Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 8

NSDAP/Nazi
The page should begin by calling the party the NSDAP, which it has always been. Nazi should be listed second as a colloquialism since it's the equivalent of calling the British poms and the French frogs. 211.30.186.192 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It is not the equivalent of a slang term. It is extremely common in English per WP:COMMON NAME. See the above “no Germany but Deutschland” comparison”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have any problem using derogatory names for the British and French. Why make an exception for Nazis? TFD (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This question comes up frequently, so I've added it to the FAQ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Uncited Information
@Beyond My Ken I'd like to address some of the changes recently made which you reverted. I saw the 5-year-old tag under the section which wanted more citations...I assumed 5 years was enough time to reference more of the section. I also took a look at Nazi salute to add more information and citations for the origin of the salute...I don't think you would have meant to revert that.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2023
Hi uh just wanted to say theres a mistake in the axlon drexler guys year of death and birth. it says 1920-1921 lol just wanted to let u know DreamDingo (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ That is the period of time Drexler served as chairman of the Nazi Party, not his date of birth/death. Silikonz 💬  02:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ah thanks sorry was confused DreamDingo (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Achieved" has inappropriate connotations
The article uses the word "achieved" with respect to the Holocaust (second paragraph). I suggest this is unnecessarily provocative, given that the definition of "achieved" is given as "successfully bring about or reach (a desired objective or result) by effort, skill, or courage". Whilst the reading may be technically correct, I would avoid potentially hurtful connotations and replace the verb - for instance with "resulted in". benjamin 180 19:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin180 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't think that "achieved" reads with positive connotations here but I can see how some people might think that it does. "Resulted in" seems a plausible alternative, and I agree that it would be an improvement, but it could be read as implying a less direct connection. "Achieved" has been in the article for at least two years but that doesn't mean that it is ideal. Maybe there are better alternatives? If not, I'd be happy for it to change to "resulted in". --DanielRigal (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * How about "an industrial system of genocide under which the murder of around 6 million Jews and millions of other targeted victims was perpetrated, in what has become known as the Holocaust"? Salvio giuliano 22:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I like "perpetrated". It's direct and nobody is going to misconstrue it as positive. DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the change to 'perpetrated'. Thanks all, and apols for not signing previous message. benjamin 180 22:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC) benjamin 180 22:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin180 (talk • contribs)
 * I can support the change to perpetrated. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As can I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ since consensus is clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit "around around" in second paragraph??
In the last sentence of the second paragraph in the article, I would argue for the removal of the first "around" in the construction "around around 6 million Jews and millions of other targeted victims..." as it is ungrammatically redundant. Any thoughts? DeLido (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess the piped link made the error easy to overlook. I fixed it. Thank you, DeLido. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC).
 * Glad to hear! DeLido (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Research
This is short and Sweet. You say do your research. National Socialist German Workers' Party - Literally means. *** Socialist Democrats ***. Not right wing Republican. (Only Americans support that) - My family lived as Nazi Germany. Nazi itself isn't even a word. They never called themselves that. It was a word the Russians and then the Allies used to make fun of the way Germans said National Socialist. - -I'm not going to bother with requesting you correct yourself. Last time I tried to correct you on something (BEING A GERMAN) you wouldnt listen to me. Robert A Bauer (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wikipedia says you cannot do your own research. See WP:No original research. Which is why we will continue to say that the Nazi Party was right-wing fascism, which is what all the most-respected scholars say it is. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain. How can any ideology that calls itself National Socialism, and espouses "anti-capitalist" ideas (your term) be considered "far-right?" Who are the most-respected scholars, and can you cite any of them? Or provide evidence that they are "respected?" This is biased, politically motivated language. 2601:5C2:380:3870:30C3:C8A:C151:98D0 (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ. DanielRigal (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is the overwhelming scholarly consensus. "Far-right" is overwhelmingly well-sourced - see citations 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Also see citations at Nazism, fascism, and elsewhere. Saying that the word "socialism" means that they can't be far-right means you're falling for the very propaganda they promoted. — Czello (music) 10:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You would have to show that there is support for your view in the body of literature. We have had this discussion before and none has been found. Of course it's possible that all the experts are wrong, but the article must report their conclusions. This is after all an encyclopedia that summarizes expert opinion, not a forum for original research by its editors. If you don't like that, then you need to get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"NDSAP" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NDSAP&redirect=no NDSAP] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. --Matr1x-101$$^{Ping-me}_{when-replying}$$ { user page @ commons - talk - contribs }  21:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nationalsozialistisch ≠ "National Socialist"
"Nationalsozialistisch" is one single adjective in German. The separation into two adjectives is misleading and helps promote the false notion that this was a (national) socialist party. The term urgently needs to be hyphenated at the very least. People like Peter Hitchens currently propagate this lie. The separate adjectives help here. This needs to be stopped. 83.135.111.88 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the standard way that German compound words get translated into English and it is not for us to alter that. Our articles make it explicitly clear that Nazism is a far-right ideology and we have rebuffed every one of the many, many attempts to claim otherwise. Nothing we are doing here is helping those who want to lie about this. In fact, we are doing a good job of presenting the facts so that anybody who does want to know the truth can very easily look it up. Unfortunately, propagandists don't care about the truth and are perfectly capable of lying without any help from us and will continue to do so. That's not an issue for Wikipedia though. We can't fix the world, at least not here. We can only fix Wikipedia. DanielRigal (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * People explicitly quote WP to "prove" this point. Maybe "standard translation" just isn't good enough here, and it's not even necessarily correct. Compound adjectives can be hyphenated to set them apart from separate, independent ones.
 * https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/compound-adjectives/#:~:text=A%20compound%20adjective%20is%20an,are%20examples%20of%20compound%20adjectives.￼
 * The NSDAP is *not* a national party that is also socialist. It's one adjective, whereas "german" is clearly separate. It's easy to fix or at least significantly reduce the ambiguity here with a hyphen. 83.135.111.88 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is "the standard way that German compound words get translated into English", and the term cannot be hyphenated here, perhaps a footnote sentence or two in the "Name" section, to clarify the matter would be sensible? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But only if a reliable source can be found that supports the OP's claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And even then, is the OP's opinion a consensus one among subject experts? I've read several dozen books or more on Nazis and Nazism, and I don't believe I ever came across a single one which translates it with a hyphen, and certainly none which make the OP's point. Maybe I'm reading the wrong kind of books and should be looking for this in books about translating German into English? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with here.  I just looked up two books, both written in German and translated during WWII and both just have National Socialism. I could look up more but don't feel it is needed. Carptrash (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You two gentlemen are correct. In the books I have the common English translation is two separate words, "National Socialism". Kierzek (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @83.135.111.88 Socialist are Statist. The Nazis were statist. There is nothing about statism that is "right" or "far-right." The Nazi State also controlled the German monetary system and most private industry by proxy through spies and threat of the state. The government was the ultimate progressive system, with the Nazi bureaucracy controlling all aspects of life through state regulations. There is nothing "right-wing" about that. The only lie that continues is the lie that the Nazis were "right." Thomas M. Murray (Marty) 19:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmdaytontexas (talk • contribs)
 * This is wildly inaccurate on multiple levels, and I urge you to read the red box at the top of this page. — Czello (music) 20:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can TRY to rewrite History, but you can't rewrite reality or an entire language.
 * No socialist party has ever REMOTELY been "right-wing". But it's understandable that leftists would want to distance themselves from their worst failures by trying to project it onto their adversaries. Soviet Union: far-left. Nazis: far-left. Slavery: far-left. American racism: far-left. Jim Crow: far-left. Civil Rights Act: right-wing. Emancipation: right-wing. Opposition to imperialist global domination: right-wing. This is heavily-documented, elementary-level common knowledge. But if you'd like I could link you to an actual encyclopedia or a grade school textbook. 🙂
 * Cambridge Dictionary 3Rings4ElvenKings (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is 1) a huge oversimplification 2) a misreading of history 3) a misunderstanding of the Nazi party 4) ignoring all reliable sources and historical consensus. — Czello (music) 07:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:CIR  G M G  talk  02:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Same old story. A couple of editors with one edit to their credit making this same old tired claim.Carptrash (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And you present the same old, tired defiance of truth. Does it not matter to you how wrong you are or the size of the mountain of evidence against you? So long as you're surrounded by enough deluded minds you feel comfortable in the lie?
 * Regardless, you've offered nothing to refute the truth or give your lie any credence. My understanding is that this is meant to be an online encyclopedia, not an elitist consortium of whimsically uninformed viewpoints. Are you saying my understanding was incorrect? 64.85.31.241 (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding my signature. Apparently I was logged out when I commented and my system is not presenting an option to edit my submission. 3Rings4ElvenKings (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You are badly misinformed. Your facts are wrong. The Nazi Party was definitively a right-wing organization no matter their name. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, your understanding is incorrect. However as we're talking about "uninformed viewpoints" and "mountains of evidence", we can simplify this entire discussion: we go off what reliable sources say, and they call Nazism far-right. — Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2023
Under “Name” - second paragraph first sentence: “these terms had ben used’ - should be “been” Pabdallas (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2023
This is why colleges and high schools don't allow Wikipedia as a source for research papers. This site calls the Nazi party far right, however the Workers Party and Socialists have always been and still are Left wing ideology not right wing. 96.255.82.225 (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Same tired argument that the Nazis were leftists. Makes about as much sense as saying North Korea is democratic because it's in the name.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right?!"
since when is anti-capitalism, far right? 2A00:23C8:31A7:3601:3C7E:2648:B30A:A7FB (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * See the banners at the top of this page. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 23:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add to this... since when was Socialism considered Far Right? Fascism and Naziism, historically, have been born out of socialism exclusively and inherently, and socialism is a left wing construct. There is nothing "Right Wing" about the Nazi party, let alone "Far-Right." Hitler was the dictionary definition of a "Left Wing Politician." 2A02:C7C:BF30:2000:707D:842D:95A6:6821 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also explained, more than once, in the FAQ at the top. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 15:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I once did a partial check (I got bored) on 24 "editors" who made the same claim and they averaged something like 2 or 3 wikipedia edits each. Meaning, to me, that they were not here to improve wikipediqa, they were here to pust this POV. Let's see what this chap does. Carptrash (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When they drop a couple of ungrammatical sentences of nonsense and bounce then that is just low effort, drive-by trolling. They know that they are wasting our time, and that is the sole point of their interjections. When someone regurgitates far-right rationalisations in earnest detail then it might be worth considering that we could have encountered a genuine dupe of, say, PragerU but the IPs above are clearly only here for the lolz. Just tap the sign (i.e. the FAQ) and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs) --20:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Free Speech
A poster on Slashdot claims here that "The Nazis were all in on free speech before they were in power too. Seriously, look it up." I tried looking it up via Google, then decided to search on Wikipedia's Nazi Party page for "Free Speech" and got no hits. Perhaps something about the Nazi Party's stance on Free Speech could be added to the article, particularly if the poster's claim is true. --95.99.94.82 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding pronunciation
I would just like to add an audio pronunciation to the page IskayG (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2023
“The Nazis sought to strengthen the Germanic people, the "Aryan master race", through racial purity and eugenics, broad social welfare programs”

Second paragraph of lead.

However, per Economy of Nazi Germany:

“The Nazis were hostile to the idea of social welfare in principle, upholding instead the Social Darwinist concept that the weak and feeble should perish. They condemned the welfare system of the Weimar Republic as well as private charity, accusing them of supporting people regarded as racially inferior and weak, who should have been weeded out in the process of natural selection. Nevertheless, faced with the mass unemployment and poverty of the Great Depression, the Nazis found it necessary to set up charitable institutions to help those they deemed to be racially-pure Germans in order to maintain popular support, while arguing that this represented "racial self-help" and not indiscriminate charity or universal social welfare. [Irrelevant sentences removed] Unlike the social welfare institutions of the Weimar Republic and the Christian charities, the NSV distributed assistance on explicitly racial grounds. It provided support only to those who were "racially sound, capable of and willing to work, politically reliable, and willing and able to reproduce." Non-Aryans were excluded, as well as the "work-shy", "asocials" and the "hereditarily ill."

I therefore suggest “broad social welfare programs” be changed to “selective social welfare programs”, “Aryan-specific social welfare programs”, or something along these lines. Nazi welfare was both specific to “Aryans” and not seen as part of the goal of “race-strengthening” in principle.

Thank you. 79.78.227.105 (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Spintendo  05:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem with locking the page is the concomitant loss of incidental editing.
I frequently edit pages, as I peruse them, to correct for idiom (for foreign language sourced articles, like this one) and other grammatical ambiguities and errata. (I do not have the resources available to create my own account at this time.)

For instance, the phraseology of the first section would be better served if the conjunction either was moved to modify the second element of the list (inferiority) rather than where it is, seemingly erroneously modifying the three items listed, thus the sentence ending: "excluding those deemed to be either political dissidents, physically or intellectually inferior, or of a foreign race (Fremdvölkische)." should be recast to say: "excluding those deemed to be political dissidents, either physically or intellectually inferior, or of a foreign race (Fremdvölkische)." See? Much better. However, now I have spent an order of magnitude more effort to make a simple notification for someone else to read and act on this very simple edit. (I wonder how many people will read this and not bother before someone decides to act? I wonder who manages that editing process. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) 118.210.101.232 (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The page is inaccurate. The Nazi party was not far right. It was far left. I realize the importance of everyone wanting to distance themselves as far away from Nazis as possible but it is critical to get history correct. The Nazi party was a socialist party. Left wing not right. Drofhist (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is not correct. Please see the FAQ and other banners at the top of this page. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Nazi Party was considered “far-right” pursuant to the reliable sources cited. And that’s what we have to go by. Otherwise, it is considered original research. As for only allowing registered editors, it’s for good reason. To protect the article from rampant vandalism, which is common with Nazi related articles. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2024
Paul Wegener links to the wrong person. This is the correct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wegener_(Gauleiter) Soder86 (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jamedeus (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)