Talk:Nuremberg Laws/Archive 1

Needs more
There were actually 6 "Nuremburg Laws". They should be listed and described. --Zero 14:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect
Nazi Nuremberg Laws → Nuremberg Laws … Rationale: Known generally simply as the Nuremberg Laws. Google only shows 300 hits for "Nazi Nuremberg Laws" outside of Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 01:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support; never read/heard these officially referred to with the "Nazi" prefix. Regards, David Kernow 01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Gryffindor  16:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Septentrionalis 05:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 07:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3rd Law missing
T(Empire-Party-Convention(?)) of the NSDAP (or "Reichsparteitag der Freiheit" - Reichsparteitag of Freedom (Working Title)) were:


 * Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre (Blutschutzgesetz) or Common: Nürnberber Rassegesetz(Nuremberg Race Law)
 * Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor (Blood-Protection-Law)
 * Reichsbürgergesetz
 * Empire-Citizenship-Law
 * Reichsflaggengesetz
 * Empire-Flags/Flag-Law ((...)flaggen(...) in this case is somehow ambiguous, better would have been Reichsbeflaggungsgesetz something like Empire-Flag-Usage-Law)

The 3rd one does not seem to be very expressive for "outer-germans" but it regulated the further usage of flags, an essential column of national identity. It ruled out the Repulic of Weimar german flag (the today's one) with the older Cesars-Empire-Flag (Black-White-Red) one wich correspondes with the One-Leader (Ein Führer) principle of a monarc and the colors of the NSDAP flag. It further regulated the enforced pair-usage with the NSDAP swastica flag if possible. outside of many Christian communities were able to hold those kinds of positions. I'm not sure if that’s entirely correct, however, I was led to believe there was a semi-factual basis for the exaggerated Nazi claims. The phrasing of that particular sentence is a bit off though. "certain" sounds a tad sinister. Little illy 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Text of laws
There are several problems with the article: 1. There is vandalism in section one of the first law. 2. The formatting of the page is odd - the contents box is placed between the introduction of the first law and its first article. Also, the heading of the first law is messed up. 3. Translations of the original text of the laws are given; however, the second section of the first law breaks form, and there is an additional comment in the fourth section with nothing to denote that it is not part of the text of the law.

The links at the bottom of this page each contain a translation of one of the laws; the second also has text of a supplemental decree from November 14, 1935. Perhaps useful... I hope that these issues can be dealt with - I myself am not familiar with Wikipedia formatting/editing guidelines, in particular for showing the text of a law (should there be quotes or something indicating that the text is a translation and not a summary?), but I can tell that there are some problems. 68.56.255.109 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I LOVE JOHNNY DEPP _

Sabotage alert
This article has been seriously compromised. See especially the section "Introduction and History". I am not an expert so I am not touching it, but someone should quickly repair the damage. Axel 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Previously in the Racism article
The 8th line says Dharti Patell? Possible vandalism? Don't know where to flag it... :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.108.2 (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This article was removed to its own article for consistency. Hope this is OK. Wallie 18:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

hmmmm...how did the nuremberg laws affect the individual and their family member?

Gleichsetzung des Judentums mit dem Islamismus durch Deutsche Staatschristen Bundesregierung Bundesinnenminister Wolfgang Schäuble CDU/CSU Bundestagsfraktion
194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Die „größte und manifesteste Bedrohung“ für die Sicherheit Deutschlands ist, so Wolfgang Schäuble, weiterhin der islamistische Terrorismus"
 * WP:NOT  Aar  ►  01:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed - "Swiss Immigration officials"
The article says "Jews, at the insistence of Swiss immigration officials, were required to adopt a middle name: "Sara" for women and "Israel" for men when applying for a passport." What have Swiss immigration officials to do with it? The reference 17 does not mention Switzerland at all... 129.94.30.6 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing, but Swiss immigration official Heinrich Rothmund initiated the introduction of the "J stamp" (Judenstempel) in passports for "foreign" Jews (other than Swiss Jews). So there seems to be a confusion. --Alfons2 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed Information
With all due respect, I feel that to attribute the following as part of the Nuremberg Laws is misleading: “Amongst other things the Nuremburg Laws banned Jews from working for the state or being employed as lawyers, doctors or journalists. Jews were prohibated from using hospitals and could not be educated past the age of 14. Jews were required to adopt a middle name: "Sara" for women and "Isaac" for men. Their identification cards were required to have a large "J" stamped on them. War memorials were to have Jewish names expunged. Even the lottery could not award winnings to Jews.

Nazi allies in Europe were required to pass similar legislation.”

The source for the following list actually describes a series of anti-Semitic laws passed under the Third Reich between 1933-1939, and given that the fact that the phrase Nuremberg Laws is generally understood to refer to the laws passed by the Reichstag on September 15, 1935, it is rather misleading to attribute all of the following to the Nuremberg Laws. If my memory serves correctly, I believe that the requirement that a “J” be stamped on passports belonging to Jews was passed until 1938, and then only in diplomatic response to pressure from Switzerland, which wished to exclude German Jews from going to that country. Likewise, if my memory is serving me well, I believe that the requirement that German Jews adopt as their middle name “Isaac” or “Sara” was a measure passed in the autumn of 1941, a good six years after the Nuremberg Laws were passed. It was six years ago that I read an abbreviated version of Raul Hilberg’s monumental The Destruction of the European Jews, which is where I am taking this from, but when I have the time, I check up on this, and if I am correct, then I believe the above should be excluded. My understanding is that the Nuremberg Laws provided only for the banning of sexual relations and marriage between Germans classified as belonging to the “Aryan” race and the “Jewish” race, plus banning those as classified as “Jewish” from employing female servants.

Moreover, I feel the statement that “Nazi allies were required to pass similar legislation “ to be somewhat misleading. One may consider reading the article “The Origins and Development of Racial Anti-Semitism in Fascist Italy” pages 431-453 from Journal of Modern History, March 1977 by Gene Bernardini, which I think establishes fairly well that the anti-Semitic racial laws passed in Italy in 1938 were an indigenous measure that was NOT a response to German pressure. I think it would be better to say that the Nuremberg Laws were the inspiration for similar legislation as opposed to saying that such laws were a German import. Moreover, the popular belief that the Nuremberg Laws deprived German Jews of their citizenship may be mistaken. According to Hans Mommsen, that did not take place until 1938, and all that the Nuremberg Laws said, which was odious in its own right was deprive German Jews of the benefits of German citizenship. In saying all this, I do not mean to minimize the rather sick outlook that gave birth to such hateful laws, or the ultimately lethal consequences for the Jews of Europe of that worldview, but I think it fair to say that when talking of the Nuremberg Laws, we should be attributing to those laws only what they actually stated.--A.S. Brown (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My grandmother's passport was issued in 1939 and has a "J" stamped on it. The middle name is Sarah and was not her real middle name. If you like I can e-mail you a photo of it and of her US naturalization certificate which gives her middle names. I diasagree with your miniamzlist approach. I will create a section about other discriminatin against Jews, since reading this gives the impression that persecution was quite mild. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I inserted a copy of the front page of her passport.

In addition to Italy, similar laws were also passed in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and in Nazi created states like Vichy France, Croatia and Slovakia. The focus on the Germans has allowed a lot of these countrie to escape scrutiny and a quick search suggests that one has to look into each country individually to find anything. Maybe I will create a new entry on European persecution in the pre-war period. I suggest changing the intro to say that Nazi allies "emulated" the Nuremburg laws, implementing local variations based on the German example. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the required middle name for men was "Israel", not "Isaac". Zerotalk 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to describe the sequence of Nazi racial laws in one article, but Brown is correct that only a certain batch of laws go by the name "Nuremberg Laws". Perhaps this article should get a more general name, such as "Nazi racial laws", with the present name redirecting to it. Zerotalk 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right it should say Israel. When people refer to the Nurembrug laws they need to see the whole gamut of what was involved, otherwise it gives a misleading impression that nothing much happened, renaming it is a possibility, or we could put in a careful seperation and have both.

German Jews started losing their citizenship in 1933 according to the German embassy in Canada http://www.toronto.diplo.de/Vertretung/toronto/en/04/Citizenship/seite__we116.html and this went on for some years, with most losing it in 1941. I think there were also revocations of Jews who had been naturalized (they were mostly of Polish origin). I guess the text needs to be made more accurate.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed section
We don't need ridiculous coatracking about From Darwin to Hitler arguments and the like, especially when they are blatant original synthesis. Please refer to the No original research policy on this, as well as established scientific consensus on the lack of theoretical or historical connections between Evolution and Eugenics. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not ridiculous. Its widely accepted in both the scientific and the historical community. Its not original research - it is the consensus. See the book by nobel prize winner James Watson "DNA". The first chapter is called "From Mendel to Hitler" and describes everything that is there. Houston Stewart Chamberlain was Wagner's son in law. Read the article. When I ahve more time I will restore the section and expand it with more sources. Telaviv1 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Anentiresleeve was correct to revert you, and your edit summary was wrong about original synthesis. James Watson is a biologist whose historical theories have not won much attention from historians. Zerotalk 09:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviusly hitler had a number of influences and the text should reflect that. I accept that it needs a rewrite.

The antisemitic mayor of Vienna was a major influence. Karl Lueger is quoted in mein kampf as an influence. Houston Stewart Chamberlain is another.

The nazis practised Eugenics and the murder of insane asylum inmates prceeded the systematic murder of the Jews and was based on eugenics. the same can be said of restrictions on inter-marriage. If you know other sources and different causes you're welcome to put them in. Steriliziation of prisoners was lawful in California before it was in Germany and used to justify preventing Jews from entering the USA. Eugenics is related to social darwinism.

Social Darwinism in European and American thought, 1860-1945 By Mike Hawkins page 286.

From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany [Paperback] Richard Weikart (Author) 2004

the rise and fall of the thrid reich pages 86 and 89 (eugenics) page 103: "I have heard more than one follower of Hitler say Houston Stewart Chamberlain was the spritiual father of the Third Reich"

Death and Deliverance - Michael Burleigh -

Cleansing the Fatherland: Nazi Medicine and Racial Hygiene by Aly Gotz

Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis - Robert Proctor

Richard Dawkins: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2488

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/book-review--understanding-by-numbers-the-final-solution-origins-and-implementation--ed-david-ceserani-routledge-35-pounds-1401962.html "The preaching of class prejudice has been much less systematically studied than that of anti-Semitism. Little has been written of the history of eugenics, the pseudo-science from which so much of the killing stemmed."

I put the section in after someone put in a crude incorrect section pinning it all on the American south.

James Watson discovered the double Helix and has written some well known books about the history of genetics.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that most of this is off-topic. The article should not be expanded to encompass more than its title suggests, otherwise it will overlap too much with other articles.  For example there is already an article on eugenics and even one on Nazi eugenics.  In the last part of the 19th century and first part of the 20th century, eugenics was a popular idea over most of the world.  It was popular in the Zionist movement too (if you doubt this, go to Google Books and search for "Jewish eugenics").  It is certainly true that eugenics was a major component of Nazi racial theory, but if one followed naturally from the other all of the world would have taken the Nazi route.  There are also plenty of historians who don't agree that Hitler's hatred of Jews was based on eugenic thinking.  It has even be argued that it was the opposite: Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews not because they were inferior but because only the Jewish race was superior enough to threaten the hegemony of the Aryan race.  Zerotalk 03:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you, we should stay on point here. You have astutely noticed that the main reason it is unencyclopedic to have From Darwin to Hitler in this article is not that they're wrong (though they are), but that it is a blatant coatracking onto an unrelated subject. We already have an article on Nazi eugenics. Try to get it introduced there, though I'd recommend you start on the talk page, and see how that goes. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously belief in eugenics is not the sole cause of the Holocaust, I think if the article notes the link to eugenics and that the laws were justified by scientific theories and provides links to Nazi eugenics, Nazism and race that might provide a solution. Why Hitler hated Jews is not relevant here, whereas the inspiration for the Nuremburg laws is relevant. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Visigothic code
Excuse my ignorance, but how are these two subjects related? --Phagopsych (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Telaviv1 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Because of the See Also entry, when compared with ראו גם  --Phagopsych (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the source "Enotes" a reliable source?
In the section, "Nürnberg laws impact for non-Jews," the article cites solely this "Enotes" webpage: http://www.enotes.com/nuremberg-laws-reference/nuremberg-laws. What is this enotes thing? Is it a reliable source? To me it looks like some cliff's notes type thing with no attribution. It definitely does not look of scholarly quality. If that's all we have on the section, the section should be removed until real sources can be found.

Are we supposed to believe that the Nuremberg Laws had some wide effects on Blacks, etc, just because "E notes" says it did? Herzlicheboy (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely not reliable. And since there is a huge scholarly literature on the subject there is no motivation for even considering such a source. Zerotalk 04:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Persistent POV wanting to add that Blacks were included in the Nuremberg Laws
Some IP added a reference to Blacks being part of the laws, and cited some sources. I checked those and the sources do not support the IP's assertion, as written. Then some Huggle bot type comes along and reverts my deletion of the information, based on no thought or research at all, and even admitted that he did not check the sources himself. Furthermore, the blurbs on the US Holocaust Museum page are not reliable sources for history, as the assertions contained therein are not cited themselves. Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an outright lie to say that I didn't check the sources, which I did. Besides this, the previous user had no reason to accuse me of that. My-2-bits (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason is that if you did check the sources then you would not be able to justify keeping this assertion. Secondly, how did you check the sources, since the "Social Outsiders" book is not available on Google Books?  Thirdly, how did you manage to check the sources in just a matter of seconds?  In any case, if you did check the sources, you should spell out for everyone your rationale for keeping this sentence, supported by the "sources" you claim to have checked.  Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As many have said before on your talk-page: stop your trollish behavior.
 * To all others who want to check my reasons to revert Herlicheboy's edit:
 * It didn't took me seconds. I reverted hours after Herzlicheboy's edit.
 * The book "Social Outsider" is available on Google Books. If Herzlicheboy had checked himself the sources, he would know that. Source: My-2-bits (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah-ha! Busted!  First of all, its "Social Outsiders," and the page cited in the reference was page 216, which is NOT AVAILABLE on Google Books.  You just proved that you didn't check the references, or you would have known that page 216 at cited in the link was not available.  Sorry, thanks for playing though. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The page is there if you know how to search (which you don't), just click the link I provided or search for nuremberg law social outsiders gypsies. My-2-bits (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, are you saying you spent "hours" researching the topic before you re-added the info without checking the sources? How long did you spend between when you first came across my edit and when you reverted it?  About 3 seconds?  Not that it matters anyway, since you proved to everyone you didn't actually check the sources since if you did, you would have known that page 216 of the Social Outsiders book is not available on Google Books.Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, we are still waiting on you to explain your argument as to how the sources cited actually support the assertion the IP made in this article. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to all: As said above, page 216 indeed is available (but not through the index), you have to click my link or go through a keyword search for 'nuremberg law social outsiders gypsies.' I am open for discussion with any reasonable editor. And I didn't say it took me hours, I said I did it hours after his edit. Herzlicheboy was reported for his edits to this page here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Although he seems to be generally disruptive. My-2-bits (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * May you please explain how the sources cited support these assertions? " a week after becoming intact the laws applied also to "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring". The first supplemental decree of the Nuremberg Laws extends the prohibition on marriage or sexual relations between people who could produce "racially suspect" offspring.  A week later, the minister of the interior interprets this to mean relations between "those of German or related blood" and Roma (Gypsies), blacks, or their offspring."  Your refusal to justify your arguments speaks volumes.  And furthermore, how long did you spend thinking about your revert before you performed it?  You certainly are an evasive one.  Thank you. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Note to all reasonable editors, the second printed source can be accessed directly here: My-2-bits (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining why you think the sources support the IP's addition. You are quite helpful.  Herzlicheboy (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If the race laws were extended to the Gypsies and the blacks then clearly there was a race law against blacks.

At present this article has a contradiction regarding blacks in one paragraph:

"Two months later, the Reich CItizenship Law was extended to apply also to Blacks, Gypsies, and their racial hybrids.[4][5] The decree implied that infertility or sterilization was a requirement for a "mixed marriage".[4] Although the ban on extramarital sex with those of "German blood" was never officially extended to blacks, violators were punished using other laws.[4]"

If as shown by two (presumably) cited sources that the laws were extended to not just Jews but Gypsies and blacks then clearly there was a ban on sex/sexual relations with Germans/Aryans and blacks so the last sentence that says it was not officially extended contradicts the statement that it was. This needs to be reviewed again and changed accordingly.

According to my own research the evidence shows that the Nuremberg race laws was indeed extended to blacks and relations between Germans/Aryans and blacks was a punishable crime.

"A week later, the minister of the interior interpreted this to mean relations between 'those of German or related blood' and Roma (Gypsies), blacks or their offspring."

"In any event, on 26 November 1935 an advisory circular from the Reich Ministry of the Interior to all local registry offices for vital statistics prohibited racially mixed marriages between those of German blood and "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring."

"The Nuremberg Laws, however, could also be applied to other categories of Mischling, as well as to Gypsies and Negroes."

"NOVEMBER 14, 1935 NUREMBERG LAW EXTENDED TO OTHER GROUPS The first supplemental decree of the Nuremberg Laws extends the prohibition on marriage or sexual relations between people who could produce "racially suspect" offspring. A week later, the minister of the interior interprets this to mean relations between "those of German or related blood" and Roma (Gypsies), blacks, or their offspring."

The so-called evidence that is used for the statement of "Although the ban on extramarital sex with those of "German blood" was never officially extended to blacks, violators were punished using other laws." is not supported by the journal here this actually says the two following statements:

"The inherent unity of 'racial and eugenic policy', of policy towards those of 'alien blood' (Fremdblütige), like Jews, Blacks and Gypsies, on the one hand and those who were of 'German blood' (Deutschblütige) but genetically damaged or incorrigibly deviant on the other, was axiomatic for Hitler."

"In the case of Blacks and Gypsies, recognizable as 'other' through their appearance, dress and habits of life, Nazi policies encountered pre-existing structures of expectation and prejudice, each with its own history."

This is not supporting the statement that is currently being used. One source I've found from a simple Google book search that says sexual relations between Africans or Gypsies was not punishable by law is clearly talking about the first implementation of the law and not the extended section of the race laws a week later (see here) Please show evidence that blacks were not included in the banning of sex/sexual relations with Germans or other Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows66 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semitic=Jewish?
I noticed that the word "Jewish" in this article has been used frequently to refer to "Semitic", which I think is inaccurate, the Nuremberg Laws has been also applied on other non-Jewish communities, according to several historians. I'll try to find the right sources and make the necessary changes afterwards. Modi mode (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Semitic denotes a language family. I guess what you mean is Hebrew. --2003:56:6D1B:C668:D038:8B98:BD5D:B109 (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Religion vs. Ethnicity
Is it really fair to say, as the first paragraph read, that "race was determined by the religious observance of the grandparents?" This may make sense to Americans, but in Europe, "Hebrew" means a race, not a religion. How do you explain the term "secular Jews" or how can one explain that Hebrews from the Soviet Union, who, for the most part, did not practice "their" religion, were, and are, still considered ethnically Jewish. I dare anyone to say that Dimitri Mendeleev wasn't Jewish, just look at that last name, it's not Russian, I can tell you that! I speak from my own Slavic/Jewish background. —The preceding Ilya D. comment was added by 71.176.209.119 (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


 * By the early 1900s, you were pretty hard-pressed to find any individuals in Europe that had not been assigned a religion as part of their birth certificate and their simultaneous registration at the registry office, and there were even less of such if you went back three generations as those race certificates demanded by Nazi authorities did. And race being determined by religion was what the law literally said. It was a criterion that the Nazis themselves considered only temporary up until the science of their day would be "advanced" enough to find definitive, unfallible biological criteria. --2003:56:6D1B:C668:D038:8B98:BD5D:B109 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

NL lede, content question
While the NL were aimed at first solely at Jews, as the page notes, they were also antiziganist and anti-black: the Porajmos or purge of the Rroma was a result of the NL carried out as policy. Shouldn't this be noted in the lede? I had to *search* to find it on the page, which opens only, "The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany." They were a little more broad than simply "antisemitic" even though Jews suffered terribly because of them; Rroma were specifically targeted and sent to Dachau, Dieselstrasse, Marzahn, and Vennhausen. Ogress smash! 22:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a good suggestion. I've added info to the opening paragraph of the lead and added the death toll at the end of the lead as well. Info added to the body as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It seemed wise to talk about it first even though I am a proponent of bold edits. Thanks for doing that. Ogress smash! 23:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Classification under the laws
Two of these are incorrect.

Mischling zweiten Grades Mixed race (second degree) 1/4 Jewish - Only partly belongs to the German race and nation; approved to have Reich citizenship.

Mischling ersten Grades	Mixed race (first degree) 3/8 or 1/2 Jewish - Only partly belongs to the German race and nation; approved to have Reich citizenship.

Neither half Jews or quarter Jews were eligible for Reich citizenship. Only those of "German or related blood" were approved to have Reich citizenship. Mischlinge of second or first degree were considered to be state subjects.--Michael.mills90 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit, because it contradicts the source provided in the article (Kershaw page 347) which says that persons with three Jewish grandparents were classed as Jewish; those with two Jewish grandparents would be considered Jewish only if they practised the faith or had a Jewish spouse; and persons with only one Jewish grandparent were not considered as Jewish.-- Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

That does not mean they were eligible for Reich citizenship. Only those of "German or related blood" were Reich citizens.--Michael.mills90 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The material follows what the source says. If you have a different source that conflicts, please present it. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Where in the source does it say that Mischlinge were allowed to keep their citizenship?--Michael.mills90 (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this text needs changing from Racial policy of Nazi Germany then:

--Michael.mills90 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources for your suggested edit. There's no reason to assume that persons who were one-quarter Jewish were stripped of their citizenship, and to say so contradicts what it says in the sources used to prepare this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That text is what is currently in the article Racial policy of Nazi Germany not what I'm suggesting to be added into the article.

One thing the Nuremberg Laws did continue to do was keep the restriction of employment for one-quarter Jews which was passed in 1933 after the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed as law.

Where in the Nuremberg Laws did it say that half-Jews and quarter-Jews were able to keep or obtain citizenship?--77.98.242.230 (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Mischlinge were considered to be provisional Reich citizens (vorläufige Reichsbürger) not Reich citizens according to the Nuremberg Laws.--77.98.242.230 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * They were not "considered to be provisional Reich citizens".
 * They were "provisionally deemed to be Reich citizens" (gelten vorläufig als Reichsbürger)
 * Important distinction.
 * See Section 2 of Erste Verordnung zum Reichsbürgergesetz.
 * --Boson (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Jew/Jewish
Did the Nuremberg Laws not contain any definition of Jew or was this something left to the commentaries? What was the status of the (admittedly small) number of people who had converted to Judaism for example? Norvo (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendel chart
I have removed. The cited source does not mention Mendel or his laws of inheritance, nor does it state that the Nazis believed Jews had an inferior genome. The source article cites this Wikipedia article as a source, which is not a reliable source, and is a circular reference. The other three citations in the source article do not mention Mendel, his laws of inheritance, or genomes either. So the sourcing is still inadequate. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Nazis definitely believed that Jews had an inferior genome. I can give you a source if needed. --Laber□T 14:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation of a chart used to educate people on the Nuremberg Laws
I translated a chart on the Nuremberg laws that was used to educate people on the implications of these laws (annotations on commons). To the people back then, this chart seemed very logical, because it looked scientific and critical thinking was not very developed among the general population; so it even had an appeal to those people who did not believe the propaganda used by Der Stürmer and similar media, which was very vitriolic and intended for people with little general education. Maybe this translation can be used somewhere in the article. --Laber□T 14:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

citation needed on "sometime around December 1941, Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated."
as of subject, a citation is needed for "sometime around December 1941, Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated." I've read Hilberg throughthrouly and never I've found such a statement.--KubaKlan (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Footnote # 80 covers this point. The source isn't Hilberg, it's sourced to Longerich's paper here, on page 2. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing it out. If the source is that paper, then the aforementioned statement is even wronger, imo. It clearly states "When such a fundamental decision is supposed to have been taken (...) is disputed." (and this should rather be the quote to appear in this page), moreover given a few lines later they brilliantly put that "the prehistory  of  the  murder  of  the  Jews  cannot  be  assessed  in  accordance with the pattern 'decision formation - decision - implementation of decision'". If we were to given an un-biased pow, this should be the point to be highlighted, rather than perpetuating the wrong stereotype about an all-seeing single human being (furher in this case) driving history according to his own plans and desires. --KubaKlan (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional citations include Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00239-9, page 416, and Kershaw, Ian (2008). Hitler: A Biography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-06757-6, page 683. — Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you again, but regarding to "Bloolands", page 416 doesn't cite any primary source for his statement about 1941. As of "Hitler a biography" I cannot find any abstract from the page, nonetheless if any primary source is included maybe we might work it out. I really don't see the need for such a bold statement given the wide interpretations and disputing theories surrounding it. Again, if we are really eager to make such a statement, imo the best npow could be something along the lines of "When such a fundamental decision is supposed to have been taken is disputed, given the prehistory  of Shoa cannot be assessed in accordance with the pattern 'decision formation - decision - implementation of decision".--KubaKlan (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you got some sources that present a different approximate date for the decision (and note the article's current wording does specify that the date we give is approximate)? I have presented three sources so far, and you have presented none, — Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the sources being cited for that sentence presents a different picture than the one it is being cited for. The sentence in question is:
 * "Sometime around the German failure in the Battle of Moscow in December 1941, Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated immediately.[80][81][82]"
 * Citation [80] is given in the list of references as "Longerich 2000, p. 2."  This refers to   The latter says:
 * (Page 1) "Historical research has long occupied itself with the question of what role the Wannsee Conference played within the planning and organization of the genocide of the European Jews. The answer to this question is not straightforward because, on 20 January 1942, when this conference was being held, mass murder of the Jews had already been under way for six months...."
 * (Page 2) "Most historians assume that the conference must have been preceded by a fundamental decision to murder every Jew in Europe, and that the meeting was a forum for discussion of the organization and implementation of the genocide that was already underway (1). When such a fundamental decision is supposed to have been taken, however, is disputed. A series of historians have taken the view that this decision had already been made before the beginning of the Russian campaign. Others are of the opinion that the basic decision was taken in the summer of 1941 (2), in a feeling of euphoria at the predicted victory over the Soviet Union, or in the autumn of 1941, in light of the failure - which was already becoming clear - of the 'Blitzkrieg' in the east (3). Christian Gerlach has recently expressed the view that Hitler’s 'fundamental decision' to murder the European Jews was taken immediately after his declaration of war on the USA in December 1941. Gerlach's theory has caused a sensation and must be examined more closely (4). There are indications, however, that a final decision to murder all European Jews could only have been made during the spring or summer of 1942 (5). A radical counter-position adopted by Martin Broszat, for instance, holds that there was never any 'Führer’s decision', but that the destruction of the Jews was 'seen [by the Nazis] as "a way out" of a cul-de-sac into which they had manoeuvred themselves' (6)."
 * The citations in this paper referenced were:
 * Particularly Helmut Krausnick, ‘Judenverfolgung’, in: Hans Buchheim et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates, vol.2., 2nd ed. (Munich: dtv, 1979), 235-366, pp297, 305f; Richard Breitman, The Architect of Genocide. Himmler and the Final Solution, (New York: Knopf, 1991); Wolfgang Benz, Der Holocaust, (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1995), p50ff.
 * Saul Friedländer, ‘Vom Antisemitismus zur Judenvernichtung: Eine historiographische Studie zur nationalsozialistischen Judenpolitik und Versuch einer Interpretation’, 18-62, p47, in: Eberhard Jäckel, Jürgen Rohwer (eds.), Der Mord an den Juden im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Entschlußbildung und Verwirklichung, (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1985); Raul Hilberg, ‘Die Aktion Reinhard’, in ibid, 125-136.
 * Phillipe Burrin, Hitler and the Jews. The Genesis of the Holocaust, (London: Arnold, 1989), p115ff.
 * Christian Gerlach, ‘Die Wannsee-Konferenz, das Schicksal der deutschen Juden und Hitlers politische
 * rundsatzenscheidung, alle Juden Europas zu ermorden’, Werkstattgeschichte, vol. 18 (1997), 7-44.
 * See for instance the exposition by Pohl, National-sozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien 1941-1944 (München: Oldenbourg, 1996), p203ff.
 * Martin Broszat, ‘Hitler und die Genesis der "Endlösung". Aus Anlass der Thesen von David Irving’, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, vol.25 (1977), 739-775, p752. Similarly argued is Hans Mommsen, ‘Die Realisierung des Utopischen: Die "Endlösung der Judenfrage" im "Dritten Reich"’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft, vol.9 (1983), 381-420, p417, in which he establishes apodictically that it may be fundamentally discounted (‘grundsätzlich auszuschließen’) that Hitler set the policy of genocide in process with a direct ‘Führer-instruction’ (‘Führerweisung’).
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that we replace the words "and sometime around December 1941, Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated" with "and starting in the Summer of 1941, the German government started exterminating the Jews of Europe". This can be supported by citation [80].--  Toddy1 (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate, as they started killing Jews in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. And per the Manual of Style, we are not supposed to use seasons as a time reference. How about "and starting in mid-1941, the German government started mass exterminations of the Jews of Europe". ?— Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I cannot point to sources, since I've have read only Hilberg's revised edition. Point being that rather than presenting the reader with the different theories about the decision, we are stating at a certain point this decision was taken, which contradicts Hilberg and one of the sources as well (Martin Broszat, for instance, holds that there was never any 'Führer’s decision', but that the destruction of the Jews was 'seen [by the Nazis] as "a way out" of a cul-de-sac into which they had manoeuvred themselves'). Rather than fall for the fideistic approach to history imo we might do a better service by just stating experts are far from an agreement about the issue, maybe a pragraph about different theories could be created, but so far I really don't see how can we state so clearly such a bold statement. I'm not debating "Bloodlands", but as a matter of fact, for example, in that book this statement is presented without any proof whatsoever about it, not even a note. I hope I made myself clear, I'll try to be as plain as possible: we shouldn't encourage this deterministic approach to history nor we should mage bold statements out of vague theories unsupported by any paper/document whatsoever. The most neutral thing to do would be to present the reader the only known fact so far, aka that there's no agreement about when this decision is supposed to have been taken.--KubaKlan (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the wording proposed by Diannaa; which I think meets KubaKlan's objections.- Toddy1 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't want to sound picky, but actually the wording that imo would truly reflect the actual state of research would be something along the lines of "There isn't a consensus among scholars about when the decision of exterminating jews have been taken. Some even argue the prehistory of Shoa cannot be assessed in accordance with the pattern 'decision formation - decision - implementation of decision", then either putting different scholars' opinions in note or by making a dedicated paragraph afterward.--KubaKlan (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is an article on the Nuremberg Laws. It is not an article about the Holocaust.  We do not mention who decided to murder all the Jews; nor do we need to mention exactly when it was decided.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed material
I removed this material as being off topic. This material relates to events that occured before the Nuremberg Laws were passed. How far back before the NL should we go? There is a great deal more material in the article that relates to Nazi persecution and policies that happened before the Nl were passed. Is it ok to leave this material in?

After they seized power in 1933, the Nazis began to implement their policies, which included the formation of a Volksgemeinschaft (people's community) based on race. Chancellor and Führer (leader) Adolf Hitler declared a national boycott of Jewish businesses on 1 April 1933, and the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, passed on 7 April, excluded most Jews from the legal profession and civil service. Books considered un-German, including those by Jewish authors, were destroyed in a nationwide book burning on 10 May. Jewish citizens were harassed and subjected to violent attacks. They were actively suppressed, stripped of their citizenship and civil rights, and eventually completely removed from German society

if background information is to be left in then I would like to be able to restore this material that was removed as being off topic.

1929 saw the establishment of the Central Office for Combatting Gypsies.

The background to Nazi persecution of Romani should be included as they too were subject to the Nuremberg Laws, or the background to the persecution of Jewish victims should be removed as being similarly off topic.

Comments pleaseGuns of brixham (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am restoring a shortened and revised version of your content from the USHMM, as your version is almost identical to the source, which is a copyright web page. All material you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words please. Your content on the Central Office for Combatting Gypsies is a good addition; it looks like I removed it by accident, as I intended to re-word it, not take it out altogether. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's enough background material, in my opinion. Staying focused on the topic of the article is a Good Article criterion. The topic is "Nuremberg Laws", not "persecution of the Gypsies by the Nazi state". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The topic is indeed Nuremberg Laws, not persecution of Jews or Gypsies or any other group by the Nazi state. There is however a great deal more material on anti semitism before the Laws were introduced. I think that there needs to be an equal amount of background on why Gypsies and Afro Germans were added to these laws. There was virtually nothing when I started. Regards.Guns of brixham (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Frick - Judaism more interesting
In June 1935, Frick stated when the Nazis were having problems defining racial terms that ""'Aryan' and 'Non-Aryan' [are] sometimes not entirely tenable. . . From a racial political standpoint, it is Judaism that interests us more than anything else."

Could this not be included somewhere in the article?

Source Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience, p. 180--Enoch J Brown (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked as a sock of user:English Patriot Man. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Blacks were banned from sexual relations with Aryans/Germans.
At current it the article states "Although the ban on extramarital sex with those of "German blood" was never officially extended to blacks, violators were punished using other laws." but how is this the truth when the Nuremberg race laws was extended to the Gypsies, blacks and their racial offspring and with blacks having a non-Aryan status under the Third Reich race laws is it not clearly obvious sexual relations were banned? Blacks could not be citizens of the Reich neither.

"NOVEMBER 14, 1935 NUREMBERG LAW EXTENDED TO OTHER GROUPS The first supplemental decree of the Nuremberg Laws extends the prohibition on marriage or sexual relations between people who could produce "racially suspect" offspring. A week later, the minister of the interior interprets this to mean relations between "those of German or related blood" and Roma (Gypsies), blacks, or their offspring."

There is other sources that confirm blacks were included in the banning of sexual relations and marriages and were seen as people of "racial alien blood".--Cebula Adam (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears like judges, prosecutors, and sentences cited laws different from the Nuremberg Laws when it comes to blacks. So you get a law that applies to certain sexual relations on paper, but is never cited in practice in favor of other laws. --2003:56:6D1B:C668:D038:8B98:BD5D:B109 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * When the highest levels of government dictate: 1+2=4, then the secondary levels of government try to be the first to know that: 2+1=4
 * The whole racist Germany is an illusion: Central-Europoean racism was invented to cover up some worse secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.48.204 (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Excessive background information
I have removed more background information recently added. In my opinion this is off-topic. The article needs to remain focused on the subject at hand, and not expand into including every bit of persecution or legislation undertaken by the Nazis. That's outside the scope of what this article should include, and therefore is inappropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate not to include the background as to all three groups that the NL were applied to, and the effects of that application. The material that I added, is in my opinion, as on topic as the material that is already there. We need to know about anti Semitism before the NL and we need to know about anti Gypsy, and anti Afro German discrimination as well.  Otherwise we end up with an article that does not explain why the Nazis applied the NL to all three groups.Guns of brixham (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't agree that we need additional background information. The article needs to remain focused on the subject at hand, and not expand into including every bit of persecution or legislation undertaken by the Nazis. That's outside the scope of what this article should include, and therefore is inappropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not needed, the article needs to remain focused on topic. Wikipedia is not a collection of an excessive amount of intricate detail/information. Kierzek (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, see my comment in seection above. There are existing articles covering these victims which badly need working on, especially Persecution of black people in Nazi Germany which especially needs improving. It specifically lacks a section on the impact of the NL's on black people. Your material would be an ideal fit there. Irondome (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Irondome, I agree, but the removed material belongs here as well, in my opinion.Guns of brixham (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Kierzek, the subject here is the NL, the material is hardly excessive when we look at the amount of detail already there about Nazi discrimination and legislation against Jews, that is not related to the NL.Guns of brixham (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to reply in one section only, so as to simplify the threading of the discussion. . The first paragraph concerns Afro-Germans. I don't think we need to include this paragraph, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't think the content about mixed-race people born as a result of alliances undertaken in WWI is appropriate background material for an article about the Nuremberg Laws. I just don't see the connection between that and the Nuremberg Laws. The only part that might be worth considering adding is saying that the Nazis believed the afro-Germans were inferior, but perhaps that is self-evident, because we've already said that all non-Aryans were considered to be inferior. Regarding adding more material on the Roma, the entire section Nuremberg Laws is a new and worthwhile addition, and in my opinion it's adequate background material regarding the Nazi persecution of the Roma. There's nothing in the above diff that isn't already covered adequately in that paragraph, as it already includes how the Nazis viewed the Roma as being inferior and an anti-social element, and it also covers the sterilization issue. I don't see why stripping any background material on the Nazi persecution of the Jews is necessary or desirable, as the Jews (not the Roma or black people) were the main focus of the Nuremberg Laws and indeed the entire Nazi racial policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim that Jews, not Roma or Afro-Germans were the main focus of the NL is WP:OR, and certainly WP:POV. There is plenty of evidence here to show that the NL were applied to these groups.  What is meant by the 'main focus'?  Legislation was applied to all three groups.  If there are references that show that it was disproportinatly applied then the article can reflect that. You have admitted that this article contains background information on Nazi persecution of the Jews.  The claim that Jews were the main focus of Nazi persecution is not relevant, as this article is about the NL, their background, and their effects.  If we are to include background info such as other items of legislation or persecution, then we need to include all groups, or none.  Why don't I split out the material on Roma, and Afro-Germans from that on Jews?  I.e have separate sections?  Otherwise I feel that the article deserves me trying to find outside resolution, as we are all at a fundamental impasse as to what this article is about, and what material can and can't be included.Guns of brixham (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bizarre. In addition, there appears to be no "fundamental impasse", just you. Irondome (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Irondome was correct to revert your removal. Per the bold-revert-discuss cycle, if your edit is challenged, you need to stop trying to force through your changes and discuss on the talk page. There's no consensus for your addition, and there's also no consensus for you to strip material out of this article. In fact the opposite is true: There's three editors who disagree with your edits, and only yourself in support. You need to stop now. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Definition of non Aryan edit
In this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuremberg_Laws&diff=739887412&oldid=739883560  Diannaa  removed information that the First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was not only directed at non Aryans, but also specifically referred to non racial groups. Members of the Communist Party, or any related or associated organisation were also dismissed under the same legislation. I don't know if this was intentional, or even recognised, but the edit goes further than the explanation given that only a definition of the meaning of non Aryan had been removed. If we continue to include legislation here that is not related to the NL, then we should give a full account of all groups that the non NL legislation applied to. I therefore intend to re add the reference to Communists being affected by this law.Guns of brixham (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that information should stay out. This article needs to remain focused on the Nuremberg Laws; adding additional details about the First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service is beyond the scope of this article in my opinion. Communists were not included under the Nuremberg Laws. I have checked the book you offered as a source, so as to save time later if the decision is taken to re-add it, here is the correctly formatted citation. The information is on page 151:

*


 * — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If this article were to truly focus on the NL, then we would completely remove the references to First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service. Communists were not included under the NL, but neither were all of the other legislations and persecutions that have been added to the article.  The article focus has already gone far beyond the NL, and their application.Guns of brixham (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that any of the background material needs to be stripped out of this article. It provides context as to events leading up to the Nuremberg Laws, and was present when the article passed its Good Article assessment. Communists were not covered by the Nuremberg Laws, so providing information on how Communists were impacted by the First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service off-topic for this article. Repeatedly suggesting you will strip out relevant background information if you don't get your way - and then actually doing it (over the objections of other editors), - is disruptive. That's why I placed a warning on your talk page on September 17. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly suggesting you will strip out relevant background information if you don't get your way - and then actually doing it (over the objections of other editors) This is simply incorrect. I have removed material once, and when it was added back in I have not removed it.  I have never made any threats, you should be more careful in your language. I have expressed my opinion, no more.  I have said that the impasse as to the material that should be included needs to be resolved by others.Guns of brixham (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me express my opinion another way: How is the impact of the First Regulation for Administration of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service on the Communists relevant to the Nuremberg Laws? My opinion is that it is not, because Communists were not subject to the Nuremberg Laws. Treatment of the Jewish population prior to the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws is highly relevant, as they were the primary focus of those laws, and indeed of the entire Nazi racial policy. That's why I think material on the Communists has to stay out, and that this can and should be done without stripping out highly relevant background information about the way Jews were being treated in Nazi Germany before the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You know that the information about Communists is a red herring, and not my main point. This claim of yours   Treatment of the Jewish population prior to the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws is highly relevant, as they were the primary focus of those laws, and indeed of the entire Nazi racial policy is frankly WP:OR}} and [[WP:POV. The NL were applied to three groups all defined on racial grounds.  I do not understand how anyone could wish to only include background information on Nazi racial policy for one of those groups.  There is plenty of referenced material on how Gypsies were viewed in exactly the same way as Jews before and after the NL.  You are preventing that material from being added which results in an imbalanced article.  From the article it looks as if your claims about Nazi policy are correct, because material showing how Gypsies were viewed and treated by the Nazis, and wider German society is largely excluded.  It is this that I think should be the subject of wider review.  That is all I am saying, and your wider claims about me being disruptive and wanting my own way are clearly not correct.  I won't reply to any reply on this, but prefer to start the process of letting others get involved. Guns of brixham (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You already added material on the impact on the Gypsies, and that's a good thing, as the article is better balanced now. I stand by my opinion that the background information on the impact of Nazi racial policy on the Jewish population is not excessive and that none of it needs to be removed. My statement on the talk page that "Treatment of the Jewish population prior to the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws is highly relevant, as they were the primary focus of those laws, and indeed of the entire Nazi racial policy" can be backed up by numerous reliable sources. I'm not going to clutter up the talk page with discussion on that point, as that statement does not appear anywhere in the article, and was presented here only as general information as to why I formed my present opinion about the structure and quantity of background material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Some relevant background information is needed to inform the general reader as to the motivation and events which transpired, leading up to the subject matter of the article. Again, the main focus of the laws was directed by the Nazis against the Jewish people. The added material on the impact on the Gypsies was good but the focus needs to remain on the Jewish people. Kierzek (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Guns of Brigham blocked as sock. Doug Weller  talk 07:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack?
The following material was removed

Shortly before the start of the 1936 Summer Olympics, police surrounded Romani encampments in and around Berlin and transported the occupants to a camp at Marzahn. on the grounds that    This happened afterwards, has no relation with this section and is one of many coatracks for the persecution of gypsies in this article

This removed material could easily fit in the section titled Nazi Germany. If we are going to remove material that cannot be directly traced to the NL, then the following should also be considered for removal.

Discrimination against Jews intensified after the NSDAP seized power; following a month-long series of attacks by members of the Sturmabteilung (SA; paramilitary wing of the NSDAP) on Jewish businesses, synagogues, and members of the legal profession, on 1 April 1933 Hitler declared a national boycott of Jewish businesses.[22] By 1933, many people who were not NSDAP members advocated segregating Jews from the rest of German society.[23] The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, passed on 7 April 1933, forced all non-Aryans to retire from the legal profession and civil service.[24] pamphlet titled which summarized the perceived need for the law.[25] As part of the drive to remove Jewish influence from cultural life, members of the National Socialist Student League removed from libraries any books considered un-German, and a nationwide book burning was held on 10 May.[26] Violence and economic pressure were used by the regime to encourage Jews to voluntarily leave the country.[27] Legislation passed in July 1933 stripped naturalised German Jews of their citizenship, creating a legal basis for recent immigrants (particularly Eastern European Jews) to be deported.[24] Many towns posted signs forbidding entry to Jews.[28] Throughout 1933 and 1934, Jewish businesses were denied access to markets, forbidden to advertise in newspapers, and deprived of access to government contracts. Citizens were harassed and subjected to violent attacks.[29] Laws promulgated in this period that were not aimed directly at Jews included the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (passed on 14 July 1933), which called for the compulsory sterilisation of people with a range of hereditary, physical, and mental illnesses.[30] Under the Law against Dangerous Habitual Criminals (passed 24 November 1935), habitual criminals were forced to undergo sterilisation as well.[31] This law was also used to force the incarceration in prison or Nazi concentration camps of "social misfits" such as the chronically unemployed, prostitutes, beggars, alcoholics, homeless vagrants, and Romani people.[32]

Disenchanted with the unfulfilled promise of the NSDAP to eliminate Jews from German society, SA members were eager to lash out against the Jewish minority as a way of expressing their frustrations. A Gestapo report from early 1935 stated that the rank and file of the NSDAP would set in motion a solution to the "Jewish problem ... from below that the government would then have to follow".[37] Assaults, vandalism, and boycotts against Jews, which the Nazi government had temporarily curbed in 1934, increased again in 1935 amidst a propaganda campaign authorised at the highest levels of government.[37] Most non-party members ignored the boycotts and objected to the violence out of concern for their own safety.[38]

Most of this is about the persecution of Jews, but it is not directly related to the NL. Is this what is meant by WP:COATRACKGuns of brixham (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Nuremberg Laws (Nürnberger Gesetze) were antisemitic, and later anti Romani, and Afro-German laws in Nazi Germany. This was removed on the grounds of WP:UNDUE on the grounds that     I would say WP:UNDUE as the groups are mentioned below. It must be noted that the NL were overwhelmingly targetting the Jews)

I disagree. The NL were applied to these two groups shortly after they were introduced. The statement that they were overwhelmingly targetting Jews is WP:OR. All targets of the NL deserve equal treatment in this article.

I suggest the following re wording.

The Nuremberg Laws (Nürnberger Gesetze) were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany. They were introduced on 15 September 1935 by the Reichstag at a special meeting convened at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). The laws were expanded on 26 November 1935 to include Romani people and Afro-Germans. This supplementary decree defined Gypsies as "enemies of the race-based state", the same category as Jews. The two laws were the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which forbade marriages and extramarital intercourse between Jews and Germans and the employment of German females under 45 in Jewish households, and the Reich Citizenship Law, which declared that only those of German or related blood were eligible to be Reich citizens; the remainder were classed as state subjects, without citizenship rights. A supplementary decree outlining the definition of who was Jewish was passed on 14 November, and the Reich Citizenship Law officially came into force on that date.

This does not change the wording, but I think that it correctly lists the targets of the NL before it lists their application.Guns of brixham (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the meaning of "coatrack". The material you wish to remove is background information on the development of the Nuremberg Laws, and thus is appropriate to include here. You have added some additional background information on other groups targeted by the Reich, and that's good, but it's enough now in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the material that I added. That material is not about 'other groups targeted by the Reich'.  It is about other groups to whom the NL were applied.  If we include background material as to why the NL were applied to Jews, then we should also include background material as to why the NL were applied to Roma, and Afro-Germans.  Any attempt to confine this article to only one group of those who were the subject of the NL is surely wrong.  The material that you wish to retain is not background information on the introduction of the NL, it is background information on why these laws were applied to Jews.  If we fail to explain the background as to why these laws were also applied to two other groups, then we need to re title the article as Application of the NL to Jews in Nazi Germany, and have a new article for the other two groups.  Otherwise this is not an article about the NL.  The material I have added is no different from the material that I point to above.Guns of brixham (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't agree that we need additional background information. The article needs to remain focused on the subject at hand, and not expand into including every bit of persecution or legislation undertaken by the Nazis. That's outside the scope of what this article should include, and therefore is inappropriate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In which case I would suggest the OP concentrate on the already good article Porajmos, to improve it further, which as you will see already deals with the NL and the Romani people, and other aspects of their persecution under the Nazis. Equally, there is the Persecution of black people in Nazi Germany which is in dire need of improving, and cries out for a new section on the NL to be created there. I find it strange that you wish to insert this material here.Irondome (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Guns of Brixham has been blocked as a sock, striking through posts, removing those with no response. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

GAR
I'm considering nominating this for GAR. I don't know why it is history GA, this should really be a law article. Besides that there is a section I just templated for WP:OR - I checked Bullock and the pages cited have nothing to do with the Nuremberg Laws, and it does not seem like the section discusses the Nuremberg Laws at all. It is off-topic/overly detailed, and for this article it is also WP:SYNTH and an WP:OR theory about the causes of the Nuremberg Laws (which is already discussed by Kershaw quite adequately.) What does Jewish Bolshevism have to do with the Nuremberg Laws? This is completely unacceptable for a GA article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree this background info is excessive. I have removed the first paragraph of "Background" and the first paragraph of "Nazi eugenics and racial belief". Changing from "History" to "Law" would be achieved by amending the GA template on this page and moving the article listing from Good articles/History to Good articles/Social sciences and society. — Diannaa (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Bullock is a problem? The only thing sourced to Bullock is that Hitler dictated Mein Kampf to Hess while in prison. — Diannaa (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization
I've corrected three cases of incorrect capitalization (Nuremberg laws > Nuremberg Laws). Have I been right in doing so?--Adûnâi (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuremberg Laws. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402115820/http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/wannsee-conference.pdf to http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/wannsee-conference.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Kareski quotations
Three times quotations from someone named Kareski have been removed. I don't think this material belongs in the article, as it gives undue weight to that one person's view, and is fringe material that we should not include. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I also discovered while assessing copyvio reports that the prose accompanying the quotations is a copyright violation, copied from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html. Doing revision deletion now — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear,


 * This is not just about the removal of a quotation of Kareski. It also included a quotation of the "Jüdische Rundschau". So please Diannaa, be complete in your statements.


 * Again, the copyright was never the reason to start a deletion 'war' by you as the history of events shows.


 * It also is quite intriguing that the history is deleted, so how can anybody judge the value or relevantie of the content deleted solely by you, deleted based solely on the view of one person, being you, without warning, without any explanation but 'Fringe and undue weight'? (and an incomplete representation by you)


 * Still you haven't respond to my questions on the talk page you invited me to for a discussion. As I have questioned before on this personal talk page, is this not likely more an act of censor ship? Is the position of the Zionist German Jews on the Nuremberg laws really just 'Fringe and undue weight'? Very hard to believe.


 * I make a prediction:
 * Very soon, an extra chapter will be added maybe by you, that spells out the position of the Zionist German Jews, and it will not contain any view that does not fit in with the main tone of this article. It will most likely be a single side view. Then, nobody else will be allowed to add a view that might contradict the view already presented. The reason for the rejection will be in the kind of: 'no real added value', or 'position of ... already presented'.

--94.226.229.82 (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

black peoples and minority’s in Nazi germany
Watch YouTube beacuse it a lie write black people in Nazi germanys millitry and other minority of Slavs decendents in there millitry on says so on Wikipedia in Nazi Germany it made them had to follow rules but it made them had to be loyal to the state it made them infranceized by threats of hard labor this basically says you have the same rights do your service and you will not get into trouble — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:443:480:6ED9:B917:955E:5ECF:D5F (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not add in contentious material without a reliable source. Random Youtube videos do not qualify. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

About "state of German"
Seems to me "state of German" is a bad translation from German to English, grammatically it's incorrect. I think it should be "German state" or "state of Germany". Can someone justify why "state of German" is used in the text of the laws? (EnricX (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC))
 * The translation at Yale makes it clearer what the meaning is: "subjects of the state" means "German nationals". I have changed "subjects of the state" to "citizens" to make the meaning clearer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Gypsies held citizenship legally until 1943
The Reich Citizenship Law in 1935 did not specifically mention Gypsies - although in practice the Nazis made it very clear that the Gypsies were regarded on the same level as the Jews. However, it was not until the twelve decree to the citizenship law on 25 April 1943 that the Gypsies were declared to no longer be Reich citizens ("Jews and Gypsies can not become citizens" ("Juden und Zigeuner können nicht Staatsangehörige werden"). Historian Michael Burleigh wrote in The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945 on p.126, "... the Reich Citizenship Law of 25 April 1943 deprived Jews and 'Gypsies' of their already much curtailed rights as German citizens." Although, as the article already mentions, in November 1935, shortly after the first proclamation of the laws, Gypsies were forbidden from having sexual relations with Germans. Would it be worth while adding that the Gypsies did not officially lose their citizenship until 1943 (even though they weren't allowed to vote, have sexual relations with Germans, etc)?--JackRussell1962 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a little off-topic, but yeah, I think it would be a good addition. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

inconsistencies in two sections about mixed race classifications
The charts in the section "classifications under the laws" has numerous contradictions with the text in the following "impact" section, in terms of whether people with various numbers of Jewish grandparents are considered German, Jewish, or mixed (and then first or second class mixed), and their citizenship status. It seems either whoever wrote this made some clear errors, or these two sections must have been written based on different sources, at least one of which had a lot of false info not in the other source.--108.86.123.248 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you could point out specific phrases or sections that look wrong that would be super helpful and speed up the investigation. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Should this article mention Jim Crow?
I read on https://www.history.com/news/how-the-nazis-were-inspired-by-jim-crow about an interesting link on how Nazi Germany Frameworked certain laws based on Jim Crow. How accurate this is, I'm not sure, And I don't really want to do any research into the validity of if some Nuremberg laws were genuinely inspired by Jim Crow, let alone take the effort to actually edit the actual article myself. That's why I'm posting on the less formal talk page. If it is true, then I think it is a relevant addition to the article.

I'm just throwing this out into the wind and will likely never look at this again, so do or do not, but I will not see any responses posted to this.

24.245.64.55 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have something from a WP:reliable source -- NOT the History Channel, whose "documentaries" are sometimes not completely terrible, but are often full of excrementally bad material -- which makes an explicit connection between the promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws, specifically, and Jim Crow in the American South? I'm not doubting the possibility of such a connection, considering that Nazi eugenics took inspiration from the American eugenics movement.  It would need to make a one-to-one correspondence between Jim Crow and the Nuremberg Laws, not simply the Nazis recognizing that Jim Crow was a working system of discrimination that kept blacks oppressed, as the Nazis wanted to do with the Jews and others.  Do you have anything like that we can work with? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Misleading use of "Germans"
The article repeatedly sets up an arbitrary and misleading binary between "Jews and Germans". This ignores the fact that German Jews were also Germans according to reliable sources, even if they were not allowed to have Reich citizenship under the new regulations. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite clear -- and hardly "arbitrary" in any real meaning of the word, since the meaning intended is instantly understandable -- that "Germans" in this context means "non-Jewish Germans".  Your complaint is unnecessarily pedantic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

History
Guys what happened o Jewish people in 1935 41.144.92.9 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Removal of recent addition
I originally removed with the edit summary "the citations you mention are uncheckable, and the content you added is off-topic for this article". While I have no reason to doubt that William Cohen, US Congress Representative from New York, called for a boycott of German goods, I don't see how that information is relevant to the topic of this article, Nuremberg Laws. I don't think we should include it. It's completely off-topic. Discussion welcome. — Diannaa (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have found some proper sources for this content, at the article 1933 anti-Nazi boycott, so I am putting it back in. — Diannaa (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Die Katze lasst das Mausen nicht!.jpg

Slavic people
Weren't they included as well? Marko8726 (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Not according to the sources. — Diannaa (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Supporting citation from Evans page 551
I have the paperback edition of Evans 2005. Here is a quote from page 551: "The definition of illicit relations was extended until it covered almost any kind of bodily contact between Jews and 'Aryans', including socially conventional embraces and kisses." — Diannaa (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The claim on the Wikipedia page is that the laws were expanded. Even with the most charitable interpretation of Evans' book, the claim on the Wikipedia page is not supported. Furthermore, Evans does not cite any such expansion of laws. Since you have the book with you, as I do, please provide where the book cites such expansion of laws. Jiijonauta (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I already supplied a quotation from that supports the prose: "The definition of illicit relations was extended until it covered almost any kind of bodily contact between Jews and 'Aryans', including socially conventional embraces and kisses.". I am not sure why you feel it does not? An example: Oskar Schindler was arrested on 29 April 1942 after kissing a Jewish girl on the cheek at his birthday party. Perhaps we should say "interpreted" rather than "expanded"? — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the content removed by Jiijonauta should be restored, as it's supported explicitly by the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Bias?
the "antisemitic and racist" part describing the laws at the start seems a bit unnecessary, pretty sure an autist could figure that out without the text, also probably biased. KaiWoodBCB (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Your edit has been challenged and reversed by two different editors. Per WP:BRD you should not repeatedly restore your preferred version of the page but instead discuss on the talk page. The reson I restored it is because there's sources provided for this content in the body of the article. It's not biased; it's an accurate sourced description of these laws. — Diannaa (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you really trying to be on the side of Nazis? 2A02:C7C:5C76:6200:60E6:823C:B672:9716 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's important to remain NEUTRAL, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. no? KaiWoodBCB (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase the second pillar: "We strive for an impartial tone, but in some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view." There is no point of view where the Nuremberg Laws are not antisemitic and racist. It's important for us to provide that information to people encountering the subject for the first time, such as school children. — Diannaa (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)