|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nazi Party article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|edit||Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)|
|Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.|
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Nazi Party. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Nazi Party at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 24, 2014 and February 24, 2015.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|This page was previously nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, please review the logs of any previous moves and/or any discussions listed below.|
In the box at the top of the article, it is not clear what the green and red arrows next to the membership numbers mean. Hovering over the red arrow displays the text "decrease". Decrease from what? Hovering over the green arrow displays the text "increase". Increase from what? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You list Nazism as a FAR RIGHT movement. This is WRONG.
“Nazi” was actually an acronym for “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" which translates to “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. Socialist. As in, on the far left. Socialism always, always falls on the far left of the political spectrum. You're not very bright if you can't figure that out. You know what IS on the far right? Anarchy. Less government, not more. You need to fix that, because it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alittlebitofliberty (talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not done The name is irrelevant; it was marketing. As every one of the over one hundred reiterations of this discussion on this talk page have re-established, there is no evidence whatsoever to support a claim that the Nazis were not far right; they are the epitome and example of a far-right extremist organization. Assertions to the contrary by right-wing political commentators have no value when compared to the universal consensus of historians and political scientists alike. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Few Comments in the Spirit of Clarity and Neutrality
As a profoundly "anti-authoritarian" and tepid soul, when it comes to such potentially incendiary pages, I offer a few comments intended merely to help the page toward greater clarity and neutrality.
1. "The term was in use before the rise of the party as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards peasant, characterising an awkward and clumsy person."
The reference of the phrased "The term" is unclear. Perhaps it should say "The term 'Nazi' was in use . . ." ?
2. "This was partly because Hitler, who had no administrative ability, left the party organization to the head of the secretariat, Philipp Bouhler, the party treasurer Franz Xaver Schwarz, and business manager Max Amann. The party had a capable propaganda head in Gregor Strasser, who was promoted to national organizational leader in January 1928."
I can fully understand an unconscious motive to take Hitler down a peg or two at any opportunity, but the claim that "he had no adminstrative" ability, therefore he delegated authority over specific party functions to experts (an inherent contradiction) does not increase the credibility nor neutrality of the article. Clearly, if Hitler, whom we've just been told in the preceding section had total authority, delegated critical party functions to experts, then he HAD administrative ability, although he may well have lacked ability in business management, accounting, etc.. The easiest solution would be to remove the clause entirely, but perhaps there is more meaning (and more valid meaning?) hidden behind the lines?
Given what we know about this particular party, and how terrifyingly effective it became and suppression all dissent and organizing an entire nation to engage in aggressive wars against the entire continent of Europe the phrase "left the party organization to . . ." is also a bit lacking and unbelievable.
I would suggest a wholesale replacement of the sentence: "This was partly because Hitler, who had no administrative ability, left the party organization to the head of the secretariat, Philipp Bouhler, the party treasurer Franz Xaver Schwarz, and business manager Max Amann." with:
"The Nazi party continued to grow and succeed in late 1920's Germany, in part, thanks to increasing delegation of administrative roles by Hitler: for example, Philip Bouhler as head of the secretariat, Franz Xaver Schwarz as treasurer and Max Amann as business manager."22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Agree entirely with every point made. — ¾-10 22:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I came here to see what happened to the party at the end of the war, how it was dissolved, if it were specifically banned by the occupying powers, if so when and by whom, if there was any specific political legacy or some sort of short-term successor (particularly what did the German people who were members of the party do at the end of the war), however the page doesn't have any information at all on any of that, can someone help to expand on this? Gavinio (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- The article on denazification seems like it provides some good answers on this (I glanced over it). I noticed via ctrl-f that this article
doesn'tdidn't yet mention or link denazification. I will go addadded a linked mention. — ¾-10 22:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Substance of the Third Position concept versus the name "Third Position"
Hi all. I am OK with this revert after pondering it a bit, although I accept it on different grounds than the edit summary gave. The edit summary says the term Third Position was not coined until 1945. This surprised me because I was under the impression that the name had existed since around World War I. The ideas that the name refers to certainly did. I looked to the article on the Third Position for any definitive citations on the coining's date, but didn't see any. Anyway, the idea (regardless of which name anyone calls it by) was part of the essence of Nazism—a co-opting of socialism's popular appeal into a syncretic ideology of nationalist, anti-internationalist, and racist character by Nazi and Nazi-like movements. This is not under doubt and is what the lede currently conveys with "an ideology combining the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left." That conveyance is quite concise and accurate. In this sense there is nothing POV or OR about the concept. But I think the problem is whether the Nazis themselves ever used the name "Third Position", which I do not know with certainty but now suspect that they did not. So here's the bottom line: This article's coverage isn't complete if it doesn't mention (with link) the Third Position in some way or another, but how it does so is the question. The right way may turn out to be that somewhere later in the body of the article (not the lede), it would be stated that "the combining the nationalism of the right and the socialism of the left was similar to Third Position ideas that had been formulating since World War I, but the Nazis were not called a Third Position movement." If someone confirms that that's the case. Food for thought. Eventually this should be handled somehow. No rush; I have no time right now to devote to reading in search of the answer. Just noting here that eventually this coverage should be developed. If anyone who is especially well-read on the period may be reading this and has references at their fingertips, it would be great, but it would not be surprising if that is not the case (alas). Regards, — ¾-10 16:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose removing the mention of this because the article is about the Nazi party not whether the racial theories it promoted are now considered pseudo-scientific. Wording like "universally recognized as pseudo-scientific" is also wrong. Sometimes it may be labeled as such but that doesn't mean its universally recognized as such.--Hashi0707 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- The article is about the Nazi party, its beliefs, and analysis of its beliefs by reliable sources. If there are sources that state they universally recognized as pseudo-scientific then you should provide other sources that contradict that view. --NeilN talk to me 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You can't prove a negative. Universal means the same for everybody, how can an author's opinion equate to it being universal?
The source Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy on p.94 does not say anything about the racial theories being universally regarded as pseudo-scientific and does not give any sources for the statements on this page about the Nazis but on the contrary just the author's opinion on what racial theories the Nazis used during the Third Reich.--Hashi0707 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)