Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stephen2nd/Nazi Party nobility

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. while there is nothing to stop you moving this to mainspace, it would likely be nominated at WP:Articles for deletion, and I suggest that you first seek advice and comment at the No original research/Noticeboard. JohnCD (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Stephen2nd/Nazi Party nobility


Original research and synthesis; no assertion of notability of subject matter. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am Stephen2nd (talk), I created the article Nazi Party nobility, as a continuation of my two earlier articles; List of German monarchs in 1918, and Kaiserreich abdication of Wilhelm II. The "1918 article" depicted 22 high nobles, their titled domains, their houses, heraldries and heirs, including their genealogical ancestries. Following the abdication of Wilhelm II due to WWI, all such inheritable nobilities were abolished. The 2nd "Kaiserreich" article focused on the abdication circumstances of Wilhelm II, leading to its aftermath.

This article "Nazi nobs" is in reference to the [Monarchism in Bavaria after 1918] quote that "the Bavarian monarch was one of five of the 22 German potentates not to relinquish his rights to the throne, the others being the King of Saxony, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the Prince of Waldeck-Pyrmont, and Grand Duke of Hesse." I re-read my Royals and the Reich Appendix I. "High Nobility in the Nazi Party". Petropoulos]. Re: 270 members of the [German nobility], registered by their title, date of birth, 'NASDAP' Party registration number, and date of joining the Nazi Party. Of the 270 named Nazi princes & etc., about 90 were from Wilhelm II's Kaiserreich. Of these 90, about half had existing Wiki-articles. Each of these existing articles had references about these princes in WWII and their Nazi Party membership. I enclose a sample 10 (of 90) public domain references, as also used in similar Wiki-articles.


 * 1) 10.^ "Family of Ex-Kaiser Sends Many to Front", The New York Times, 26/11/1939
 * 2) 11.^ "Kaiser's Kin Serve Hitler In Nazi Army", The Washington Post, 26/11/1939
 * 3) 14.^ Prince Chosen by Hitler as Reich Regent, Tonawanda Evening News 2/11/1934
 * 4) 16.^ Kaiser's Grandson is Killed in Action, The New York Times (Berlin), 17/9/1939
 * 5) 28.^ Princess indicted for helping the Nazis. New York Times. 3/3/1948
 * 6) 36. Four high Nazis dead, Berlin says". The Milwaukee Journal. 31/6/1942.
 * 7) 38.^ "TWO MORE RULERS GIVE UP THRONE; Republics Proclaimed in Wurttemburg and Hesse - Ducal Lands Seized". New York Times. 14/11/1918
 * 8) 57. Nazi Prince and Princess Flee Austria, NYTimes. 11/11/1933
 * 9) 58. AUSTRIANS RETAKE PRINCE WHO FLED ...Saxe-Meiningen... Nazi, Is Captured Trying to Re-enter Castle.". NYTimes. 1/1/1934
 * 10) 80.^ German Princes To Testify", (Nuremburg Trials) The Irish Times, 12/7/1947

This is certainly not OR, it is internationally well documented. It is not synthesis, all I did was link a public domain list, with data and links in articles, already in Wikipedia. Petropoulos's reputable source lists 270 nobles who served in the Nazi Party in WWII. I found 90 directly from such former princedoms, and about 40 of these in Wikipedia. I restructured an article around such facts, I have not added any opinions of my own, or knowingly implied, anything other than what was meant; that there were nobles in the Nazi Party. Regards for now. Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * reply - that's pretty much a perfect exemplar of the meaning of the term synthesis. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Synthesis. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
 * The Kaiserreich princedom states of the German Empire (1871–1918), all their titled heads, heirs, ancestries, descendants, maps and coats of arms; are referenced as facts. Accepting such, Petropoulos states, 270 of the nobles, from 75% of these states, joined the Nazi Party. Ref: 01.^ Royals and the Reich. - High Nobility in the Nazi Party. Petropoulos. pp 5-6. Quote: this book explores the experiences of a cohort of German princes who supported Hitler and the Nazi regime...(Re: German Federal Archives, Berlin) 270 members of princely families who joined the Nazi Party...(their) susceptibility to the entreaties of Hitler, Goring, Himmler, and other Nazi leaders... Hitler frequently appealed to them by expressing sympathy for a restoration of the monarchy. This is confirmed and well cited via references, in existing Wiki-articles, official archives, books and newspapers. (e.g. 14.^ Prince Chosen by Hitler as Reich Regent. 1934. and 11.^ Kaiser's Kin Serve Hitler In Nazi Army. 1939. Also, in further reference that Royalty in Nazi Party is itself a WP:Category, the subject matters within Nazi Party nobility has 124 WP:Categories,(NB: recently a WP:Record).


 * These combined materials from multiple sources do reach &/or imply a conclusion. All theses sources reach the same conclusion, that there were nobles in the Nazi Party. Apart from referencing these aforementioned facts, what have I stated other than such, as synthesised? Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Take this matter to No original research/Noticeboard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Supporting SmokeyJoe's analysis. As it is, I can sort of see an argument that it isn't entirely OR and I think it's preferable to let the article continue, possibly even go live and then discuss whether the sources are actually saying what Stephen2nd says they are saying at the OR board. If the OR analysis is correct, then the article wouldn't have anything to stand on anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. My analysis is that the terminal WP:NOR violation allegation has merit but is not a slam dunk, and that resolving the question is out of scope for MfD but perfect for the No original research/Noticeboard.  The NORN probably won't go so far as to call it so outrageous as to require deletion from userspace (WP:NOR is not required in userspace), but probably will provide very valuable advice to User:Stephen2nd as to whether his work has any hope of being allowed in mainspace, whether he should give up, or whether some refinement of approach may be a good idea.  My advice would be more than the one appendix of one book (the current first reference) to justify the topic.  My understanding of this topic is that it was Wilheim's dream, and that Hitler briefly considered such ideas, before rejecting them, and that old German nobility remained no more than a social standing, and that there was no such thing as "Nazi Party nobility".  It looks like no more than a provocatively coined title by Jonathan Petropoulos.  I suggest that there is room for inclusion of post-1918 German nobility in the article German nobility, a few paragraphs at least.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Professor of European history Petropoulis, a Research Director for a Presidential Advisory Commission on the Nazi Holocaust, is officially qualified as an expert legal witness on National Socialism. Petropoulis explicitly stated that 270 princes joined the Nazi Party, and Nazi leaders offered them restoration of their monarchies, (NB: not just Wilhelm II). These statements are cited on [pp 5-6]. The [Index I], listing NASDAP nobility from German Archives, starts [p 380]. The bibliography has 500+ book references of corroborative evidence, (inc: moral rights of the authors have been asserted.) In acknowledgements (xiii), Petropoulis also thanks Queen Elizabeth II, for her permission of access their Royal Archives, and Petropoulis also thanks Prince Philip, for his willingness to discuss the history of his German relations. Petropoulis's evidences, and assertions about Nazi Party nobility, have been in the public domain since 2006. NB: In further ref; historian Stephan Malinowski quotes; of 312 families of the old aristocracy 3,592 (of 10,000) princes joined the Nazis (26.9%) before Hitler came to power in 1933. In Petropoulis's archives of 270 Nazi nobility, almost half joined pre-1933. Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for now As a week-old draft on a large topic, I'd be surprised if it didn't have serious flaws. There seems to be no pressing reason for deletion. At some point it will either address concerns or definitively fail to do so, and a deletion discussion may be warranted when it becomes clear which course it will chart. In the meantime, the article should place Template:Userspace draft at the top. I suggest renaming and expanding the scope to Nobility in Nazi Germany to encompass how noble families navigated that time period both within and without the party and avoid being a WP:POVFUNNEL. Also, the excessive number of swastikas on the page, even for an article about Nazis, is in poor taste. Rhoark (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with these things, and repeat that I think the disagreement over the WP:NOR violation should be flagged at the WP:NORN.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This draft is in userspace. I think a claim for notability can be made.  There are no major red flags other than the possibility that some of the material might be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, but the article creator should be able to correct any such issues before the article is moved to mainspace. Personally, I think a better title should be chosen before the article is moved, as the current title could be interpreted to imply that the Nazi Party had it's own nobility. (Please note that the article has indeed been mentioned at WP:NORN as that was how I found this discussion.) I will object if the final article attempts to glorify or denigrate the German nobles or their families for having joined the party at that time. History has shown that politicians (and nobles in any country are politicians, whether or not they see themselves in that role) will do whatever is politically expedient; and in Nazi Germany, joining the Nazi party was the only politically expedient choice they had. (Do not read more into this statement than what was written: I am not trying to excuse war crimes committed during that, or any, era.) Please ping if replying to my comments Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 04:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO only, Smokey Joe was correct in that Petropoulos provocatively coined the title of his book; "Royals and the Reich." What "Reich"? Wilhelm II's as - third Kaiser of Germanys Kaiser - Reich, or the Nazi Party Third Reich? Is the "Royal" self-evident? Those princes from the princedoms within the Wilhelm's Kaiserreich, whose titles as princes and titled domains were prohibited by the Weimar Constitution on 11/9/1919? In 1928, the National Socialist Party, breached the German constitution by registering a Mr. Ernst - from North Rhine-Westphalia, as a Hereditary Prince - Ernst - of Lippe. Ernst and others were not nobility from 1919 to 1928, they were equal to all Germans. The nobilities of 10,000 individuals only existed 1928 - 1945, as Nazi Party members. The 10,000, seem the only peoples to benefit from Germany winning WWII. Petropoulos refers to these as royal, royalty, upper nobility etc., Malinowski as princes, aristocracy etc. Thus "Nazi Party nobility". Nevertheless, Wilhelm II and such princes were guilty of 16,000,000 deaths in WWI, and after the input of 10,000 nobles into the Nazi Party collective from 1928 to 1945, the Nazi collective were adjudged guilty of 73,000,000 deaths in WWII May I say 99.9% of these Nazi-Party-nobles of SS, Gestapo, death squads etc., are dead. Please accept such Nazi atrocities, far outweigh such titled-images, evidenced by 'eighty-nine-million-dead-victims' in WW I & II. (NB). Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

May I also state, I have been editing and creating heraldic/list articles for over 5 years. (In 2013, I translated/linked/uploaded 90 papal arms with eight centuries of WP:Popes). In 2012, for contribution to the WikiProject Operation Great War Centennial, I listed the states of the Kaiserreich, and history of its nobility. Unfortunately, as implied in my (1918) Talk-page, my strokes, paralysis and heart failures, left me terminally ill, until my 2nd heart surgery, for my biventricular ICD at Guy's Hospital a month ago. Although I missed the WikiProject, my research and evidence on my List of German monarchs in 1918, Kaiserreich abdication of Wilhelm II, and Nazi Party nobility, all such have claims for their notability. I created these articles within the limits of my researches, &/or interest in such sometimes vile subject matter. (NB: my research kept googling me into concentration camp - dead lists!)

I propose that the article is moved to main-space, with links to such articles involving military, political, nobility and WWI & WWII issues, to such Wikipedian experts of their respective fields, for their considerations and editing to acceptability. Why not patrolled or semi-protected? Anyone's opinions of such issues, should be discussed on its Talk-page. Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Stephen, as per s Etamni, I think this can be made suitable for mainspace, not yet but with work. Firstly, the surprising title is too much, too much in declaring that there was something that will be disputed, and as such it is a POV title.  It is provocative so as to attract attention.  Also, there are OR red flags that need to be managed.  Starting with a retitling, the sense of thesis could easily be toned down.


 * I really think you should first expand German nobility, continue its story to include coverage of the remnants of the old nobility post 1919. Your draft could then be accepted as a spin out of the newly written sections.  Possibly, your draft would do well to be split into German nobility in the Weimar Republic, 1919-1933 and German nobility in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945.  German nobility probably could use a paragraph or two on post-war German nobility, descendants who carry on with the old titles, and the continuing stories of the estates.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I will write a basic coverage of the facts of the (1928-45) memberships. I will edit this into German nobility, with a {main} ref to this article when acceptable. As with {main} links to my (1918) list, I will {main} create a (270 x 1928-1942) list. In the meantime, if you can point out my unintended OR red flags I will remove them, It is now named German nobility in Nazi Germany 1928-1945, any other suggestions? Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why 1928? Do you mean 1918?  As a history hobbyist, my attention goes first to the dates.  1918-9 was the end of the monarchy and prohibition of title.  1933 was the beginning of the Nazi era.  1942 was when the war turned pear shaped for Germany, and I guess the old social structures lost relevance.  Why was 1942 a critical point for the remnant nobility?  (Early in the war, Hitler forbade war action by princes, was this abandoned in 1942?).  1945 is the modern era.  I guess that titles were still abolished as since 1919, continuing as registered personal names, or is that a recent resurgence?
 * The OR tone is set by the title and the lede. The title change will make a big difference, setting up a continuation of discussion of the nobility from ancient days through to the present.  What was the story of the nobility in Nazism is a worthy topic, asserting a Nazi nobility is not.  I would not refer to Jonathan Petropoulos directly at all, because he is your dominant reference butting the fuzzy NOR line.  At the moment, the lede third paragraph reads as if it could be titled "The views of Jonathan Petropoulos on Nazi nobility", and for this you only have primary sources.  Keep him out of the text, only in the references, and even then try to not let him dominate the references.
 * Did most of the Prinzenerlass join the SS? That last sentence of the lede is ambiguous.  "Most" begs the question of which  Prinzenerlass did not.  Most interesting would be more information on direct interactions, or decisions, by Hitler or the Nazi regime with respect to the Prinzenerlass, and their involvement with power.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your first point why (1928-1942). My 'only' Petropoulos 270 list begins with Prince Ernst in 1928, and ends 270 nobles later with Prince Alfred Ernst in 1942. I do not have the 10,000 list which is a significantly different list to the 270 list I have. My list separates 90 (of 270) nobles, as being in direct reference to monarchs (1918). I will re-edit the SS reference, but out of curiosity, (Wilhelm's Prussian) - State Secret Police Main Office, Berlin, a.k.a., headquarters of Reich Main Security Office, SD, Gestapo and SS in Nazi Germany (1933-1945), was housed at Prinz -Albrecht-Strasse, which also runs from Wilhelm -straße in Berlin. Am I allowed to associate such Nazi symbolisms, with the persons of the nobility? Prussian Prince Albrecht? &/or Wilhelm II? &/or Nazis? without NOR or synthesis? Stephen. Stephen2nd (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.