instead to follow what is written in reliable sources. In other words, we don't fix the mistake until the scholars fix the mistake.
 * By which scholars, I mean the ones listed here and here: the sources cited in the article. All of the information in the article comes from these sources, so because they call it "National Socialist German Workers' Party", we call it "National Socialist German Workers' Party". To call it the "Nationalistic Socialist German Workers' Party", while citing to these same sources, would be to misrepresent the sources and what they're saying, because they don't call it that. So, to make this change, you'd have get scholars like Richard J. Evans, Ian Kershaw, Timothy D. Snyder, and others like them, to start writing it as "Nationalistic Socialist". Then, when WP articles cite their books using that phrase, WP would write "Nationalistic Socialist" as well. Until then, the WP:OR and WP:RS policies, and basic honesty, require us to use the language used in the sources that are cited in the article. The change has to be made in the scholarship first, and only then on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Levivich? ! 23:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you show me that guideline about mistakes in scholarships? I'm trying to find it but I can't. What if some expert would write a peer reviewed article about why the common translation of NSDAP is wrong, or however those things are done, would that be enough to change the translation Wikipedia uses? Dapperedavid (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We have to stick with the translation. Incidentally "National Socialism" is seen as a phrase that has a meaning beyond its two words, that is, it is not nationalism+socialism. Note that we also use the terms national liberalism and national conservatism for German ideologies. And in the UK there are the admittedly very different Scottish National and British National parties. TFD (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My issue is mostly that lately kids are being taught by people like Steven Crowder that Hitler was "a socialist", I don't think the fact most people see that phrase as having its own separate meaning is going to continue for long, especially people that might be reading this article, or have Alexa read it for them. But anyway, that meaning would not go away if there was a "-" between it, it would become National-Socialism, seems reasonable to me (yeah I know original research). As for the Scottish national party, that's a very good name, "Nationalist" would not be accurate because they're a left wing party and nationalism no longer purely means desiring independence, it also has other connotations to it. As for the British National Party, aren't they literally Nazis? Or Cryptonazis? I'm not surprised they would use the old fashioned National Socialism style way of choosing their party name. Dapperedavid (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nationalism as explained in by Anthony D. Smith in Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History as "plac[ing] the nation at the centre of its concerns." A nationalist party may also have a left or right-wing ideology, but in many cases they do not. The SNP for example was founded by left and right wingers united in the belief that Scotland could only progress once it achieved autonomy. It seems though that today nationalist is often just a polite word for fascist. Also, the purpose of the article in not to persuade extremists that Nazis were not socialists, but merely to explain what mainstream scholars think. It's up to readers to decide on their own. Bear in mind that people who think Nazism was left wing appear to have the same process of reasoning as the rest of us, so are unlikely to be persuaded by evidence or rational argument. TFD (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure! The real key policy is WP:No original research (aka WP:OR), first paragraph: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources...[Y]ou must be able to cite reliable, published sources that...directly support the material being presented. and also the WP:SECONDARY section of WP:OR: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. See also WP:NOTLEAD: We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources...Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. (bold added) and WP:NOTFORUM: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. If "some expert" wrote a peer-reviewed article about the translation, that alone would not be enough; if a significant number of experts wrote about the translation in reliable peer-reviewed journals, then yes, I believe we could summarize those sources in a section in the article discussing the translation of the word. How many is "significant" would be a matter for the community to decide through consensus (for example, a discussion on this talk page, after the "significant number" of peer-reviewed articles were presented here for editor review). However, though a significant minority opinion in the scholarship should be represented in an article, I doubt Wikipedia editors would consent to actually changing the name in the article lead, infobox, etc., unless and until a widespread majority of experts made the change, because "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." Levivich? ! 03:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, methinks the OP has a point; this point is adumbrated in the article: " ...Drexler emphasised the need for a synthesis of völkisch nationalism with a form of economic socialism ...". It is precisely the aspect of synthesis which is captured in the German style of compound nouns, while the English style can at times be ambiguous as to the scope of the elements in question. One solution is to accept "Nazism" as a specific political ideology, and not merely a typographical shorthand for "national socialism".
 * This alone does of course not merit a renaming here; but does it have to be a renaming, and does it have to be here? IMHO one could present the issue as an explanation or discussion instead; and perhaps on pages that have the degree of socialism in nazism as its main theme? There is, for instance, the "National Socialism" page, with the subsection "Position within the political spectrum", which is perhaps as close a candidate as can be found. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What if the National Socialism page renames it?
 * Well, that bit about nationalism may be true and it makes sense that calling it national instead of nationalist was to make it seem less right wing would not be the reason since it was formed also by right wingers. But what I also think about the name of SNP is that "National" also has political meaning apart from supposedly meaning "nationalist", it implies that the SNP is "The party of the nation Scotland", which implies that Scotland is or should be independent, it's "national" in that sense, not "nationalist". Nationalism is a political ideology, "National" isn't. ALSO, I like to think I do reason with evidence and rational argument but I don't think we're allowed to digress.
 * Thanks for the info Dapperedavid (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You are using your own definitions and interpretations. Whatever their validity, they are not what reliable sources say, such as the one I used. Incidentally, national liberals and national conservatives were also nationalists, but that is how they are translated. TFD (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Dapperedavid, you now know the process and reasoning. Time to stop beating a WP:Deadhorse. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not beating a dead horse just because this discussion has gone on for a long time. Dapperedavid (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. Just came here, because of another discussion point, but wanted to clear some things. Nationalsozialistisch does not mean "nationalistic", but nationalsocialist in one word or with an 'ic' behind it, because its a European right-wing party in contrast to left-wing (egalitarian) and Marxism. National is connected to the integrity of the German Volk in the sense of military servants (not People as 'Pöbel'), socialist is meant as an aid for the German people and on private property basis. Dapperedavid is right that it is one word, but the translation out of National Socialist is not "a national socialist party". It is not a National Bolshewist Party. However, why the name is shortened to "Nazi party"? --2A02:908:E348:BF20:103C:AEF7:5A9E:B4E9 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

FAQ muddle?
Hi The FAQ ends with "Q: Are there people who still support the Nazis? A: Yes, they are called Neo-Nazis. They still exist even though the party, itself, is dissolved.". I wouldn't have mentioned it, except that the link on Neo-Nazis (NN) doesn't lead to any group that is, to pick a wording, continuing the NSDAP, while the answer refers to "the party, itself", i.e. NSDAP. Which leads one to believe that there are people who support the NSDAP althought it has been dissolved for two generations. It's hard to pinpoint exacty what is the problem ... it's something along the lines of "supporting the Nazis" being meaningless in context. There are no Nazis to support, if Nazi = (member of ) NSDAP. What Neo-Nazis do is partly Hitler-worship, partly continuing some of the strains of that ideological pathology that was Nazism, i.e. racism, white supremacy, anti-semmittism etc. etc. IOW, the Nazi 'Weltbild' has not ceased to be, and so Neo-Nazis accept, believe, support, promote, propagate Nazism, although not via the vehicle of any National-socialist German Labour Party. Oh, well ... this may not be important ... Party and ideology not being identical, the party is no more, the ideology is ... Idk. It matters (only) if the text is liable to mislead or confuse anyone. If not, then alles gut. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Nazis killed thousands of social democrats, socialists and communists. Stop repeating this absurd left-right discussion, only because you found the word "socialist" in their party's name. It's mocking all their innocent victims. --Nillurcheier (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't mention "socialist" except as used in the Party name, so I can't really see that I repeat any left-right discussion, and the purpose of my posting was not to do that; but if what I wrote appears to do so, I'm sorry. Happpy to edit any specific parts found objectionable. All the best to you. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is a big problem but I do think the FAQ could be improved to address this concern. I doubt many people would misunderstand it as it is but we do want the FAQ to be as clear and precise as possible.
 * I think that it is the question that could be reworded, not the answer. Maybe the question should be something like "Q: Are there people who still practice Nazi ideology and advocate Nazi policies?". What do we think? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thx for helping to make sense :)  Allow me to make a proposal, just to have something to work from:
 * "Q: Are there people who still support Nazism?
 * A: Yes. The NSDAP Party itself is dissolved (and Nazi Parties are prohibited in Germany). However, in many countries there are people who espouse tenets of Nazi Party ideologies, like racism, anti-semittism etc. They are called Neo-Nazis (/link/).
 * In the Q, one can probably vary the wording "support Nazism" (vs. e.g. "Party"). In the A, one can discuss the relevance of the info on Germany, the necessity to mention "many countries", examples of tenets (and I thought the wording "continue the legacy" was a bit too grand ...), etc. But perhaps this is a start. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019
The National Socialist German Labor Party was NOT right wing in anyway. How is a Socialist party right wing? You should change your fake news definition. 65.78.52.179 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The FAQ seems pretty biased and contradictory at the same time. It says that the Nazi party was "right wing" and at the very same time it says that Hitler was against capitalism (i.e. socialist left-winger). The FAQ is not God either so nobody has to agree with it blindly. I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the very obvious bias. People should look up purely non-political stuff on Wikipedia, otherwise it's clearly the writer's political leaning that controls the content, kinda like how college education works in a way. --MatthewS. (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The resolve here is that both views should be in the article, attributed accordingly. It is not the job of editors to pick which view is "correct." Cite sources for both and be done with it. This grandstanding is ridiculous.Lexlex (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What sources are those then? The reason this content has been rejected over and over again is that there are no reliable sources to support it. If anybody has new sources then, of course, we can look at them but so far all we have is fringe writers and non-experts promoting fringe views. I'd be amazed if anything better exists and nobody has told us about it. I know that some people really do wish that the post-WWII academic consensus can be changed by incessant repetition of unsupported claims but that really is not how it works. Where are the works by serious historians and political scientists? Without that, there is no point even raising the topic for the 1,001st time. This is why we have the FAQ. It exists to try to help people not to waste their time as much as to stop them wasting ours. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A reliable source is primarily one that was published and can be reliably cited. It is simply true (and citable) that some hold the opinion this party was left wing. The argument that those holding such opinions are "fringe" is blatantly subjective and not really a rationale for removing content. It should be included (with a caveat perhaps), but this game of continually censoring material like some sort of white knight protecting the world from dangerous ideas is a laughable and a rather depressing waste of resources. Lexlex (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What sources are those then? I asked before and you offer nothing. If you have anything new we can consider it. If it supports the claim and meets the criteria in WP:RS (which are very different from what you claim) then nobody is going to object to using it, albeit with appropriate weight. The reason I am sceptical is that the last hundred people to attempt this were not able to come up with the goods so we have to assume that they probably don't exist. You are still welcome to try to demonstrate otherwise but please be aware that we won't be impressed by the same thin stuff that got rejected many times before. As I said before, the post-WWII academic consensus is not something trivially overturned by repeated unsupported assertion no matter how confidently asserted. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am a bystander pointing out that you are attempting to cite opinion as fact based on the authority of the opinion holder. Your request for sources to disprove your claim is absurd as you seem woefully unaware of the core issue here. Lexlex (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nazi party was a far-left party. It was called "fasicst" by the USSR
Because they censored the socialist part. But I don't see why the West should adopt the USSR terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's discussed above. Policy requires us to use the conclusions in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The National Socialist Workers' Party was, by definition, left-wing.
I gave many references that prove this point and yet my edits are being undone! I mean, who in the world would ever argue that socialism isn't left-wing? If you want to discuss this then let's do that, but until then I don't think my edit should be undone if it provides references to back them up, unless there is some obvious bias which I hope is not the case. -MatthewS. (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read the first question on the FAQ at the top of this page. Leviv&thinsp;ich 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So the FAQ must be honest? Numerous sources do not agree with these descriptions of "socialism" as in the FAQ. True many (probably leftist) historians will redefine things to sway the accusation of Nazism away from their group but socialism is socialism, especially that these same FAQs surprisingly say that Hitler was against capitalism, which is a huge part of what makes a leftist a leftist. I assume, though, that there are disagreements as to certain definitions obviously but that doesn't mean my edits, if backed up by evidence and references, should be intentionally undone. -MatthewS. (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also edit summaries such as "National SOCIALISM is left wing! The only reason you'd deny that is if you're a leftist and ashamed of the history. " will not help your case and just putting your edit back will soon cross the 3 revert rule. Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, my edits were being intentionally removed even though references are given. If Wikipedia is starting to be politically biased that's a shame indeed. I capitalized "socialism" for emphasis. And reverting my edits numerous times, why is that considered ok? -MatthewS. (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You want to talk about apparent biases in the article and then use those sources? Nihlus  15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What? Am I supposed to use left-wing sources to prove that Nazism was left wing? Where can I find those, do you know? I didn't know Independent.co.uk was "biased". It's a news website, that I supposed can be considered at least partially neutral. Maybe Conservapedia I'll agree could be a little biased but do you think a leftist source would say Nazism was leftist? Obviously they'd rather deny the obvious name of the party ("socialist" and "workers'") and give some other sort of reasoning. -MatthewS. (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How democratic was the German Democratic Republic? --Wolbo (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources and historians say the party was on the right side of the spectrum. Please read the rest of the FAQ listed above. Nihlus  16:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the people you cite have any qualifications in political science. It's not the Independent by the way but an article written by George Watson for the peper. And yes some socialists can be considered right-wing, such as the Socialists who supported Nixon and Reagan or the declared new president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. TFD (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, you cannot use an encyclopedia as a cite, it is not considered a WP:RS source. Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Maybe Conservapedia I'll agree could be a little biased" The understatement of the year. Conservapedia's article on the Third Reich is part of a category called Liberalism. The catefory definition is "big government progressive police state of the liberal agenda, Marxism, Socialism, National Socialism, Liberalism". Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "By definition" is actually the problem here, I think. Right-wing propaganda is trying to change the meanings of Left and Right to make them fit their agenda (Newspeak), and by some bizarre coincidence it turns out that if you define "left-wing" to mean "bad", the Nazis happen to fit that definition. Grüße ✦  hugarheimur 23:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the funniest thing I've read in a while. Accusing the right of trying to "change the meanings" while this is exactly what a bunch of leftists right here is doing. What is more leftist than a party that calls itself a "socialist workers' party", or the fact that you guys are trying to "change the meaning" of the very word socialist, anti-capitalist, and most importantly "workers'" and magically turn them into right wing evil capitalists just to feel happy with yourselves and to pretend like your fellow co-ideologists didn't kill 6 million Jews and a few million other people in the Holocaust. How evil is it to use your popularity as Wikipedia to mislead huge amounts of people by your play on words. -MatthewS. (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very offensive comment, entirely at odds with the facts, and I suggest you stop making accusations against other editors. TFD (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it offensive? Because I have to agree with the group? I didn't accuse the editors, I'm objecting as an editor myself to some very obvious bias. If by offensive you mean the right to disagree and to understand that not everyone has your worldview then this is sad indeed. I'm only expressing my opinion and I'm the one mostly being attacked here. -MatthewS. (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the explanation I left with the NPA warning on your talk page covers it, but let us know if you have any questions about why accusing editors of "pretend[ing] like your fellow co-ideologists didn't kill 6 million Jews" is a personal attack. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your "opinion" does not line up with the fact that historians all agree on it being a far-right group. Historical revisionism has no place here. Nihlus  20:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We must go by what the main-line WP:RS historians state, MatthewS. Our personal opinions (WP:OR) are not the standard. Kierzek (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion was about that I feel political bias here. I never said it was an opinion that the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany was in fact a "socialist workers' party" (they weren't trying to trick you, no). I do not mean to attack individual editors but I do have a right (at least where I live) to freedom of expression so I'm practicing that very freedom by saying what I (and many other opinionated distinguished sources, maybe not "reliable" by some here) know to be "facts" about what it means to be a left wing party. I know that probably the Nazi Party will remain a "far-right" party on here at least for the foreseeable future but at least I made a stand for me and many others who will for sure disagree with this classification. Nothing personal but I guess let's agree to disagree. -MatthewS. (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comments were offensive because they accuse editors of providing false information in order to achieve ideological goals. In fact, all editors must ensure that the information provided reflects the conclusions in reliable sources, not their own. (I won't comment on your use of the holocaust in your argument.) And Wikipedia is not a forum for free expression. TFD (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the term left or right wing is subjective and both concepts are supported by reference, both should be included or it should not be declared. This is a difference of WP:Opinion between editors, consensus is not relevant. Please note this is WP:Not a forum for general discussion on the topic. Lexlex (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * both concepts are supported by reference – our entire point is that this isn’t in fact the case (see also WP:FRINGE). the term left or right wing is subjective – I very much disagree, but that is indeed beside the point, and you are right with the second part of your post. Which is why I’m marking this discussion as resolved. Rgds ✦  hugarheimur 14:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored. If we disagree with something, that's fine. But actively working to remove content because it is against our views is not our role. It is simple fact that several references support the idea that the Nazis were leftist. Refusing to include this idea by slandering sources or attributing higher value to authors who share our view is not our role as editors, especially when other editors strongly disagree. It is not our job to determine the "correct" view, present and cite both. Lexlex (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nazi party was called "fascist" by the USSR, they censored the socialist part, so it wouldn't damage the revolution. We don't need to adap their terminology. Nazis were far-left. they also were socialist in everyday life, they were enviromentalist and so on.

The Nazi Party was a complex amalgamation of both right and left policies, best described as a centrist movement. In one example, they strictly controlled the production of war-related materials by privately owned factories (which is Left of center politics). In another example, they encouraged private property ownership. Arcteryxcrembulon (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019
Please change: "was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945" to "was a far-left political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945"

Source: Supporters of Communism, or of socialism in general, like to pretend that Nazism was not socialist but "right wing", for similar reasons to why fascism is often associated with the right wing despite being left wing. Despite this, however, it featured enough similarities with Communism that they were in fact closer to the far left, even including anti-Semitism, which Karl Marx had advocated. ***Those Damned Nazis by Joseph Goebbels (read in their own words why the Nazis were socialists)*** Tactechmech (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. See the FAQ above. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And read the sections before yours next time. This talk page almost exclusively consists of requests to change it to "far-left", which won't happen. Like Ealdgyth said, see the FAQ. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The Nazi Party was "far-left"
National-Socialist Workers' Party is not right wing. Sorry. Many editors disagree with this biased classification. If you want to find scholars that say it is in fact left-wing (which it is), there's plenty of references online that back this. I also want to make it known that a huge number of people (anyone who is not a leftist pretty much) that do not agree with Wikipedia's biased pinning of a socialist anti-capitalist workers' party on the capitalist anti-socialist right wing. It's like an oxymoron. I will leave this right here, since the old discussions were archived, just so it is known that not all of us here agree and that there's no consensus whatsoever on calling Nazis "right wing" (they're left wing). -MatthewS. (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it is refreshing to have this claim made by someone who is not a red linked editor. It does not make it any more real that way but it is a nice change. Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record I too disagree in the strongest possible terms that the Nazi party was "right wing." There are plenty of sources to support such a thing and the constant dog piling by blatantly left wing editors to disallow even references on specious logic is more than a little disheartening. Pushing a conclusion like this looks desperate. The article doesn't need the conclusion stated and could instead have sources showing both arguments. It's hardly as settled a point as some here insist, and its continued raising by multiple editors makes this quite evident.  Lexlex (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that the Nazi Party is a socialist party, please sign up here.
 * Here, let me get the list started, these being "editors" who have made this claim in the past.


 * AusarDeathless - contributions to 1 article. This one
 * 3LIP5i55 - contributions to 1 article.  This one
 * Jesus Saves Our Sins - contributions to 1 article. This one
 * Lylewash - contributions to 1 article. This one.
 * Annoloki - contributions to 1 article.  This one
 * TLD1965 - - contributions to 1 article.  This one
 * Zaniack - contributions to 6 articles.
 * Anticommunistcrusader - contributions to 2 articles. Mostly this one
 * from the Study of: John Calvin Hall - contributions to 2 articles. Mostly this one
 * Dsteakley
 * Sunamer
 * Pietric Learning Stone
 * Flyingpenguin74
 * Rancoridge333
 * AWinter
 * SocialistFever
 * Vektor00
 * RickHorner
 * User talk:108.11.157.20
 * Hmmmm. So why do you suppose that there are only red linked editors on the list?  Oh, Reds.  I get it, a communist plot?  I guess we could add User:Lexlex and User:MatthewS. and get some blue ink in.  Carptrash (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding anti-communism to info box
Anti-communism was a central point of Nazi ideology, alongside Antisemitism. Should it be listed in the infobox? If antisemitism and pan-Germanism are, shouldn’t anti-communism?


 * I think that the ideology field should be used for actual ideology, which in this case was Nazism, rather than all the elements of which it is composed. TFD (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * include it. Anti-communism is what the Nazis were doing and preaching from the very beginning right up until the moment communism squashed them. Carptrash (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * include it. Essential to the Nazi identity. They were propagating the antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism.:


 * "During the 1920s, Hitler declared that the mission of the Nazi movement was to destroy "Jewish Bolshevism". Hitler asserted that the "three vices" of "Jewish Marxism" were democracy, pacifism and internationalism, and that the Jews were behind Bolshevism, communism and Marxism."
 * "In Nazi Germany, this concept of Jewish Bolshevism reflected a common perception that Communism was a Jewish-inspired and Jewish-led movement seeking world domination from its origin. The term was popularized in print in German journalist Dietrich Eckhart's 1924 pamphlet "Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin" ("Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin") which depicted Moses and Lenin as both being Communists and Jews. This was followed by Alfred Rosenberg's 1923 edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Hitler's Mein Kampf in 1925, which saw Bolshevism as "Jewry's twentieth century effort to take world dominion unto itself." "
 * "According to French spymaster and writer Henri Rollin, "Hitlerism" was based on "anti-Soviet counter-revolution" promoting the "myth of a mysterious Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik plot", entailing that the First World War had been instigated by a vast Jewish-Masonic conspiracy to topple the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires and implement Bolshevism by fomenting liberal ideas." Dimadick (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Include with caveat It should certainly be stated the National Socialist Party claimed to be anti-communist, but considering their polices mirrored communism in many ways with dictatorial state control, promised cradle-to-grave care, state ownership, etc. it is just that: a claim—a difference in name only and a false promise made by a politician. Considering that politician was Adolf Hitler, stating it here as undisputed fact seems a bit disingenuous. Lexlex (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Anticommunism is a defining element of Nazism. So listing Nazism and anticommunism is somewhat redundant. But so are pan-Germanism and antisemitism. --RJFF (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019
‘was a far left political party’

Simply look at your political spectrum page. Was a “far right” political party? Really? A socialist movement is ‘far right’ you trying to rewrite history? You know how stupid that sounds? If you cannot put reality in there, then remove the error statement completely. 108.11.157.20 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 21:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ideologue Wikipedia editors have made it their mission to present socialism and Germany's National Socialists as opposite ideologies. From the twisted word salad and specious logic in the hat-notes to the conspicuous lack of translation for the the term "Nazi" within the article body, it's laughable. For the umpteenth time: it is not Wikipedia's place to pick winners and losers when sources exist for both sides of an argument. Present and reference both arguments and be done. It's no different than editors declaring which holy book or God is true: it's not our role. Lexlex (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Decisions are based on reliable sources. The only people who call it socialism believe that pretty much everyone is a socialist except for diehard supporters of American libertarianism. TFD (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't libertarianism a leftist ideology to begin with? Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If libertarianism had left wing roots (read the article) the tree its self has long since been grafted on to right-wing ones. Carptrash (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ideology
The ideology of the party is written as follows: "Nazism, Pan-Germanism, Antisemitism". Are pan-Germanism and antisemitism parts of Nazism? - Ullierlich (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. Nazism is defined by antisemitism, racism, völkisch (pan-German) nationalism, social Darwinism, anticommunism, antiliberalism and anti-democracy. --RJFF (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Central tenets also include lebensraum, blood and soil, the Fuerher principle, aryan superiority and the one-party state. I have always thought however, that the info-box should be used for the ideology of the party, while explanation of the ideology belongs in the body of the article. TFD (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wanted to say that it would be enough to write "Nazism" in the ideology section. - Ullierlich (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Pan-Germanism and antisemitism are redundant as they are by definition part of nazism. --RJFF (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019

 * 8.5 million (1945)
 * position = Far-right Charleswbiggs007 (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is right wing. See the FAQ above. Not done. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Arbeitsbereich Generalgouvernement der NSDAP
The text allegedly describes the General Government, but -probably doesn't. The structere there was Arbeitsbereich Generalgouvernement der NSDAP.Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019
Nazi is Far left not far right Charleswbiggs007 (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per the FAQ above. QueerFilmNerd  talk 01:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request, but not to label them left wing. Most modern historians agree they were neither left nor right, but a relatively unique political and social ideology. QueerFilmNerd, I understand your political beliefs have a strong influence in the editing process, and I'd like to assure you I am not trying to say nazis were left wing. It's just simply inaccurate to describe them as right wing. By modern definition of the right anyway. Unless of course there's an additional agenda behind the labeling that I'm not aware of?


 * Please read the FAQ. Please do not make claims like "Most modern historians agree they were neither left nor right". This is simply not true. A very few historians, mostly on the fringes, hold this view although its main support comes from propagandists and other non-historians. We do note non-mainstream views in Wikipedia articles but we can not give them parity of esteem with the entire post-1945 academic consensus. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It was presumptuous of me to state most historians agree. After further research, it appears there is no agreed upon consensus. That said, although it is correct to say Hitler himself was more right wing, the Nazi party incorporated many views from across the political spectrum. Why they did this is subject of debate (I'm personally in the camp of it was solely for sake of attracting the workers), but regardless of why, the party's upheld ideals are a matter of historical fact. Assuming Germany had what we understand to be right and left parties (It didn't), Nazis would have been considered an outlier, or 3rd party. Something akin to how we view libertarians, or the green party. Btw, I'm solely basing my opinion on the platform the nazis used. Anyone can view what ideals and goals the party had. If you separate it into 2 categories (right and left), giving each side a percentage based on number of views, you end up with 54%right, 46%left. (give or take 2%, due to some policies overlapping into both). Granted, it DOES slightly lean to the right, but not nearly enough to call it a right wing party.

Sources I used: ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA, facinghistory.org, the jewish virtual library, and the BBC. To be clear, trying to compare nazis, communists, etc to western ideas of right n left will never work. Our understanding of politics, skewed by our modern beliefs and foresight, is vastly, unimaginably different from 1930s-1940s Europe. I still wonder if there's an agenda here though.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2019
both national socialism and fascism are quoted as being far-right ideologies. They are in fact left-wing socialist philosophies, because the seek to socialise the means of production: Nazis bu race, fascists by nation. Is State control [total control = totalitarianism]

Socialism: State control of the economy = Socialism [predates Marx, Hitler & Mussolini] - read Giovanni Gentile 1875-1944

Workers’ state control = Marxists [state control by workers/ proletariat – class]

Racial state control = Nazis [state control by the race/Aryans - race]

Nationality state control = Fascists [national control of the economy - nation]

These are all left-wing socialist philosophies advocating command economies, not right-wing free market capitalist

Hitler’s definition of National Socialism in “Mein Kampf”: ‘National Socialism is based on race, which is a community and excludes foreigners, principally Jews. Remove the Jews from Aryan society, and there is no class struggle & socialism will reign.’

Marxists want to paint Hitler as being on the far right and claim he is a capitalist, but in reality he was a socialist, as his followers also knew. Hitler belongs on the far left with his totalitarianism & tyrannical dictatorship. There is little difference between a racial society & a classles society. Both are the murder & theft of one group of society for the gain of another group in society. Socialism is the tyranny of the social group. Capitalism is the freedom & liberty of the individual. More people need to understand this, so that socialists can no longer push their socialist agenda [murder & theft].

By denying Hitler was a socialist, Marxists are denying the ideological basis for the holocaust, which makes them holocaust deniers. They therefore allow National Socialists to deny the holocaust too.

So, the Marxists murdered the bourgeoisie in the gulags & Hitler murdered the Jews [bourgeoisie] in the death camps. This is the same thing, based on the same ideology, which is why the Marxists say Nazis are not socialists which would mean that the Marxists are tainted. Thus, if Hitler was not a socialist, he would not have wanted to murder the Jews by removing them from society.

If it is good to murder & steal from the Bourgeoisie, why is it not good to murder & steal from the Jews? What is the final solution to the bourgeoisie question? Is it gulag or gas chamber? To deny Hitler’s socialism is to deny the holocaust & it is denying history.

Das Kapital [Marx]: "Socialised man, the producer in common control" Mein Kampf [Hitler]: "Socialised man, the race in common control" These are the same things. 82.15.226.93 (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

German Nazism was the far left...
German Nazism of it's day-disambiguation is necessary as the term "far-right' disseminates as totalitarian, as to where the extreme left of the german status quo in 1933 of the socialist german workers party was to shut everything that opposed it down.

German Nazism was the far left of it's day(ANTIFA)-disambiguation(clarification) is necessary as the term "far-right' disseminates(publicizes) as totalitarianism(dictatorship); as to where the extreme left of the german status quo in 1933, of the socialist german workers party, was to shut everything down that opposed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PIKESPEAK420 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that the Nazi Party is a socialist party, please sign up here:(the following was added to my posting by PIKESPEAK420, a habit that is not considered good wikipediaing) The DAP (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, German Workers' Party) was formed in Munich in January 1919 and Adolf Hitler joined it in September of that year. His talents for speaking, publicity and propaganda were quickly recognized,[3] and by early 1920 he had gained authority in the party, which changed its name to the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party) in February 1920,[4] although "Socialist" was added by the party's executive committee, over Hitler's objections, to help the party appeal to left-wing workers.[5]


 * Here, let me get the list started these being "editors" who have made this claim in the past.


 * AusarDeathless - contributions to 1 article. This one
 * 3LIP5i55 - contributions to 1 article.  This one
 * Jesus Saves Our Sins - contributions to 1 article. This one
 * Lylewash - contributions to 1 article. This one.
 * Annoloki - contributions to 1 article.  This one
 * TLD1965 - - contributions to 1 article.  This one
 * Zaniack - contributions to 6 articles.
 * Anticommunistcrusader - contributions to 2 articles. Mostly this one
 * from the Study of: John Calvin Hall - contributions to 2 articles. Mostly this one
 * Dsteakley
 * Sunamer
 * Pietric Learning Stone
 * Flyingpenguin74
 * Rancoridge333
 * AWinter
 * SocialistFever
 * Vektor00
 * RickHorner
 * User:Lexlex
 * User:Tactechmech - one edit since 2012 - his proof was that Karl Marx was an anti-semite. Hmmmm.
 * User:MatthewS.
 * User:Charleswbiggs007 made two total edits on wikipedia, both on this page
 * User:PIKESPEAK420 has been editing on wikipedia for one day, all his other edits have been undone


 * Carptrash (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Repeated attempts at what seems like intimidation by publishing a "list of names" of people who have pointed out a well-established and easily verifiable fact is behavior unbecoming to someone who has devoted so much of their time to Wikipedia. Reverting edits, deleting references and content, publishing lists of names, etc. won't change the past. To those who live in Germany, and speak German fluently (like me) this is utter nonsense: It's simply true the term is based on an acronym meaning "National Socialist Party" and it's widely accepted among Germans that it was just that. Furthermore, the party no longer exists, so writing about it in present tense suggests confusion, willful conflation with other groups, or profoundly limited knowledge on the subject—none of which helps the argument. Lexlex (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * antifa was organized in Germany in 1932 in order to attack the Nazi Party. The Nazis banned them when they came to power. antifa, not the Nazi Party, was the antifa of its day. TFD (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Calling them right or left is misleading, and incorrect. The blatant refusal by all mods to even entertain the possibility of altering the label is disturbing though. Hoping someone does the right thing and places the former nazi party into a unique political category. Otherwise, I must assume hidden agendas, which is unfortunate, though unsurprising. (To be clear, I'm using modern definitions of right and left. In 1930's to 1940's Germany, calling them right wing would have been somewhat more accurate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.212.30 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia does not go by original research and amateur speculation; we follow expert opinions and nuanced historical evaluations, which agree that the Nazis were on the far right. The only ones who challenge this evaluation have political agendas which aren't even well-hidden. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You can't overturn the post-1945 academic consensus by repeated unsupported assertion and argumentation. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm about to roll this thread up as it is not productive. If anybody has any doubts about this then they should read the FAQ.

I'd also like to say that, while I understand the frustration that led to drawing up a list of people who have wasted our time with this nonsense, I do not think that we should continue with the listing approach. It is enough to note that there is ongoing low level organised brigading of this page by many people. It is not necessary to list people we believe to be members of the brigade. Every so often we will get somebody here who is genuinely confused, possibly after accidentally watching a certain propaganda video on YouTube. Such people will be almost indistinguishable from the brigade members feigning ignorance. We don't want to assume bad faith by adding them to a list, even if we are probably right to do so 90% of the time. They just need to be politely but firmly pointed toward the FAQ. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox: "Leader"
An editor is changing the title of the leader from "Führer" to "Führer/Chairman/Minister" on the grounds that Anton Drexler was the chairman of the party, and Martin Bormann was appointed to be "Party Minister" after Hitler's suicide. This is pedantically correct, but confusing to most people. After the party's name was changed, Drexler remained the leader as "chairman" for 4 months (24 Feb 1920 - 29 June 1921). Bormann was "Party Minister" for 2-4 days (from 30 April - 2 May 1945). In between, Hitler was the party's Führer for almost 24 years.

The purpose of the infobox is not to give every little detail, it is to give the reader a quick overview of the pertinent information. For the purposes of the infobox, the leader of the Nazi party was called "Führer", as was the case for it's entire existence, except for 4 months and a couple of days.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you want the Reader to think “Hmm it’s Says Führer and it puts Anton Dexeler in that category! Well I didn’t know he was the Führer of the Nazi Party!” Jimmyy68 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've changed the infobox to include your information without confusing the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Date of transition
The date for the transition from Drexler to Hitler as leader of the party comes from Sir Ian Kershaw's two-part biography of Hitler, one of the very best and most reliable sources for information on Hitler. I have provided a citation from Kershaw;s first volume showing clearly that the date of that transition was 29 July 1921: "This was Hitler triumphant. To tumultuous applause from thr 554 paid-up members attending the extraordinary members' meeting in the Festhaal of the Hofbrauhaus on 29 July, he defended himself and Esser and rounded up his opponents. He bosted tht he had never sought party office, and had turned down the chairmanship on several occasions. But this time he was prepared to accept. The new party constitution, which Hitler had been forced to draft hurriedly, confirmed on three separate occasions the sole responsibility of the First Chairman for the party's actions (subject only to the membership meeting). There was only one vote against accepting the new dictatorial powers over the party granted to Hitler.  His chairmanship was unanimously accepted. (Kershaw. Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris pp.164-65)" The dates now in the infobox should not be changed without discussion on this page.,, you might like to weigh in here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Please Check The Wikipedia page for Adolf Hitler and Anton Dexeler Jimmyy68 (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Evans 2003 shows a date of 29 July as well. Thanks for pointing out the articles Adolf Hitler and Anton Dexeler were also incorrect - I have made corrections there as well, and added supporting citations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry been away today, but see the matter has been resolved. Frankly, BMK's citing to Kershaw as noted above, Jimmyy68, should have been sufficient to answer the query, but thanks Diannaa for your double checking. In the 2008 combined version of Kershaw's two-volume bio of Hitler, which I have, the info is on page 103. 29 July 1921, is correct. Kierzek (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On the ideology edit
In the infobox, it is stated that NSDAP was "White supremacist", as part of their core ideology. That is incorrect, misleading, and can only be misused, especially in the current political climate. The context is also not given. Explanation: NSDAP was not white supremacist. The idea of whiteness was rejected, as Germans/Aryans/Germanic peoples were considered to be the master race, the Herrenvolk. Hundreds of millions of whites were declared subhuman based on this premise. Apart from several instances in the Mein Kampf where Hitler mentions "pollution of the white race", it as a concept is not mentioned anywhere else, especially not as "superior". The Nazi Party was Aryan supremacist, thus the treatment of French POWs was incomparably better than, for example, Slavs. Historical revisionism must not exist on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.226.109 (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This argument is one of the most ridiculous and ahistorical ones I've heard in a long, long time. "Aryans" were white, and they were considered to be the Master race.  Definitionally, that makes Nazis white supremacists.If you attempt to remove this again, I will report you under WP:NONAZIS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems strange to use a term developed to describe settler societies, especially the U.S., applied to Germany, particularly when fascism scholars rarely if ever use the term. We don't have to explain every topic in terms that are readily understandable to Americans. And I don't think the info-box is the place to explain the complexities of Nazi ideology - that belongs in the article. TFD (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and make an argument that Nazi ideology isn't "white supremacist", i.e. "the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say that Nazism was not white supremacist and resent your comment. Furthermore you must be aware that article content is not based on editors' arguments, but on what reliable sources say. The Oxford reader on Nazism has articles by dozens of scholars and not one of them uses the term white supremacism. We should use the terminology of experts. We actually had a similar discussion about this in the BNP article, and editors rejected it as an Americanism. TFD (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did they provide sources for "white spremancy" being an "Americanism."? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Nazis followed the ideology of "Aryan supremacy". which clearly excluded the "Slavischen Untermenschen" (slavic subhuman), even if they were white. What do high quality scientific sources say? German publications likely prefer "Suprimacy of the Aryan race" to describe Nazi ideology. Let us follow the prevalent scientific terminology on this. --Nillurcheier (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "scholarly" and not "scientific", but your point is a good one. Must an ideology admit all "whites" (whatever that means) into the fold to be "white supremacist"?  I think not.  The Klan, for instance, is generally considered to be and have been white supremacist, but it was also in early days virulently anti-catholic and is still anti-semitic.  It rather hinges on what the group determines that "white" means.  In the past, for instance, Irish and Italisn immigrants to the US were not considered to be "white".  Since "white" is a moving target, "white supremacy" is as well, and depends as much on who is excluded as who is included. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to show that the concept is applied to the Nazi Party in reliable sources, otherwise it is original research. But if you want to explore its relevance: According to George M. Fredrickson, white supremacy "refers to the attitudes, ideologies, and policies associated with the rise of blatant forms of white or European dominance over "non-white" populations." (p. xi) The book compares apartheid and segregation. But the Nazi Party did not envision a multi-racial society with white people at the apex, which is what the concept was invented to describe. Their racial theory was more extreme. Indeed American white supremacists considered only Protestant Northern Europeans to be part of the white race. You still have not provided any sources on Nazism that use the term "white supremacy." It's probably something a grammar school teacher used in order to describe Nazi Germany in terms understandable to American students. TFD (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just what is it with your animus against Americans? Why don't you just drop that stuff in the future and state your arguments without insulting an entire country, OK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think because of the unique political culture in the U.S. there is a tendency among some Americans to explain politics in the rest of the world using concepts familiar to them. But since you are the one who wants to include white supremacy in the info-box, could you please provide sources on Nazism that use this concept, which was invented to describe racial stratification in settler societies, particularly in the U.S. Incidentally, racism was accepted and practiced with legal authority at the time in all Western countries and endorsed across the political spectrum. It is the particular form of racism that developed in Nazi Europe that sets it apart from other Western countries. TFD (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've provided a source, but you have yet to show that your statement that the phrase "was invented to describe racial stratification in settler societies". I've asked you twice now. Pleaee deon;t continue to claim this unless you provide a source on the phrase's etymology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

In order to support your inclusion of white whatever you need a source, per reliable sources. If you don't, then it violates policy for inclusion. If you want to discuss with me why you believe that American concepts are useful in explaining Nazism, then post your comments on my talk page. I am surprised anyway at your Americocentric view. Next time you're in Niagara Falls or Loredo, cross the river, or take a holiday in Europe or the Caribbean. TFD (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been to Niagara Falls in Canada, a much nicer place than its American counterpart. I'm not much of a world traveler, but I've been around a bit, having spent time in Toronto, London, Paris, Avignon, Strasburg, Berlin, Athens, Seoul, and Singapore. So, your anti-American shtick is inappropriate.  We're not all the yahoos you seem to believe all Americans to be. As for "white supremacy" being an "American concept", you still haven't provided a source to support that idea, so at this point it's purely your own OR conceit, and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.  Come back when you've got something relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any source about the Nazi Party that uses the term white supremacy? TFD (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I’m late but had an idea for this. Is there such a thing as “ethnic supremacism” because that’s basically what the Nazis were. Yes, they believed they’re race was superior but they on top of that believed their ethnicity was superior too. This is why we saw members of their race (such as the Slavs) be deemed inferior by them. Victor Salvini (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, the source provided for white supremacy says, "A primary force in National Socialism, for instance, was a deep-seated belief in German superiority, the specifically German equivalent of what is sometimes called “white supremacy.”" Note the the author does not call then white supremacists, but German supremacists. Furthermore, this is an American source trying to explain Nazism to American readers by relating it to concepts with which they are familiar. I will therefore remove the term. TFD (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Authoritarian capitalism-Ideology
For me this sound a little suspicious and also presented sources seems not represent academic consenus. I think to there need to be much more wide consensus in academic community abiut it. There was big and influential anti capitalist tendency in nazi party and it is noted in content. So it is possibly personal pov view or original research or some kind of advocacy. 109.245.34.116 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus, (unless you think Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro are scholars who are knowledgeable about anything) is that the anti-capitalist tendency of the Nazi Party was largely the limited to figures such as Gregor Strasser who were purged in the night of the long knives. Furthermore, the socialist label was kept by the Nazi Party not due to ideological persuasion, but in order to foster wider support of the party. If you need further proof of this, you need look no further than the economy of Nazi Germany which shows that the Nazi privatized more than any other major world power at this point in time. What can be perceived as anti-capitalist ideology in the party platform is usually the idea of the Nazis that two major forms of capitalism existed; raffendes and schaffendes kapital. The former was characterized as foreign, Jewish and exploitative, which is probably where the tendency you mentioned is found, and the latter was characterized as purely German, creative and productive. That way the Nazis could continue to privatize whilst demonizing economies such as those of the United States by attaching them to their anti-semtic stereotypes of Jewish people. Here are the sources: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Hope that clears things up.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2019
I have previously edited this page successfully, and wish to add knowledge as I research the topic further. Gbjerkec (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dreamy Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2019
Socialism is a far-leftest ideology, where high taxes and extreme force can and will be used against resistance. Being far-right is as far away from socialism as you can possibly get. Being far-right means low to no taxes, and respecting the rights of others. Where as being far-left typically violates those rights.

Maybe the word we are looking for here, to describe the National Socialist party, is to say that is was more of a totalitarianism regime. Again, more akin to the leftest ideology. 2600:1702:4210:12C1:E153:A455:AA13:69C4 (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the FAQ at the top of this page, please. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 20:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's "leftist,' not "leftest," and socialism is of the moderate left, communism is hard left, and Maoist is generally considered extreme left. Nazism is the other extreme.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * IP, can you provide an example of a group that meets your definition of far right? TFD (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2019
"Change far-right far-right political party to far-left political party"

The Nazi were as the article correctly states, The National Socialist German Workers' Party, that created and supported the ideology of National Socialism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party, existed from 1919 to 1920. This is LEFT - of the politcal spectrum. see incorrect pop up explanation above current "far-right" - should read "far-left" The clue is in the party's name. Red Hughes1 (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Like the "German Democratic Republic" which followed the break-up of Germany after the war, people can call themselves anything they like in order to get support. It don't make it so. please see the FAQs above where this has been explained ad nauseum.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

National "Socialist" German Workers Party is not far right its far left.
Even in their name it says socialist which is usually obvious unless you want to continue with a false narrative. Fascism was developed by Giovanni Gentile and when first started in Italy Lenin sent a letter of congratulations to Mussolini. so it is time to call a pig a pig and not something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.170.149 (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the FAQ at the top of this page to understand why that is entirely incorrect. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Bias title
Isn't it extremely bias to call this title Nazi Party? That wasn't the official name of the party, or even an nick name, it was a pejorative slang term applied to the party. I Thought Wikipedia was meant to be unbiased? 2605:A000:1E02:C0F7:946C:83A:7724:4DB0 (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See the TWO lengthy discussions mentioned at the very top of this page. Very short summary? By our standard procedure, we use the name of a subject by which it is commonly known in English. In English, they are called the Nazis, not the NSDAP, even by historians, in all but the most formal contexts. (And I am delighted to be thought of, even by a near-illiterate, as biased against Naziism, as I am biased against rape, torture, and mass murder.) -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  06:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Things they did
Why are there no sections dedicated to things the ruling party actually did? Ie laws and regulations passed, policies implemented, that sort of things. Am I missing something?Kuiet (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All of that is in the article on Nazi Germany. Laws and regulations were passed by cabinet, not the party. TFD (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please simplify the ideology section of the side table
The side table has a big list of all the facets of Nazism that do not benefit the reader as the ideology on the side table should simply be "Nazism" or at most "Nazism" and "Fascism". The current section in the table is bloated with a list of particular elements of Nazism that could be bloated even further with mentioning "Social Darwinism", "Ableism" (in reference to the Nazis' discrimination against and killing of disabled people), "Anti-feminism", "anti-LGBT", "Anti-Slavism", etc, etc. Such particular elements of the ideological views of the party can be examined through the Nazism article and do not need to be listed in the section of the table where "Nazism" alone would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.230.119 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. TFD (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it to just Nazism and Fascism. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Read the Nazi Party Platform. The Nazi's were not far right. This idea that because they fought the communists or other socialist movements does not mean they were right. Catholics and Protestants have fought for centuries. Sunni and Shia have fought for centuries. Monarchies fought each other for centuries. All had the same political or economic views. So, this idea that since Nazis fought the Communists therefore the Nazis could not be socialists is illogical. Facism was also a leftist movement. Read about the history of Benito Mussolini. He was a leftist. His roots were Marxism. This incorrect characterization of Naziism or Facism being right is incorrect. Sandvol (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.195.79 (talk)
 * As you say, read about the history of Mussolini. Sure, he started as a socialist. It's illogical, to use your word, to assume he didn't change. WWI changed him as it did so many people, and his political views changed. We go by what reliable sources say, and they do not say that Nazism was left wing. Or fascism. In the real world, everyone but a small minority holds this view. The idea of a flat earth has some support, but we aren't going to say the world is flat. Doug Weller  talk 16:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Nazis were definetly far-right. Right-wing politics holds that social orders, hierarchies and, ultimately, inequality are natural, normal or desirable. There is no other ideologie that supports inequality more than the Nazi Party, in theory and in execution. They viewed humans as extremely inequal, the 'worst' humans were considered and treated as vermin. Andibrema (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2020
The Nazi Party was far-left in ideology. 2600:1004:B12A:5A1B:45E2:C4EB:F756:6B6 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. See the FAQ section above. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020
Change them from being listed as a "far-right" party. They were Not. They were socialists and Democrats. They were quite literally the extremist LEFT which if you pay attention to the studies have some ideologies that are just as intolerant, racist and disgustingly cruel as the far-right. Dont state as fact, something that has been debated by experts for years. 108.60.176.146 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ section above – Thjarkur (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2020
Nazi party was a left wing political organization which adopted Russian communist manifesto. 2600:1700:30C1:790:1518:913D:8DE8:67D3 (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note done. You need consensus for the change. TFD (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020
This says the NAZI party was a far right organization. That simply is not so. Socialism is a leftist ideal. 2600:8807:8700:EB00:BC70:6DFB:147A:FF4A (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * please read the FAQs above, which will explain everything

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2020
Lots of inappropriate use of grammer and possession in this wiki. Too many obvious examples of the authors misunderstanding the differences between communism, socialism, capitolism, nationalism and what the right and left wing rhetorics are.

Communism and socialism are defined by how their economies are run and whether private ownership of property is allowed. Both communism and socialism propose a government controlled economy while capitolism proposes a privately run economy.

It is impossible for a current day right leaning person to be considered socialist as socialists are anti big business and anti private run economies.

The nazi party was actually a far left radical group, not far right based on the core principles of socialism, a centrally run government controlled economy. The complete opposite of capitolism—a far right ideology. You could argue that the nazis had more conservative views on some political beliefs like homosexuals but few if any of the nazis other political beliefs reliably coincide with what we consider to be the right wing philosophy today.

Please fix as this wiki is aggregiously incorrect and lots of grammar and possession problems to boot. 99.203.23.86 (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * despite the "socialist" in the name, the Nazi Party was not socialist. This is similar to how North Korea is formally named "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" without being an actual democracy. Not done. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2020
I believe the description of the National Socialist German Workers Party here is incorrect. The Nazi Party was actually a leftist political movement, not far-right. Its aims were to create a socialist society, and only fell into conflict with the leftist communist party due to competition for the support of the German people. Both political organization were, and still are, leftist in ideology. The Nazi Party rose in direct opposition to the conservative monarchists of old Prussia who sought to preserve the monarchy after the fall of the Prussian Army in World War I, and sought to extinguish the republican government that assumed control of the German nation after the Treaty of Versailles. Republican government ideals were in conflict with Hitler's leftist views.("Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - A History of Nazi Germany", by William Shirer, 1976) Please correct this mis-information. 199.168.243.204 (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. The Nazis are always described as far-right in scholarly works. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  17:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please refer these requests to the FAQ as a matter of course. El_C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Size of the Nazi Part logo
An editor insists on having the Nazi Party logo at the top of the infobox larger than it needs to be to be seen easily by the reader, and is edit warring to keep it that way. Could someone please reduce it in size to the maximum that is needed for clear viewing? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. I thought that you might have learnt by now that now that standard image presentation is fine. You have been told repeatedly, most recently 1 month ago!
 * 2. You fail to provide any detailed description of why you feel STANDARD image presentation is "Too big". What constitutes too big? What is the "maximum that is needed for clear viewing?" How have you determined any of these things?
 * 3. Your change makes the logo 0.7 cm smaller, clearly a "world of change" from a logo "too large" to "just the right size".
 * Maybe just go Village pump and suggest a policy change that states: "All bad people and things should have 5% smaller images". It is what you are arguing after all. Skjoldbro (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is not. What you are arguing is that the default size should be the only size available for infoboxes, and that is obviously not the case. And that's because it's not the "standard size, it's simply the default, the thing that happens if you don't specify a size using the "image_size" parameter .  (Why is that parameter there if -- according to you -- it's never supposed to be used?)  We've been given the capabiity of adjusting the size of images in the infobox in order to make the image the appropriate size given the images content, aspect ratio, and so on.  So if anyone needs to make a proposal at the Village Pump, it's you.  You believe that infobox images should all be the same size all the time, so go there and propose that the ability to resize infobox images be turned off by eliminating the "image_size" parameter. I'm only trying to use the capability we have to make sure that images are the appropriate size, and I asked for the help of the regular editors of this article, who monitor it to protect it from vandalism, PoV edits, and unsourced information.  They care about the article.BTW, as to what the appropriate size it, no I don't think the one I selected is necessarily "just the right size", I thought it was a size that (reasonable) people could accept.  No, the appropriate size would be the one that makes the logo easily visible to the reader, but no larger than that.  That might not be 150px, it might be 125px, or even 100px.  But the default size ain't it.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken Please indicate your source for what a standard logo size should be. Continued edit warring over the size without providing any reference for your change request is needless and disruptive to the other editors here. Lexlex (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's Skjoldbro you should be asking that question of, not me I'm not advocating a standard size, he is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But in any case, I don't have to provide a "reference", any more thasn I have to quote a policy or guideline that allows me to change "projected" to "anticipated", expected", or "scheduled" if I think one of those is the better word. We are "editors", after all, not robots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * So, here are four instances of the infobox, truncated, showing the logo at Skjoldbro's preferred size (default size), what I mistakenly thought would be an acceptable compromise sizeand then at (150px), 125px and 100px. (I apologize that they're just lined up vertically, I can't figuire out how to arrange any other way. I fsomeone know how to do that, please go ahead to save space.)Now, the purpose of showing the logo is not to advertise the Nazi Party, the purpose is to educate and inform our readers as to what they used as their symbol.  From this perspective, I think that any of the examples can do that job, but some do it without unnecessarily promoting Nazism, which is obviously a concern in this day of increased neo-Nazi and other far-right activity.  The largest (Skjoldbro's) clearly dominates the box and seems overly promotional to me, while my compromise (150px) is somewhat less so, but both the 125px and 100px show the logo without losing any detail, and do not do anything other that present it to the reader to show them what it was.  Looking at these now, it's my opinion that either the 125px or 100px are sufficient, although 100px may strain the eyes a bit. I offered the 150px in the hope that someone such as Skjoldbro wouldn't bother to change it, but I was obviously wrong about that.  Looking at it now, it a seems a bit too big to me, although I could live with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the four again, 125px seems to be just about a perfect balance of prominence and lack of promotionalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Still stupid. Leave the image at default. Go do something else with your time.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do do something, I edit Wikipedia. And I've done so more this month then you've done this year.  I pull my weight, and I'm entitled to have my opinions given respectful consideration and not be subject to drive-by taunting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinion was given due consideration in...like 2018. Your refusal to get the point or drop the stick does not constitute a crisis on anyone else's part.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is considering the specifics of this situation. If you have something to say about that, please do so, but if you're just going to continue trolling, I'd ask that you stop and go about your business. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's not about "this situation". You were already told at ANI to go to VP and get consensus if you want to keep waging a war on arbitrary image sizes.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Although I wouldn't call it the way GMG did above, this has to be one of the more silly things to take up talk page time with. Default is fine, it doesn't "glorify" anything. The reason we can adjust image sizes in infoboxes isn't to worry about "glorifying" things but in order to make sure that details can be seen - if the default size doesn't allow that. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the reason we have the size parameters is to adjust the siz e-- up or down -- as the circumstances require. And I disagree, with the logo too large, it does act to promote the Nazi Party.  I would (and have) done the same thing to commercial logos, which start to look like like advertisements instead of something to educate and inform our readers. As for taking up talk page space, it woudn;t be necessary (since the article was quiet in that reaspect for quite a while) if Skjoldbro didn;t come along and insist on the default size.BTW, was anyone canvassed to come here, GMG? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I was pinged at some point in the discussion. People probably wouldn't need to ping if you weren't going around trying to find articles no one is watching so you can wage a war on image sizes.
 * Still stupid. You're still the only one who cares. You still have no consensus. Go do literally anything else. Feel free to open an ANI about canvassing. I'll be happy to call it stupid there too. I have no interest in another three page discussion with four image galleries and you arguing against literally everyone else.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm not the only one who cares, or Skjoldbro wouldn't be edit warring to impose his preferred version, would he? And, by the way, before you make silly comments about me "going around trying to find articles no one is watching so [I] can wage a war on image sizes." I have 44 edits to this article, going back to July 2015, while you have none: zip. zilch, zero, a big goose egg.  You're just a drive-by troll, with no real interest in this article, and none, really, in the sizing issue - you just get some kind of kick out of trolling me.  Well, it takes all kinds.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you got pinged, it was Skjoldbro in this edit, and since he knew exactly what you would say, I'd call that canvassing. Not nearly serious enough to warrant an AN/I report -- unlike some people, I don't go running to the boards every time some flake flips me the bird. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup. You got me. Just a troll. Never done anything worth anything on Wikipedia to begin with. Probably should have been site banned years ago. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.
 * Still stupid. You still don't have consensus. Leave the damn images sizes alone.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please get consensus. Your argument seems essentially "because I want to." This is not how it works here. Please see WP:Forum for more info. Lexlex (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a consensus discussion is precisely what's happening here. Your summation of my specific and detailed argument is entirely inapt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: GreenMeansGo just reverted back to Skjpld's defaul size preference, on the grounds that it's the status quo ante, but this is incorrect. The logo size has been 150px since September 2019, and before that it was 170px for quite awhile, not the default size.The logo was added here, in September 2016 at 190px, was changed by the same editor 2 months later to 150px, and then was changed in February 2017 to 170px , which it stayed at until September 2019, when it was changed to 150px .In other words, as far as I can determine, the party logo has never been displayed at the default size in the history of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is *not* a census discussion. To do so you must make a clear proposition and request a vote. You have not done this despite multiple requests from several editors. Plese stop your disruptive behavior. Lexlex (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You;re thinking of an RfC. Consensus discussions can take many forms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding that there's no "standard" logo size for org infoboxes. 150px for this particular logo is perfectly recognisable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Im sorry to interject but i agree with Ken. 125 px is a much better size. R34p3r2006 (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2020
The line "far-right" should be amended to read "far-left". The Nazi party were socialists. 209.171.88.37 (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. The Nazis hated socialists. The Nazis are widely described as far right in scholarly works, like all fascists. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It could, however, be noted that the Nazis claimed to be socialist in public because it would help with their popularity with the workers. Hitler chose to rename the German Worker's Party into the National Socialist German Worker's Party as he wanted to bring across the point that "hey we'll treat everyone equally but we'll only do that for GERMANS". Not tryna push anything, just suggesting R34p3r2006 (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is mostly true. When the party name change happened it was Hitler who pushed to add "Socialist" to the name, overt he objections of Drexler and others, but its purpose was to help attract people on the edges of the German Socialist Party (DSP) to come over to the Nazis.  When the party issued itsNational Socialist Program (the "25 Points"), several of them were socialist in nature, but the party never did anything to put them into effect after it "seized" power, even though those points remained on the program (which was frozen and never changed).  Certainly there was a wing of the party -- the Strasser wing -- which believed in those socialist precepts, and the SA under Ernst Rohm kept pushing for a "second revolution" after Hitler came to power, and that was to be (at least in part) a socialist revolution, but Hitler sidelined the Strassers early on, and eventually got rid of them and crushed the SA in the Night of the Long Knives.  The socialist aspect of Nazism was never serious to Hitler, just a propaganda point, and after the Purge, it was never a part of Nazism.So, no, despite their name, the Nazis were not socialists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2020
Can the categories of Antisemitism and Ethnic nationalism be added in the bottom? They're very tied to Nazi ideology and the party, and I'm surprised they're both not there yet. Josharaujo1115 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to add an edit request before you have agreement for the change. What do you mean by add to the bottom? TFD (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2020
I would suggest to change an error that states the Nazi political party as a far-right organization. The party's values have nothing to do with the far right but of the left. Toffeecot (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. <span style="background: -webkit-radial-gradient(red, blue); -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;">Dylsss(talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 21:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * But what can be done is I add your name to the list of two dozen or so other red linked editors who have suggested this. Carptrash (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2020
Change “ The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party, was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945, that created and supported the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party, existed from 1919 to 1920.

Correction The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party, was a far-left political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945, that created and supported the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party, existed from 1919 to 1920. Mwpayne01 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done - Factually inaccurate. See FAQ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The Nazi party was far left politically. President Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934) was considered right-wing politically. These fact were told to me by my German relatives who were alive in Germany during World War 2 and my French relatives to include my mother who were alive during World War 2. The Nazi part was never politically right-winged. In fact, many right-wing conservative Germans were imprisoned by the Nazi’s after the Nazi government take over in early 1933.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus  02:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If they were far left, why did Hindenburg's party merge with them? TFD (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

c.f. Black Front for what happened to the original leftist socialists who left the Nazi Party after Hitler embraced the capitalists. Hcobb (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They were not in any way, shape, or form "leftists", they were simply the "left wing", relatively speaking, of the Nazi Party, which was an extreme right-wing movement, which used some socialist rhetoric to attract workers away from the SPD. In any case, not all of those somewhat more socialistic Nazis ended up in the Black Front, and of those who did Otto Strasser was the only one of note. Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm were assassinated in the Night of the Long Knives, and Josef Goebbels, who had been in Strasser's camp, had jumped ship, entranced by Hitler, well before that.  The Black Front did nothing of real note after Otto Strasser founded it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2020
Article states "the swastika was considered a symbol of an "Aryan race" and it symbolised the replacement of the Christian Cross with allegiance to a National Socialist State." This is not only un-referenced in the article but there is no record of Hitler using the term Swastika. The German term is “Haken Kreuz"or hooked cross, which was a Christian symbol found in Churches. Also Nazi propaganda saw the two symbols are complimentary. See: https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/christuskreuz.htm Puck42 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You failed to get this added to Swastika which is the obvious place to start. Doug Weller  talk 17:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2021
I am a teacher and i have been studying Adolf Hitler and Nazi. 50.234.155.6 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"the Jews"
Jews are referred to as "the Jews" three times in this article, without any indication that this is, in fact, antisemitic framing. Referring to Jewish people as "the Jews" is offensive. (No one speaks of "the Christians".) In deference to the strict editing policies of this page, I haven't made any changes, but I ask that an editor please fix this problem. Shrinkydink07 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have boldly changed this. Davide King (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I talk about "the Christians" all the time. Hmmmm? Carptrash (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you shouldn't. Do you also say "the Blacks", or "the Muslims"?  Such constructions are, more often then not, a way of separating the mentioned groups and turning them into out groups rather than one's own in group.  Considering that the definite article is totally unnecessary, and could be interpreted as derogatory, it's probably best to simply say "Jews", "Christians", "Blacks", or "Muslims" instead of "the Jews", "the Christians", "the Blacks", or "the Muslims". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I just changed one "Jews" in here to "Jewish people" and it was undone in 1 minute or so. Carptrash (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, you changed it to "Jew people", which I'm sure was a typo. Diannaa's Liz's revert was appropriate, "Jews" works best in that context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Jew people" is not an appropriate construction. "Jewish people" would be, but "Jews" is simpler and works better.  Of course, if "Jews" was used multiple times ina paragraph, switching some of them to "Jewish people" would break up the monotony, that's just good writing.  In any case, "Jew people" ain't it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It depends on the context. Using ther definite article "the" envisions them as a group. It makes sense in the following sentence: "These two goals were fused in [Hitler's] mind by his belief that Germany's external enemies—Britain, France and the Soviet Union—were controlled by the Jews and that Germany's future wars of national expansion would necessarily entail a war against the Jews." The first use of the definite article conveys the meaning that Hitler thought there was a conspiracy rather than a coincidence that all three countries were run by Jewish people. The second use makes sense too. We wouldn't say that Hitler went to war with Britons, Frenchmen and Soviets, but that he went to war against Britain, France and the Soviet Union or against the British, the French and the Soviets. in normal discussion we would not use the term "the Jews" because it implies that they are a group working in coordination. TFD (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2021
Left leaning is pro government. Right leaning is anti government. Socialism is pro government. Nazi is a left leaning political party. Nationalism has nothing to do with left or right leaning politics. Nationalism can be a left or right position. This page has a narrative showing. 2620:0:1A10:7825:681C:B126:31E7:49C1 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Already discussed. Since reliable sources call it right wing, so does this article. TFD (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What is ultra right party?
Reading this page I am more than confused. NSDAP in its name is a workers' party, so left party. As well as its precedor was a workers' party. Fascism it is very similar ideolody to communism. So it is left and never right! Left - community over the others - on the basis of race, class etc. The ultra right is the anarchism.

The communistic powers as USSR created the lie, that fascism is right winged. As USSR does not exists anymore, it would be necessary to put fasism to its real place, that is similar as communism. --178.40.240.228 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ.The vast majority of historians and other scholars put Nazism and other fascist ideologies on the far-right of the political spectrum. The socialistic aspects of Nazism were minimal and were only paid lip-service to.  The actual deeds of the Party completely belie their name. Much as the Communist "Democratic People's Republics" were not in the least democratic, nor controlled by the people, the "National Socialist German Workers Party" was neither socialist nor a party representing the needs or desires of the workers.  It was, in fact, a middle-class party which, when it achieved power, took steps to entirely eliminate the power of the workers, in favor of control by the Party and the heads of large corporations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's the definition of left and right developed by the American conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen in "What is Left? What is Right?" He actually got the terms reversed. In the French revolution, the king's supporters sat on the right, while anarchists or proto-anarchists sat on the far left. TFD (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2021
I respectfully request that the designation of “far-right” be removed from this article. This designation implies that the ideology associated with right-wing politics aligns with the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. This is unequivocally inaccurate as right-wing ideology remains in total opposition of socialism as well as collectivist labor groups. Thank you for your consideration! 2600:1702:1650:1D00:E447:1B25:4392:EC1 (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is a contentious request, please seek consensus for such a change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By that logic, North Korea is a democracy because it is called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. X-Editor (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And all the countries called Guinea are all in the same place. ;-) Seriously though, we have a FAQ at the top of this page, as well as a big notice on the Edit page, which explicitly explains exactly why this request will always be rejected. If our anonymous friend really wants to understand why this request is repeatedly rebuffed then they should read that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Ideology
National socialism
 * Antisemitism
 * Anti-communism
 * Scientific racism
 * Ultranationalism
 * Pan-Germanism
 * Ethnic nationalism
 * Social Darwinism
 * Volksgemeinschaft
 * Lebensraum
 * Anti-capitalism
 * Völkisch nationalism
 * German nationalism
 * Populism
 * Irredentism
 * Expansionist nationalism
 * Homophobia
 * Anti-black racism
 * Ableism
 * Nordicism
 * Totalitarianism
 * Authoritarianism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.181.23 (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your point being? Many of these are duplicative, and as a result not all of them should be in the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * An editor has added pretty much this exact list to the "ideology" section of the infobox. Another editor has removed the list on the grounds that "Nazism" encompasses them all.  I would like to discuss this, because our purpose is to educate and inform the people who read our articles, and we don't do that very effectively by saying to them "Oh, you want to know what the Nazi ideology is?  Go read another article."  If we can give them a basic run down of what the Nazi Part stood for, I think that's beneficial to the reader, especially the ones who are stopping by for a quick look at the infobox.Remember that we should always be serving our readers, and that every edit we make should serve that purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree adding this plain list, the ideology is clear and linked we don't write essays in the infobox, the list could be expanded infinitely, the infobox is not for write all details and components of an ideology, just and only if it does not have a main page, no consensus for this. Even the whole article gives numerous details and examples connecting to the ideology, the reader will get fair enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC))
 * A list is not in any way, shape or form an essay. It is a list, pure and simple, and we use lists in infoboxes all the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of these terms do not refer to ideologies. It's not like the Nazi Party had competing ideological factions. I'm sure that there were no big power struggles between the Lebensraumer and the Homophobes. TFD (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As is abundantly clear, the list is of the collective components of the Nazi ideology, not of competing factions within the Party, except for the part that is clearly labelled "Faction." No political party's ideology is a unitary thing, they are all composed of collections of different, but related, thoughts. Compare the "ideology" parameters for Democratic Party (United States), Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Labour Party (UK), or any other political party. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD also have the point. Not pure and simple, since such amendments like living space or factions until are superfluous, and again, ideology is not an indiscriminate list associated. In this case, the party's ideology can be unitarily expressed, as their ideology has been unique and (in)famous. The analogy you wish to draw to other instances is not well set, because they don't have any genuine or special ideology related to them, that's why some key, average/common thoughts/directions are listed, but not the considered sub-components of an ideology, as you did here.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC))


 * Political scientists have identified nine ideological families that describe the great majority of political parties in developed nations: extreme right, conservative, Christian democratic, liberal and radical, green, socialist and social democratic, communist, agrarian, and regional and ethnic. (See The Ideology of the Extreme Right, p. 2.) The Democratic Party U.S. is liberal/radical, the CDU is Christian Democratic, the Labour Party is socialist/social democratic. While in most cases a party's ideology is clear from its name, that's not always the case which is why the info-box field is helpful. So if someone read something about the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada and had never heard of it before, it would be helpful to know that it is a socialist/social democratic party, similar to Labour in the UK, Australia and NZ and not similar to the Tories, LibDems, Communists, SNP or BNP in the UK. The fact that the party's members have a range of views is better left to the body of the article. Everyone knows that socialist/social democratic parties like most parties are broad tents.
 * So I would just say that the ideology of the Nazi Party was Nazism. If someone wants to know what that was or what factions it included they can read the body of the article.
 * TFD (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The list of ideologies is worth a prose discussion in the article. At the moment, the only homophobia found in the article is in the infobox and a category, and two brief sentences about rounding up homosexuals and killing them. We should be discussing homophobia as an ideology rather than just inferring it from actions. Regarding the infobox list, I would rather see the list removed, transformed into prose and placed in the article body. The infobox is for quick reference to easy answers, but every one of these ideologies is complicated. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Homophobia is not an ideology, which is a set of ideas. Ideologies are mutually distinct, so that one is for example either a liberal, conservative or socialist. But homophobia was not distinct from Nazism but one of the elements of its ideology. So there's no homophobic view of private property and homophobes can belong to any ideology. TFD (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur both of you.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC))
 * I believe the list should be removed and what should be linked in the information box is Nazism. Otherwise, one can argue some should be included and some not; it gets subjective and unwieldy. Kierzek (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that Nazism should be the sole ideology listed in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I bow to the obvious consensus here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Offical Religion?
Last time I checked, there was no official “Nazi religion”. Most of the Nazi’s pretty much didn’t hold a belief in a god or in multiple gods. There is not a cited source in this Article for the “Religion” template. I look to have that template reverted. Jimmyy68 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, there was no official religion of the Nazi Party or Nazism. I thought I had removed that, perhaps someone restored it.  Positive Christianity was indeed an attempt to meld together aspects of the Nazis' ideological beliefs and Christianity, and was a factor in their attempt to "co-ordinate" the Christian churches, but it was never an "official religion" for the Party, and after some time, when its value had proved to be minimal, it was more or less forgotten by Hitler.I've removed it again Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Jimmyy68 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Most Nazis were Christians and the Protestant churches actively encouraged Positive Christianity. Atheists and agnostics were more likely to support the SPD and KPD, the only two parties that did not support Hitler. TFD (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2021
The Nazi Party,[a] officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[b] or NSDAP), was a far-left[7][8] political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945, that created and supported the ideology of Nazism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920.

I request to change the page due to the fact Nazism is not a right wing political ideology, it is a left wing ideology. Socialism is left wing. The same can be said for Socialism with Chinese characteristics and North Korea Juche ideology. Over the years people have come to think of Nazism as right wing due to the nationalistic element in it, it is not. Nazism is left wing because it espouses socialism in its core(hence the red background of the Nazi flag, it symbolizes socialism). Nazism is Socialism with nationalist characteristics the same as the modern Chinese communist party is socialism with Chinese characteristics. They are in essence then the same thing. How can we then call Nazism a right wing ideology when it is very clearly a branch of Socialism which in itself is classified as a left wing ideology. 197.92.228.192 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

❌ Read the FAQ at the top of this page! The consensus is against you, the facts are against you, history is against you. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2021
Change this: The Nazi Party,[a] officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[b] or NSDAP), was a far-right[7][8] political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945, that created and supported the ideology of Nazism.

To this: The Nazi Party,[a] officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[b] or NSDAP),was a [8] political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945, that created and supported the ideology of Nazism.

1. Because it’s true, and

2. It doesn’t align with being a “Democratic Socialist”, like most of our politicians today, when it says “far right”. 2600:1005:B129:C798:9DC:E6DD:9BE4:A318 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Will not be done, ever, until the consensus for subject experts changes their evaluation of where the Nazis and fascists stand on the political spectrum. No respectable historian or scholar agrees with the IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

New list of ideologies in infobox
…should be removed. I mean, who’s idea was it to include it and was there a consensus to add it? It reads like a laundry list and is bordering on ridiculous. Also ‘right-wing socialism’ as also ridiculous when the first sentence of the article this links to specifically says that the term is used as a pejorative.

In any case, ‘nazism’ as an ideology encompasses (encompassed) the ideology of the Nazi Party. 2001:8003:D00A:9A00:58A5:CCD:DCE8:ADB7 (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Will not miss it, I will delete until there is consensus to add.Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Metadiscussion about the FAQ
''Note: This thread was initially titled: "Glaring error. Far right socialists? Nazi Party was as all socialists left wing. What the hell kind of revisionism is this. Far right socialists is an oxymoron of epic proportions. There can be no such animal." This was added by 73.241.153.145 (talk) at 14:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC). It is this heading which led to the responses below.''


 * Please read the very first question in the very FAQ, above on this very page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Indeed, even though the answers in this handy FAQ have no references or authorship, they are the authority. Lexlex (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The FAQ summarises the article content, which is referenced, so we don't need to reference it twice. Anybody who is genuinely interested can read the article and its references. This question is flung at us on a fairly regular basis, most commonly in an attempt to waste our time, and the FAQ is a good way to provide a valid answer without wasting too much effort. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please clarify to whom you are referring by the use of "our" (e.g. as above in "most commonly in an attempt to waste our time..."). Also, please indicate which Wikipedia policy supports the use of a FAQ as a proxy source. Wikipedia generally requires a verifiable third-party reference for each claim. Not doing so and demanding the reader instead interpret an anonymous FAQ and infer the reference from another section of the article is problematic at best. Who determined such a non-standard solution was acceptable here and where is the discussion link? Thanks very much. Lexlex (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Years and long dreary years of discussion on the talk page of this article, all accessible on the talk page archives, led to the creation of the FAQ. The references are contained in the article. The "we" and "our" means: all of the editors who work to improve and maintain this article in as good a shape as possible, and have long grown weary of answering the same assertions based on right-wing memes and reactionary cranks eager to associate socialism with the people who murdered actual socialists from the moment they took power. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you passionately think FAQ's need references what are you doing here, you will not change Wikipedia practice one page at a time. If you truly think the Nazi Party was left wing, what are you doing here, you will not change academic practice by editing Wikipedia. Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the group discussion covering this? You seem be inferring a proposal was made to deal with a continuous vandalism problem at some point, and a hat note FAQ solution was the answer accepted by a majority of involved of editors. That closed discussion and vote should probably be left on this talk page to save other editors' time. Can anybody here link to it? I can't find it. Thanks very much. Lexlex (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 as permanently linked to at the top of this page. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  14:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you make a new request with exactly what you want changed and how with references, we could discuss. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, however general links to archives is not what I mean: I'd like to find the specific proposal/discussion and vote tally used to replace standard references with an anonymous, unreferenced FAQ for this article. Does such a thing exist? If no, what was the procedure and how was it done? Also, noted on the change request and will do so when/if offered, but first I'm trying to get my bearings on what was done here and how that works. Thanks again for all of your help, I really appreciate the time. Lexlex (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

This thread was started by an anonymous troll IP almost two months ago. I have no idea why it is still going on when the troll themself clearly left the building some time ago. It is bad enough to feed the troll but to continue to throw burgers at the door which they long since left though seems like madness. All the material questions here have been answered and the remaining discussion is far too vague to be productive and can only serve to waste more of everybody's time. I propose that we wrap it up here. If there are any actual clear and specific proposals to improve the FAQ then it would be far better to make them separately. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you'd like I can start another thread as this is pretty basic question: What is being used to elevate the use of an anonymous, unreferenced FAQ as a reference? Lexlex (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why we have to provide sources in the FAQ for information that is already in the article. That the Nazi Party was right-wing is sourced in the article. There are no reliable sources that say it was left-wing. Editors who claim it is left-wing do so by forming faulty conclusions based on their limited and distorted knowledge of the topic. In any case, as with most proponents of conspiracy theories, they do not find reliable sources persuasive. TFD (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The FAQ is not a "reference", and is not used as one in the article (which is the only place that matters.) Pointing to it on the talk page is shorthand for "read the article and follow the citations." --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes it incredibly difficult for an interested editor to know what is going on. Playing "guess the reference" doesn't help anyone. We have hyperlinking technology, why not link each FAQ claim to the specific and referenced article section that supports it? Problem solved. Objections? Lexlex (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Parteigenosse means Party Comrade - please correct accordingly
'Parteigenosse' isn't translated right. 'Genosse' in German means 'Comrade', so the right translation is 'Party Comrade', not 'Party Member'. All national socialist, communist, socialist and social democratic parties in Germany called and call their members 'Genossen'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASGC18 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Was the Nazi Party fascist?
Hello. Looking throughout Wikipedia and reliable sources, the Nazi Party is described as fascist after adopting the Italian model. However, in this Nazi party article there is nothing describing the party as fascist. I made this edit in the lead saying that the party "supported the ideology of Nazism, a form of fascism", basing this on common knowledge, reliable sources and partly on the Nazism article itself that states "Nazism is a form of fascism". This edit was quickly reverted. Is there something that I'm missing. Was the Nazi Party fascist?--WMrapids (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The plural of the German word "Block" is "Blöcke" - not "Blocken."
In the subsection regarding Blockleiter, there is an erroneous reference to "blocks" as "Blocken." The correct plural of the German word "Block" (English: "block") is "Blöcke" (English: "blocks"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.7.6 (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Deutsche Gemeinschaft section seems have a redundant link
It mentions that it shouldn't be confused with another party of the same name, and yet when you click on the title of that party, it just brings you back to the section. I can't read German, nor am I familiar with German politics in that area, I was wondering if someone who knew German and German political history could check the German page and see if indeed the section is redundant and/or there's been a mistake with the linking.--Phil of rel (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"Slogans and songs" is just two lines
It's not a big deal, but I just wanted to point out that the page has an entire section called "Slogans and songs" that is a list with just two lines. That's not much of a list. I can't edit it, but I'd suggest moving them to some other section instead. It doesn't even have to be a list, it could be a single sentence: "Nazi slogans and songs included..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.210.64.177 (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nazi- Party
I'm sorry, but this is ridicoulous. There were "Nazis" (so called by their enemies), was no such thing as a Nazi-Party. The party was called Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei/NSDAP.; nation-socialist german worker's party.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That's why the article begins, "The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party." The article has its title because it is the common name. It's what readers are most likely to type in. TFD (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If we are going to play silly language games, how about claiming that "There is no such thing as Germany. The country is called Deutschland"? You see how pointless and unproductive such lines of argument are? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @DanielRigal@The Four Deuces They are pushing the same argument at Category talk:LGBT people in the Nazi Party. I'll remove that as off-topic/forum. We don't want to revive the "look, they were really socialists so left-wing" argument. Doug Weller  talk 06:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, it says the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - NSDAP right below it’s English counterpart. If you want to see that, go over here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei Senor0001 (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

28 May 2022 - Socialism is not Right
Socialism is not a "far right" ideology. It lines up more with the political "left" thinking.

I also think it's a shame that the person that locked this document knows it is not a far right political idea and that is why it's been locked. I find it disappointing that the person would lie and try to line up Nazism = Republicans. That is what they are doing. All a person has to do is look up the word in Dictionary. But most people don't. So I hope Wiki will stop allowing or aiding people (if that is what is happening) and correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:9737:E0CB:E8F5:F3A5:E452:3C8A (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Socialism is indeed not far right. The Nazis imprisoned and killed socialists. They were anti-socialist and anti-Communist. Doug Weller  talk 15:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has argued that Nazism = Republicans. The modern GOP is considered a center-right to right-wing party, while the Nazi Party is widely accepted to be considered far-right. It would be like arguing that the current Democratic Party (center-left to left-wing) is equivalent to the Communist Party of the USSR (far-left).
 * The FAQ clearly explains why it is far-right despite the "socialist" moniker. Blackforest92 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Nazism = Republicans" What does republicanism and Republicanism in the United Kingdom have to do with this article? Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Stalin murdered more communists than any fasisct dictator (in Russia, but also in Spain), he still was not right-wing. And the Nazis hated "Jewish"-communism, and murdered communists, but they also copied aspects of Bolshevist rule; even if Habermas thinks otherwise. And this was common knowledge/ opinion among left-wing intellectuals in the 1930s--Ralfdetlef (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)