Talk:Nazi Party/Archive 7

Translation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei

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

Maybe I'm overlooking something, maybe this was the official name of the NSDAP in English, but even then it's a faulty translation and their opinion should not be used since their intent might have been to come across as less radical to foreigners. This should also in my opinion be changed on the article "National Socialism" though there it's more clear that it's a separate ideology and therefore I frankly don't care as much because it's not as political, but linguistically speaking that one should also be changed. Dapperedavid (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I can assure you the former is not going to happen as there’s too many WP:RS sources that disagree with you. And also one needs consensus for such a change, which you do not have at this time. Further your opinion is just that, opinion. See WP:OR. Nobody’s opinion here matters, it’s verification WP:V and reliable sources that carry the day, along with consensus. So I suggest you read the links; that is what is required. Kierzek (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dapperedavid: If you're saying it's time to stop repeating a mistranslation that has perpetuated for nearly a century now, I'm with you. What'll be required is to get all the scholars in the world to start using "Nationalistic" instead of "National". Once that happens, Wikipedia will update its article. But WP won't lead this charge; rather, WP would only make that change after the scholars did. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sort of new to editing Wikipedia, I do it casually, but this false translation really ruffles my feathers and makes me quite emotionally invested so forgive me if I'm being an idiot right now. I thought for small translation related things like this one that can be figured out by anyone who speaks both languages, editors are allowed to apply their own logic a little bit? Like, you don't wanna get into arguments about whether the holocaust happened because there's too much to go through, but isn't a small thing like this different? Doesn't Wikipedia have a guideline for that, like that there are exceptions to all guidelines because guidelines aren't rules? If not, since we both agree that the translation is false, how would we go about fixing it? Which scholars do you mean? How many of them are Germans whose works have been translated to English by non-experts? How many of them don't speak German? How many of them use the official English name of the NSDAP (if that exists). Is the opinion of any historian equal to that of any language expert? What's the source you guys use for this translation? I can't find it. What is it I don't know, that I have to know to understand why you guys don't want to change it? And why do you think personally, not that it matters for this discussion but I'm just curious, that this mistake is so widespread? Dapperedavid (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't speak German, so actually I have no idea what nationalsozialistische means. What you wrote makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. What I do know is that it's been translated by almost all scholars as "National Socialist", and changing it to "Nationalistic Socialist" would not be a "small" thing. That would be a major change. For example, you'd also have to change it here, here, here, here, here, here, and many other places.

Wikipedia does have policies on this exact thing, which were put in place to address this exact situation: where there is an apparent mistake in the scholarship. In such instances, the community has agreed not to allow editors to make the corrections themselves (no original research), and instead to follow what is written in reliable sources. In other words, we don't fix the mistake until the scholars fix the mistake.

By which scholars, I mean the ones listed here and here: the sources cited in the article. All of the information in the article comes from these sources, so because they call it "National Socialist German Workers' Party", we call it "National Socialist German Workers' Party". To call it the "Nationalistic Socialist German Workers' Party", while citing to these same sources, would be to misrepresent the sources and what they're saying, because they don't call it that. So, to make this change, you'd have get scholars like Richard J. Evans, Ian Kershaw, Timothy D. Snyder, and others like them, to start writing it as "Nationalistic Socialist". Then, when WP articles cite their books using that phrase, WP would write "Nationalistic Socialist" as well. Until then, the WP:OR and WP:RS policies, and basic honesty, require us to use the language used in the sources that are cited in the article. The change has to be made in the scholarship first, and only then on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Levivich? ! 23:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you show me that guideline about mistakes in scholarships? I'm trying to find it but I can't. What if some expert would write a peer reviewed article about why the common translation of NSDAP is wrong, or however those things are done, would that be enough to change the translation Wikipedia uses? Dapperedavid (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We have to stick with the translation. Incidentally "National Socialism" is seen as a phrase that has a meaning beyond its two words, that is, it is not nationalism+socialism. Note that we also use the terms national liberalism and national conservatism for German ideologies. And in the UK there are the admittedly very different Scottish National and British National parties. TFD (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My issue is mostly that lately kids are being taught by people like Steven Crowder that Hitler was "a socialist", I don't think the fact most people see that phrase as having its own separate meaning is going to continue for long, especially people that might be reading this article, or have Alexa read it for them. But anyway, that meaning would not go away if there was a "-" between it, it would become National-Socialism, seems reasonable to me (yeah I know original research). As for the Scottish national party, that's a very good name, "Nationalist" would not be accurate because they're a left wing party and nationalism no longer purely means desiring independence, it also has other connotations to it. As for the British National Party, aren't they literally Nazis? Or Cryptonazis? I'm not surprised they would use the old fashioned National Socialism style way of choosing their party name. Dapperedavid (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Nationalism as explained in by Anthony D. Smith in Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History as "plac[ing] the nation at the centre of its concerns." A nationalist party may also have a left or right-wing ideology, but in many cases they do not. The SNP for example was founded by left and right wingers united in the belief that Scotland could only progress once it achieved autonomy. It seems though that today nationalist is often just a polite word for fascist. Also, the purpose of the article in not to persuade extremists that Nazis were not socialists, but merely to explain what mainstream scholars think. It's up to readers to decide on their own. Bear in mind that people who think Nazism was left wing appear to have the same process of reasoning as the rest of us, so are unlikely to be persuaded by evidence or rational argument. TFD (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dapperedavid: Sure! The real key policy is WP:No original research (aka WP:OR), first paragraph: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources...[Y]ou must be able to cite reliable, published sources that...directly support the material being presented. and also the WP:SECONDARY section of WP:OR: Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. See also WP:NOTLEAD: We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources...Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. (bold added) and WP:NOTFORUM: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. If "some expert" wrote a peer-reviewed article about the translation, that alone would not be enough; if a significant number of experts wrote about the translation in reliable peer-reviewed journals, then yes, I believe we could summarize those sources in a section in the article discussing the translation of the word. How many is "significant" would be a matter for the community to decide through consensus (for example, a discussion on this talk page, after the "significant number" of peer-reviewed articles were presented here for editor review). However, though a significant minority opinion in the scholarship should be represented in an article, I doubt Wikipedia editors would consent to actually changing the name in the article lead, infobox, etc., unless and until a widespread majority of experts made the change, because "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." Levivich? ! 03:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, methinks the OP has a point; this point is adumbrated in the article: " ...Drexler emphasised the need for a synthesis of völkisch nationalism with a form of economic socialism ...". It is precisely the aspect of synthesis which is captured in the German style of compound nouns, while the English style can at times be ambiguous as to the scope of the elements in question. One solution is to accept "Nazism" as a specific political ideology, and not merely a typographical shorthand for "national socialism".

This alone does of course not merit a renaming here; but does it have to be a renaming, and does it have to be here? IMHO one could present the issue as an explanation or discussion instead; and perhaps on pages that have the degree of socialism in nazism as its main theme? There is, for instance, the "National Socialism" page, with the subsection "Position within the political spectrum", which is perhaps as close a candidate as can be found. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

What if the National Socialism page renames it?

@The Four Deuces: Well, that bit about nationalism may be true and it makes sense that calling it national instead of nationalist was to make it seem less right wing would not be the reason since it was formed also by right wingers. But what I also think about the name of SNP is that "National" also has political meaning apart from supposedly meaning "nationalist", it implies that the SNP is "The party of the nation Scotland", which implies that Scotland is or should be independent, it's "national" in that sense, not "nationalist". Nationalism is a political ideology, "National" isn't. ALSO, I like to think I do reason with evidence and rational argument but I don't think we're allowed to digress.

@Levivich: Thanks for the info Dapperedavid (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You are using your own definitions and interpretations. Whatever their validity, they are not what reliable sources say, such as the one I used. Incidentally, national liberals and national conservatives were also nationalists, but that is how they are translated. TFD (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Dapperedavid, you now know the process and reasoning. Time to stop beating a WP:Deadhorse. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not beating a dead horse just because this discussion has gone on for a long time. Dapperedavid (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Just came here, because of another discussion point, but wanted to clear some things. Nationalsozialistisch does not mean "nationalistic", but nationalsocialist in one word or with an 'ic' behind it, because its a European right-wing party in contrast to left-wing (egalitarian) and Marxism. National is connected to the integrity of the German Volk in the sense of military servants (not People as 'Pöbel'), socialist is meant as an aid for the German people and on private property basis. Dapperedavid is right that it is one word, but the translation out of National Socialist is not "a national socialist party". It is not a National Bolshewist Party. However, why the name is shortened to "Nazi party"? --2A02:908:E348:BF20:103C:AEF7:5A9E:B4E9 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

FAQ muddle?

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

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

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

I don't think it is a big problem but I do think the FAQ could be improved to address this concern. I doubt many people would misunderstand it as it is but we do want the FAQ to be as clear and precise as possible.

I think that it is the question that could be reworded, not the answer. Maybe the question should be something like "Q: Are there people who still practice Nazi ideology and advocate Nazi policies?". What do we think? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thx for helping to make sense :) Allow me to make a proposal, just to have something to work from:

"Q: Are there people who still support Nazism?

A: Yes. The NSDAP Party itself is dissolved (and Nazi Parties are prohibited in Germany). However, in many countries there are people who espouse tenets of Nazi Party ideologies, like racism, anti-semittism etc. They are called Neo-Nazis (/link/).

In the Q, one can probably vary the wording "support Nazism" (vs. e.g. "Party"). In the A, one can discuss the relevance of the info on Germany, the necessity to mention "many countries", examples of tenets (and I thought the wording "continue the legacy" was a bit too grand ...), etc. But perhaps this is a start. T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

The National Socialist German Labor Party was NOT right wing in anyway. How is a Socialist party right wing? You should change your fake news definition. 65.78.52.179 (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The FAQ seems pretty biased and contradictory at the same time. It says that the Nazi party was "right wing" and at the very same time it says that Hitler was against capitalism (i.e. socialist left-winger). The FAQ is not God either so nobody has to agree with it blindly. I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing the very obvious bias. People should look up purely non-political stuff on Wikipedia, otherwise it's clearly the writer's political leaning that controls the content, kinda like how college education works in a way. --MatthewS. (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The resolve here is that both views should be in the article, attributed accordingly. It is not the job of editors to pick which view is "correct." Cite sources for both and be done with it. This grandstanding is ridiculous.Lexlex (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What sources are those then? The reason this content has been rejected over and over again is that there are no reliable sources to support it. If anybody has new sources then, of course, we can look at them but so far all we have is fringe writers and non-experts promoting fringe views. I'd be amazed if anything better exists and nobody has told us about it. I know that some people really do wish that the post-WWII academic consensus can be changed by incessant repetition of unsupported claims but that really is not how it works. Where are the works by serious historians and political scientists? Without that, there is no point even raising the topic for the 1,001st time. This is why we have the FAQ. It exists to try to help people not to waste their time as much as to stop them wasting ours. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A reliable source is primarily one that was published and can be reliably cited. It is simply true (and citable) that some hold the opinion this party was left wing. The argument that those holding such opinions are "fringe" is blatantly subjective and not really a rationale for removing content. It should be included (with a caveat perhaps), but this game of continually censoring material like some sort of white knight protecting the world from dangerous ideas is a laughable and a rather depressing waste of resources. Lexlex (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Nazi party was a far-left party. It was called "fasicst" by the USSR

Because they censored the socialist part. But I don't see why the West should adopt the USSR terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.2.203 (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

It's discussed above. Policy requires us to use the conclusions in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The National Socialist Workers' Party was, by definition, left-wing.

I gave many references that prove this point and yet my edits are being undone! I mean, who in the world would ever argue that socialism isn't left-wing? If you want to discuss this then let's do that, but until then I don't think my edit should be undone if it provides references to back them up, unless there is some obvious bias which I hope is not the case. -MatthewS. (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read the first question on the FAQ at the top of this page. Leviv ich 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

So the FAQ must be honest? Numerous sources do not agree with these descriptions of "socialism" as in the FAQ. True many (probably leftist) historians will redefine things to sway the accusation of Nazism away from their group but socialism is socialism, especially that these same FAQs surprisingly say that Hitler was against capitalism, which is a huge part of what makes a leftist a leftist. I assume, though, that there are disagreements as to certain definitions obviously but that doesn't mean my edits, if backed up by evidence and references, should be intentionally undone. -MatthewS. (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Also edit summaries such as "National SOCIALISM is left wing! The only reason you'd deny that is if you're a leftist and ashamed of the history. " will not help your case and just putting your edit back will soon cross the 3 revert rule. Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, my edits were being intentionally removed even though references are given. If Wikipedia is starting to be politically biased that's a shame indeed. I capitalized "socialism" for emphasis. And reverting my edits numerous times, why is that considered ok? -MatthewS. (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You want to talk about apparent biases in the article and then use those sources? Nihlus 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What? Am I supposed to use left-wing sources to prove that Nazism was left wing? Where can I find those, do you know? I didn't know Independent.co.uk was "biased". It's a news website, that I supposed can be considered at least partially neutral. Maybe Conservapedia I'll agree could be a little biased but do you think a leftist source would say Nazism was leftist? Obviously they'd rather deny the obvious name of the party ("socialist" and "workers'") and give some other sort of reasoning. -MatthewS. (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How democratic was the German Democratic Republic? --Wolbo (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources and historians say the party was on the right side of the spectrum. Please read the rest of the FAQ listed above. Nihlus 16:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

None of the people you cite have any qualifications in political science. It's not the Independent by the way but an article written by George Watson for the peper. And yes some socialists can be considered right-wing, such as the Socialists who supported Nixon and Reagan or the declared new president of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. TFD (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition, you cannot use an encyclopedia as a cite, it is not considered a WP:RS source. Kierzek (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

"By definition" is actually the problem here, I think. Right-wing propaganda is trying to change the meanings of Left and Right to make them fit their agenda (Newspeak), and by some bizarre coincidence it turns out that if you define "left-wing" to mean "bad", the Nazis happen to fit that definition. Grüße ✦ _hugarheimur 23:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the funniest thing I've read in a while. Accusing the right of trying to "change the meanings" while this is exactly what a bunch of leftists right here is doing. What is more leftist than a party that calls itself a "socialist workers' party", or the fact that you guys are trying to "change the meaning" of the very word socialist, anti-capitalist, and most importantly "workers'" and magically turn them into right wing evil capitalists just to feel happy with yourselves and to pretend like your fellow co-ideologists didn't kill 6 million Jews and a few million other people in the Holocaust. How evil is it to use your popularity as Wikipedia to mislead huge amounts of people by your play on words. -MatthewS. (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a very offensive comment, entirely at odds with the facts, and I suggest you stop making accusations against other editors. TFD (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

How is it offensive? Because I have to agree with the group? I didn't accuse the editors, I'm objecting as an editor myself to some very obvious bias. If by offensive you mean the right to disagree and to understand that not everyone has your worldview then this is sad indeed. I'm only expressing my opinion and I'm the one mostly being attacked here. -MatthewS. (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the explanation I left with the NPA warning on your talk page covers it, but let us know if you have any questions about why accusing editors of "pretend[ing] like your fellow co-ideologists didn't kill 6 million Jews" is a personal attack. Leviv ich 22:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your "opinion" does not line up with the fact that historians all agree on it being a far-right group. Historical revisionism has no place here. Nihlus 20:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

We must go by what the main-line WP:RS historians state, MatthewS. Our personal opinions (WP:OR) are not the standard. Kierzek (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

My opinion was about that I feel political bias here. I never said it was an opinion that the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany was in fact a "socialist workers' party" (they weren't trying to trick you, no). I do not mean to attack individual editors but I do have a right (at least where I live) to freedom of expression so I'm practicing that very freedom by saying what I (and many other opinionated distinguished sources, maybe not "reliable" by some here) know to be "facts" about what it means to be a left wing party. I know that probably the Nazi Party will remain a "far-right" party on here at least for the foreseeable future but at least I made a stand for me and many others who will for sure disagree with this classification. Nothing personal but I guess let's agree to disagree. -MatthewS. (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your comments were offensive because they accuse editors of providing false information in order to achieve ideological goals. In fact, all editors must ensure that the information provided reflects the conclusions in reliable sources, not their own. (I won't comment on your use of the holocaust in your argument.) And Wikipedia is not a forum for free expression. TFD (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the term left or right wing is subjective and both concepts are supported by reference, both should be included or it should not be declared. This is a difference of WP:Opinion between editors, consensus is not relevant. Please note this is WP:Not a forum for general discussion on the topic. Lexlex (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

both concepts are supported by reference – our entire point is that this isn’t in fact the case (see also WP:FRINGE). the term left or right wing is subjective – I very much disagree, but that is indeed beside the point, and you are right with the second part of your post. Which is why I’m marking this discussion as resolved. Rgds ✦ _hugarheimur 14:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019

Please change: "was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945" to "was a far-left political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945"

Source: Supporters of Communism, or of socialism in general, like to pretend that Nazism was not socialist but "right wing", for similar reasons to why fascism is often associated with the right wing despite being left wing. Despite this, however, it featured enough similarities with Communism that they were in fact closer to the far left, even including anti-Semitism, which Karl Marx had advocated. ***Those Damned Nazis by Joseph Goebbels (read in their own words why the Nazis were socialists)*** Tactechmech (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No. See the FAQ above. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done And read the sections before yours next time. This talk page almost exclusively consists of requests to change it to "far-left", which won't happen. Like Ealdgyth said, see the FAQ. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The Nazi Party was "far-left"

National-Socialist Workers' Party is not right wing. Sorry. Many editors disagree with this biased classification. If you want to find scholars that say it is in fact left-wing (which it is), there's plenty of references online that back this. I also want to make it known that a huge number of people (anyone who is not a leftist pretty much) that do not agree with Wikipedia's biased pinning of a socialist anti-capitalist workers' party on the capitalist anti-socialist right wing. It's like an oxymoron. I will leave this right here, since the old discussions were archived, just so it is known that not all of us here agree and that there's no consensus whatsoever on calling Nazis "right wing" (they're left wing). -MatthewS. (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well it is refreshing to have this claim made by someone who is not a red linked editor. It does not make it any more real that way but it is a nice change. Carptrash (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record I too disagree in the strongest possible terms that the Nazi party was "right wing." There are plenty of sources to support such a thing and the constant dog piling by blatantly left wing editors to disallow even references on specious logic is more than a little disheartening. Pushing a conclusion like this looks desperate. The article doesn't need the conclusion stated and could instead have sources showing both arguments. It's hardly as settled a point as some here insist, and its continued raising by multiple editors makes this quite evident. Lexlex (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If you think that the Nazi Party is a socialist party, please sign up here.

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

• AusarDeathless - contributions to 1 article. This one
• 3LIP5i55 - contributions to 1 article. This one
• Jesus Saves Our Sins - contributions to 1 article. This one
• Lylewash - contributions to 1 article. This one.
• Annoloki - contributions to 1 article. This one
• TLD1965 - - contributions to 1 article. This one
• Zaniack - contributions to 6 articles.
• Anticommunistcrusader - contributions to 2 articles. Mostly this one
• from the Study of: John Calvin Hall - contributions to 2 articles. Mostly this one
• Dsteakley
• Sunamer
• Pietric Learning Stone
• Flyingpenguin74
• Rancoridge333
• AWinter
• SocialistFever
• Vektor00
• RickHorner
• User talk:108.11.157.20

Hmmmm. So why do you suppose that there are only red linked editors on the list? Oh, Reds. I get it, a communist plot? I guess we could add User:Lexlex and User:MatthewS. and get some blue ink in. Carptrash (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding anti-communism to info box

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

I think that the ideology field should be used for actual ideology, which in this case was Nazism, rather than all the elements of which it is composed. TFD (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

include it. Anti-communism is what the Nazis were doing and preaching from the very beginning right up until the moment communism squashed them. Carptrash (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

include it. Essential to the Nazi identity. They were propagating the antisemitic canard of Jewish Bolshevism.:

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2019

‘was a far left political party’

Simply look at your political spectrum page. Was a “far right” political party? Really? A socialist movement is ‘far right’ you trying to rewrite history? You know how stupid that sounds? If you cannot put reality in there, then remove the error statement completely. 108.11.157.20 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 21:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideologue Wikipedia editors have made it their mission to present socialism and Germany's National Socialists as opposite ideologies. From the twisted word salad and specious logic in the hat-notes to the conspicuous lack of translation for the the term "Nazi" within the article body, it's laughable. For the umpteenth time: it is not Wikipedia's place to pick winners and losers when sources exist for both sides of an argument. Present and reference both arguments and be done. It's no different than editors declaring which holy book or God is true: it's not our role. Lexlex (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Decisions are based on reliable sources. The only people who call it socialism believe that pretty much everyone is a socialist except for diehard supporters of American libertarianism. TFD (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't libertarianism a leftist ideology to begin with? Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If libertarianism had left wing roots (read the article) the tree its self has long since been grafted on to right-wing ones. Carptrash (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Ideology

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

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

Central tenets also include lebensraum, blood and soil, the Fuerher principle, aryan superiority and the one-party state. I have always thought however, that the info-box should be used for the ideology of the party, while explanation of the ideology belongs in the body of the article. TFD (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to say that it would be enough to write "Nazism" in the ideology section. - Ullierlich (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Pan-Germanism and antisemitism are redundant as they are by definition part of nazism. --RJFF (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019

• 8.5 million (1945)

| position = Far-right This edit was quickly reverted. Is there something that I'm missing. Was the Nazi Party fascist?--WMrapids (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The plural of the German word "Block" is "Blöcke" - not "Blocken."

In the subsection regarding Blockleiter, there is an erroneous reference to "blocks" as "Blocken." The correct plural of the German word "Block" (English: "block") is "Blöcke" (English: "blocks"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.7.6 (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Deutsche Gemeinschaft section seems have a redundant link

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

"Slogans and songs" is just two lines

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

Nazi- Party

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

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

If we are going to play silly language games, how about claiming that "There is no such thing as Germany. The country is called Deutschland"? You see how pointless and unproductive such lines of argument are? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@DanielRigal@The Four Deuces They are pushing the same argument at Category talk:LGBT people in the Nazi Party. I'll remove that as off-topic/forum. We don't want to revive the "look, they were really socialists so left-wing" argument. Doug Weller talk 06:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Look, it says the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - NSDAP right below it’s English counterpart. If you want to see that, go over here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalsozialistische_Deutsche_Arbeiterpartei Senor0001 (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

28 May 2022 - Socialism is not Right

Please do not ask questions already answered by the FAQ at the top of the page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Socialism is not a "far right" ideology. It lines up more with the political "left" thinking. I also think it's a shame that the person that locked this document knows it is not a far right political idea and that is why it's been locked. I find it disappointing that the person would lie and try to line up Nazism = Republicans. That is what they are doing. All a person has to do is look up the word in Dictionary. But most people don't. So I hope Wiki will stop allowing or aiding people (if that is what is happening) and correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C7:9737:E0CB:E8F5:F3A5:E452:3C8A (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Socialism is indeed not far right. The Nazis imprisoned and killed socialists. They were anti-socialist and anti-Communist. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Nobody has argued that Nazism = Republicans. The modern GOP is considered a center-right to right-wing party, while the Nazi Party is widely accepted to be considered far-right. It would be like arguing that the current Democratic Party (center-left to left-wing) is equivalent to the Communist Party of the USSR (far-left). The FAQ clearly explains why it is far-right despite the "socialist" moniker. Blackforest92 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) "Nazism = Republicans" What does republicanism and Republicanism in the United Kingdom have to do with this article? Dimadick (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC) Stalin murdered more communists than any fasisct dictator (in Russia, but also in Spain), he still was not right-wing. And the Nazis hated "Jewish"-communism, and murdered communists, but they also copied aspects of Bolshevist rule; even if Habermas thinks otherwise. And this was common knowledge/ opinion among left-wing intellectuals in the 1930s--Ralfdetlef (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)